Source pedantry is a dangerous game, used by both progressives and elites to discredit information that isn't Officially Approved™ but I don't buy this source.
"If it was real, it'd have been reported elsewhere" is a fallacy, because we've seen how the powers that be clamp down on information they don't like, and how supposed authorities meekly (or maliciously) play along... but I would have expected Died Suddenly's previous allegations to have been backed up in some way by now.
They also concluded in the study their suspicion that these smart microscopic components are part of the elite’s “long-planned well-funded Internet of Bodies,” which was described as a kind of “synthetic global central nervous system” turning humans into controllable “Biohybrid Magnetic Robots.”
This is not a scientific conclusion. Studies are about data, and sometimes conclusions call for a degree of speculation but this certainly is not within the purview of a scientific study. It's a huge leap from data to conclusion. Even assuming they are 100% honest about their actual findings, this conclusion reveals a huge ideological bias.
To be clear, I wouldn't put anything past the makers and pushes of the vaccine. This, however, doesn't ring true. I'm not saying no, but I'm not even close to saying yes.
One of the worst paths "our side" can go down is rejecting everything possible just because the Left says/does it, including various ideas like "having a trustable source" or "backing up what you are saying without sounding like a schizo."
Its pretty clearly already happening here to a lot of people. Because the need to virtue signal yourself as the "wokest" person possible (in the original meaning) goes above any desire to help or improve things.
Source pedantry is a dangerous game, used by both progressives and elites to discredit information that isn't Officially Approved™ but I don't buy this source.
"If it was real, it'd have been reported elsewhere" is a fallacy, because we've seen how the powers that be clamp down on information they don't like, and how supposed authorities meekly (or maliciously) play along... but I would have expected Died Suddenly's previous allegations to have been backed up in some way by now.
This is not a scientific conclusion. Studies are about data, and sometimes conclusions call for a degree of speculation but this certainly is not within the purview of a scientific study. It's a huge leap from data to conclusion. Even assuming they are 100% honest about their actual findings, this conclusion reveals a huge ideological bias.
To be clear, I wouldn't put anything past the makers and pushes of the vaccine. This, however, doesn't ring true. I'm not saying no, but I'm not even close to saying yes.
One of the worst paths "our side" can go down is rejecting everything possible just because the Left says/does it, including various ideas like "having a trustable source" or "backing up what you are saying without sounding like a schizo."
Its pretty clearly already happening here to a lot of people. Because the need to virtue signal yourself as the "wokest" person possible (in the original meaning) goes above any desire to help or improve things.