I don't disagree, but as much as you're right to be skeptical of anecdotal accounts on a Facebook page, a lot of the data we do have does not support the establishment narrative. In Israel and Singapore, two of the most vaccinated countries on Earth, the number of cases and hospitalizations are rising almost in direct tandem with the vaccination rate. Show me a Flu season with data sets like that.
I know full well they're lying. So much is obvious and it should be obvious to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention. What I am not always sure about is what they are lying about. My solution for that is to simply not believe anything that they are saying, unless I have verified it myself. But that same thing goes for everything. If a given establishment narrative is a lie, that does not mean that anything contradicting it is necessarily true, as there are an infinite possible number of lies but only one truth.
Why is the establishment working so hard to discredit and suppress reports about Covid cases being successfully treated with Ivermectin and other drugs?
Steelmanning their side, because it's not definitively established that Ivermectin does help. Even in this steelman there is no grounds for them to claim that "it does not help", as that is also not proven. More realistically, they want you to not to not get sick, but to obey.
Why are young people and teenagers being strongarmed into taking a vaccine to protect against an illness that would have barely any effect on them even if they got it?
Good question. If I wanted to steelman it, then you could say that since the vac. are less likely to spread it, this could create herd immunity. But then why shove the vaccine down the throats of those who have already been infected?
If the vaccines are supposed to immunize people against COVID, why are we being told that unvaccinated people are a threat to vaccinated people?
They don't, they just offer 'protection', which everyone around me here in Europe already knows.
Why are people not being informed about potential risks of the vaccine before taking it, in violation of the legal principles of informed consent?
Is there such a principle? I've gotten other vaccines before and no one said anything about potential risks.
How are world leaders, public health officials and politicians ever going to claw back the extreme rhetoric they have directed at the unvaccinated, if it turns out that they are wrong?
That's what a memoryhole is for. Their problem is not what they say their problem is, but that they are not obeyed.
Or are we now locked in to the trajectory, bound to follow it to its logical conclusion, whatever the actual facts may be?
I know full well they're lying. So much is obvious and it should be obvious to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention. What I am not always sure about is what they are lying about. My solution for that is to simply not believe anything that they are saying, unless I have verified it myself. But that same thing goes for everything. If a given establishment narrative is a lie, that does not mean that anything contradicting it is necessarily true, as there are an infinite possible number of lies but only one truth.
Steelmanning their side, because it's not definitively established that Ivermectin does help. Even in this steelman there is no grounds for them to claim that "it does not help", as that is also not proven. More realistically, they want you to not to not get sick, but to obey.
Good question. If I wanted to steelman it, then you could say that since the vac. are less likely to spread it, this could create herd immunity. But then why shove the vaccine down the throats of those who have already been infected?
They don't, they just offer 'protection', which everyone around me here in Europe already knows.
Is there such a principle? I've gotten other vaccines before and no one said anything about potential risks.
That's what a memoryhole is for. Their problem is not what they say their problem is, but that they are not obeyed.
I think we both know the answer.