Blogs and other non government controlled is more believable then what the paid off bias msm puts out.
In other words, "what any paranoid layperson spouts on the net is more reliable than peer-reviewed data from medical professionals."
(also paid off by whom?, and for what discernable purpose?)
Fucking facebook groups are where people go to do their so-called 'research' these days.
The entire discourse just proves to me that the vast majority of people don't know how the scientific principle works, nor have ever spent any time around actual scientists.
As a group, the scientific community is almost pathologically honest, because rigorous honesty is the only way to go if you are concerned with finding out how REALITY WORKS.
Sure there's people who commit fraud because they want to look important, because human nature; but y'know who those get routinely called out by -? That's right, other scientists, who consider it nothing short of sacrilege to deliberately falsify data.
But sure ALL the hundreds of thousands of immunologists, virologists, biochemists and lab technicians worldwide are paid off to lie about everything. That makes so much sense.
Oh, but excuse me. I forgot that in your minds, government = bad, and somehow science = government, therefore science = bad.
Why is turbo cancer a new term? Maybe because doctors are noticing a big increase in fast spreading cancer in the vaxxed.
Cite your source. And 'someone in a lab coat on the internet' or any otherwise unsubstantiated assertions by self-proclaimed 'doctors' with no official accreditations, or who are disregarded by everyone else in their field, won't fly.
Younger people getting cancer has also increased.
For which there are any number of environmental factors as well as simply more efficient diagnostics and increased reporting. But sure just dump it on a vaccine.
There's been doctors saying that the vaccine lowers ones ability to fight off cancer cells. they now don't give people with cancer the vaccine or any boosters. Was safe though 2 years ago though.
Because know what? This totally outlandish idea that science adapts to new data.
Science never makes absolutist claims of a 'this is universally true now and forever' nature. Scientific recommendations go by THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN.
As more factors become known, we adjust our recommendations / pronouncements. And that is how the whole process WORKS. We can only ever make estimations from the best available data at the time. When that gets overhauled by new info, that doesn't mean people were lying to you before.
You're in a clinical trial bud, hope you didn't hurt your kids also.
The volunteers in the clinical trials were the TRIAL SUBJECTS, not the wider population. As for your kids, if you have any, I hope you're not rolling the dice with them on polio, measles, or whooping cough.
Wonder what they will discover next.
... Whatever we will discover next.
And then we'll adjust our perspective YET AGAIN, and present the new data to the public, who will predictably continue to BOTH accuse the whole body of medical science of being some dogmatic monolith that cannot be questioned, while at the same time bleating about how we obviously 'can't be trusted' because we keep changing the supposed 'dogma'.
..
I just can' t with you people.
