Let’s use an example: NBC: What's in Democrats' latest voting legislation, and what would the bills do?
You would think the first thing a news publication who is commenting on legislation would do is link the actual legislation. Surprising none of us they never actually link to the legislation. The second thing any supposed legitimate publication would do is use the actual verbiage of the bills in the article, which again never occurs in the article. Instead we have conjecture from multiple “sources” to support the bills, but no actual dissemination of the verbiage or even allowing the viewer to see the bills for themselves.
This all comes down to one thing, media relies on a lazy viewership that doesn’t verify anything that they are told. This is part of the mass delusion shown repeatedly from “the left” supporters. There is no depth to their arguments because they were never taught to verify, just to accept. Colleges have become bastions of this, where bad studies aren’t put under scrutiny and are trusted “as-is” simply because it supports the narrative they want to be reality. They train the doctors and scientists of tomorrow to blindly believe in the institutions. Even those who are supposedly the most intelligent among us are relied on to be lazy and accept information as told.
I once challenged a friend to find the source of the ‘Trump racist racist comments’ claim during the 2016 election. 18 article links later he gave up. The cycling of claims without direct linking gives two wins, 1. More clicks, and 2. Obfuscation of the claim.
It's the same with all the Covidians saying the vials are "safe and effective".
People have heard it so much from mainstream media they instantly believe it must be true, just like your example of "Trump is racist". They've heard it so often they believe it must be true, even when there is zero evidence to back it up.
Even in the case of the clot shots, if you ask anyone for a link to a longitudinal control study for the placebo effect they can't do it, because there is no publicly available study (Pfizer has one, though). Meaning, there is no scientific evidence nor empirical basis in which to conclude that those vials are either safe or effective.
This is how our society disseminates information in today's age, though. It's the mutated form of "listen and believe" taken to its logical conclusion.
Pfizer had two publicly available studies.
One of them had more deaths in the treatment group than the control group. Both of them had ~4x as many people showing severe adverse reactions in the treatment group compared to the number of people with severe Covid in the control groups.
Do you have links to those studies? I know some of the other studies that showed similar results were pulled from publication.
Took a lot of digging to find even one of them, and now the main summary is now replaced by an infrographic and the mortality table is vanished.
But if you look through the link below, there were 9 vs 169 cases of covid with 1 to 9 as serious cases. However, there were (in the supplementary appendix) 5570 vs 2638 adverse events with 240 vs 139 severe adverse events.
Adverse events are normal and things like crashing a car get included so that's why you still have 139 in placebo. But nearly 2x as many severe adverse events is what happened here.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
I thought they stuck the placebo group with the real thing as well after about six weeks, invalidating their status as a control.
I didn't save a link for that, and I have no idea if the article I read included something that would be a firsthand source, so this could all be meaningless.
They conducted a pre-trial clinical study, but that one wasn't made available to the public.
The other control group is the one that got jabbed because Pfizer said they felt bad that the control group didn't have a vaccine.
Atleast he tried , most of the time I ask friends and acquaintance to even try they do about one or 2 clicks at the most.