Replies

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.

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.

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).