MSU Professor Mark Skidmore was exonerated by MSU; his landmark paper showing over 250,000 killed by the COVID vaccine is now back in the peer-reviewed literature

substack.com ^ | Oct 21, 2023 | Steve Kirsch

[grey_whiskers]

Now do the six foot separation rule, which was recently admitted to have been made up.

Or Lord Pfauci’s about face on masks. Remember, he literally said,”I am the science!”

Or the change in the very definition of vaccines, to allow the clot shots to be called that, to fool the masses.

Or the insistence that the materials from the clot shots remain localized at the injection site.

Or the consensus that for purposes of tracking things, people receiving the jabs were to be called unvaccinated until two weeks later.

Part of “you are the easiest person to fool” is knowing to keep your thumb off of the scale. (Only butchers do that.)

Incidentally, you never addressed why the consensus was to make the jabs mandatory, and even push them on children, when the death rates were greatly skewed to the elderly with multiple comorbidities.

What has happened — as I pointed out earlier — is that the institutions have been hijacked to make money.

If not worse.

Science is not a moral disinfectant against greed, or eugenics, ot totalitarianism.

[grey_whiskers]

You keep on missing the problem if false consensus for immoral ends. Remember Lysenkoism? Hint: follow the science money and career advancement (or destruction).

Hint 2: As Vox Day pointed out,

SJWs always *lie*

SJWs always *project*

SJWs always *double down*

Why the immediate cancel culture towards anyone who questions the narrative?

[grey_whiskers]

Remember how Dingbat said. (in response to ChatGPT or similar), saying Dr. Malone had once more embraced the jabs?

The below is why you shouldn't trust ChatGPT:

Google was rotting from the inside out before AI came around but it's going to get 10 times worse pic.twitter.com/5NYlw4WTEy— Christopher Ingraham🦗 (@_cingraham) October 26, 2023

But remember, ChatGPT was written by Top. Experts.

Because Credentials.™

...and SCIENCE!™

[Fury]

The other thing you’ll see when someone simply doesn’t have the intellectual heft to participate in a discussion is for that person to make claims that others are “on the take”, so to speak, or are “shills”. It’s all they have left once they realize they can’t keep up with the conversation.

[exDemMom]

Remember Lysenkoism?

It is more ironic than you can possibly understand that you mention Lysenkoism. Lysenko was an apologist for the Soviet government who tried to force science into a political mold. The problem is that science, which is based in physical reality, cannot be forced to fit some ideological mold.

Yet here you are, trying to alter science to fit a bizarre ideology. Sorry, but humans do not have the ability to force physical reality to fit an ideology, no matter how much they have invested emotionally into that ideology.

The only reason that professional antivaxxers and charlatans try to discredit the role of consensus (i.e. the consistency of observation regardless of observer) is because they are feeding you a line that completely contradicts the science. When tens of thousands of scientists who have studied and analyzed the data conclude that a vaccine is safe, but the professional charlatan is trying to tell you (without any scientific evidence) that the vaccine is dangerous, of course the charlatan wants you to automatically reject any data that the scientific community as a whole accepts. Because otherwise, you might realize that there is something suspicious about the one guy out of tens of thousands who keeps yelling about doom and gloom.

[exDemMom]

What part of "thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions" don't you get?

What part of PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE do you not get?

Dismissing science out of hand just because it won't fit your conspiracy theories is not a valid argument and in no way invalidates the scientific profession, the scientific method, or the results of scientific experimentation and observation.

You can't actually come up with a compelling evidence-based reason why we should reject all science, can you?

At least some people who have been hoodwinked by charlatans and snake oil salesmen make an effort to link to material that they think provides smoking gun proof of whatever antivax trope they are repeating. You don't even try to link to the conspiracy blogs.

It looks to me like you aren't trying to provide any links because you know that I'll tear apart the tropes and provide a slew of references in the medical literature which show just how wrong the tropes are.

Oh, by sinking down into insults, you have already acknowledged that I actually have the background to discuss infectious disease countermeasures. Thank you for recognizing my expertise.

