How about you address the link I posted in direct response to your lies? Reuters is not misinformation, they are an official news source. You're acting like you weren't just caught lying, when you were. Respond to the last post I made to you, please.
What a bunch of patronizing garbage. Utter trash. You think that because someone has a different view than you, that they have fallen victim to misinformation and that I have some vendetta to spread it. The irony meter just broke.
The only ones molding the discourse are our corrupt officials. The science is in... the shots have questionable efficacy and have a downplayed danger level. Everyone in my community knows someone who has been injured. First they said myocarditis is 1 in 10,000, now it's 1 in 1,000. Japan just put out a mandatory label for the shots for myocarditis, especially now that they use ivermectin widespread in their country to stem the disease.
So please spare me your sanctimonious and pseudo well-measured response. You're not a moderate, you're a hack. People have EVERY RIGHT to be emotional. People are being outright killed by pandemic policy. The policy itself has become worse than the disease.
You were caught in a blatant lie and now you're trying the gaslighting approach. Typical. When someone shows emotion you claim they are unstable. When someone is angry because of injustice, you try to paint them as the misled. Honestly, go fuck yourself. You were caught lying and you will never be able to backpeddle. People are rising up all over the world in response to this evil. The lines are drawn. You either look at the emerging science with honesty, or you are siding with corrupt liars. It's literally that black and white now... and I AM a moderate. For a moderate to be speaking this way should be an indicator of how bad things are!
I’m doing my best to be polite and constructive but you seem intent on being rude and insulting. I can see you have made a modest effort to actually make this a discussion. So I’ll respond by repeating the response I already made. I don’t need to post anything new on the point you make about Reuters, because I already very successfully demonstrated that you used that particular article to present a skewed view of reality.
This is the article you used
Freedom of Information Act requests are rarely speedy, but when a group of scientists asked the federal government to share the data it relied upon in licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, the response went beyond typical bureaucratic foot-dragging.
www.reuters.com
You used this article to claim that the data from Pfizer was going to be withheld from independent scrutiny for 70 then 55 years. You strongly implied that this was an absolute concealment of the data intended to cover up the dangers of the vaccines.
I then stated, AS YOUR ARTICLE CLEARLY SHOWS, that only the FDA is attempting to withhold data against one specific FOI claim and that this appeared to be an ambit claim for every single document that the FDA holds relating to Pfizer and the vaccine that includes commercial-in-confidence information and individual information whose release may violate the right-to-privacy of many individuals and that goes far far beyond the medical data required to assess the safety of the vaccine.
I then provided evidence that Pfizer is committed to releasing the trials data through multiple alternative channels as it does all new medicines and invited you to provide any evidence that Pfizer would not also do this for the Covid vaccination.
I also noted that the data has also been made available to hundreds of independent scientists around the world as the vaccine underwent approvals in different countries.
So the reality here is that I have comprehensively demolished your claim that the data will be unavailable for independent validation for 70/55 years.
That’s not gaslighting my friend. That is reasoned argument of the kind normal members of a civilised society are capable of conducting every day over multiple issues without taking things personally or resorting to personal insults or using tactics like declaring the person they are arguing with is a liar or acting in bad faith.
I’m not taking the bait and shifting from reasoned argument to engaging in personal insults. I don’t know you personally and cannot ascertain your motivations - that is why I was explicit in saying in several post that i was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you were acting in good faith. I’ve only denigrated your arguments and not you personally or anyone else. If you cannot separate yourself from your argument and insist on taking a discussion about data personally then it’s difficult to have any kind of constructive discussion.
At this point though, even if I continue to give you the same benefit of the doubt, as challenging as that is, I have to assume you lack the capacity for reasoned argument and civil discussion. You also seem to lack sportsmanship and the ability to graciously acknowledge defeat that comes with it. That doesn’t give us much grounds for continued interaction does it? It feels like I’m happily having a beer at the 19th hole while you are still stuck hacking away in a sand trap somewhere near the second hole. It’s no wonder you are so cranky. Just quit, head to the clubhouse, and I’ll buy you a beer too.