[exDemMom]

The other thing you’ll see when someone simply doesn’t have the intellectual heft to participate in a discussion is for that person to make claims that others are “on the take”, so to speak, or are “shills”. It’s all they have left once they realize they can’t keep up with the conversation.

Yes. When they go that far, they are acknowledging that I know what I'm talking about.

What were those lines from the Jim Croce song?

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim

I think that's fitting. If you want to take on a scientist in her field of expertise, you better come well prepared.

[Jane Long]

Oh, c'mon, man....it's a bot *scientist* who knows *Bob*.

😂

[grey_whiskers]

You had it right at Soviet.

What's more Soviet? Allowing people to make up their own minds, or forcing them to take an under-tested, unsafe jab with severe side effects just to make a few people at the top rich, after scaring everyone with "we're all gonna DIE!" (while Congress and Pfizer exempted themselves)?

Get stuffed, cretin.

[grey_whiskers]

What part of PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE do you not get?

I already did. The government officials knew there wasn't a real crisis, by how they behaved personally.

The Dancing Nurses proved their wasn't a crisis, by staging Tik-Tok videos of dancing in empty halls of supposedly "overflowing beyond imagination" hospitals full of dying patients.

Pfauci proved it by changing his mind repeatedly on masks and showing up in public with a sh*t eating grin with his mask on his chin.

the Democrats proved it when they called Trump RACISS for trying to cut off travel from China early on, and they encouraged people to party it up during Chinese New Year, refused to send the sick to dedicated US Navy Hospital ships (instead preferring to send the sick to nursing homes to spike the case rate and death rate).

And don't forget during the OMG we're all gonna die quarantines, that anti-Trump protests and BLM were allowed to protest and mingle in crowds in public; but Trump rallies were discouraged.

Moderna proved it in their SEC filing where they admitted they couldn't get funded without an EUA.

Dismissing science out of hand just because it won't fit your conspiracy theories is not a valid argument and in no way invalidates the scientific profession, the scientific method, or the results of scientific experimentation and observation.

It's like I said. What you call SCIENCE™! has been corrupted.

You even gave the game away yourself personally in an earlier post: using a sample size of 1 (yourself) to show you you, getting the jab, didn't catch it on vacation while in a room with your family.

Sample size, anecdote, yada yada.

But somehow the rules which you refer to in a Pecksniffian fashion, never need be observed by people advancing the narrative.

Here's a hint, Dingbat: We know your playbook. It was tried out first by the University of East Anglia on Climate "Science". And then doubled down on by the so-called "Center for Countering Digital Hate". They gave the game away when an editorial in Nature by one of their cronies blamed the misinformation on "Russia, Russia Russia" and said the people who resisted the jabs were also "Election Deniers" (IIRC).

[grey_whiskers]

Notice how Dingbat never addressed the point that Lysenkoism forced beliefs from above and censored unapproved viewpoints?

But Biden & Pfauci did try to mandate the clot shots.

So naturally (”SJWs always *project*) she accused me of Lysenkoism for saying people should be free to make up their own minds, and that people shouldn’t listen to corrupted institutions.

Dave Burge (Iowahawk) quote on wearing the institution like a skin suit and demanding respect and all that.

[grey_whiskers]

The fact that scientists typically all agree with each other on scientific topics and facts does not discredit science. On the contrary, it reinforces the reliability and robustness of the scientific method.

Now you're mixing the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy with the Fallacy of Composition.

As well as lying through your teeth about the unanimity of science.

It's just the doctors and MDs who spoke up in opposition to the clot shots had their careers destroyed.

And how do we know they were wrong? CONSENSUS!!!

Circular reasoning, see also reasoning, circular.

Incidentally, this is aided by the censorship of by Goolag and others as people are deplatformed, demonetized, and links "disappeared". Remember George Winston and the constant revisionsI mentioned earlier.

Dingbat.

[dennisw]

Pushing the Like button for all your posts here.