• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Was the Vaccine Designed to kill

Dropperneck said:
It’s certainly not that easy, but I do understand vaxxies not wanting to know the extent to which they fucked up.

080995-A1-FC4-D-48-D5-8-EBA-1-CA7-E431-F60-C.jpg
Click to expand...

This is spot on. People just cannot understand the simple fact that scientists have no interest in whether or not their efforts were a success as opposed to the amount of interest they have in mitigating the amount of harm potentially caused. Anyone who questions whether or not it would have been easier for a group of people, a group that has no desire or motivation to contribute towards public health, to simply not make the vaccine in the first instance, needs to stop thinking that common sense should have to always apply just because something is patently ludicrous. All 'vaxxies' have ever done is make life better for children by eradicating polio & smallpox as well as minimising the impact of Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Now many of those children are grown up enough to post on Bluelight, those fucking vaxxies are of no further use, nor is the science. Why should anyone care about something that does not affect them personally, especially if there is good enough potential for others to come to harm. Fucking experts think they have the right to know what they are talking about, just because they have spent their lives invested in such knowledge.
 
steewith2ees said:
This is spot on. People just cannot understand the simple fact that scientists have no interest in whether or not their efforts were a success as opposed to the amount of interest they have in mitigating the amount of harm potentially caused. Anyone who questions whether or not it would have been easier for a group of people, a group that has no desire or motivation to contribute towards public health, to simply not make the vaccine in the first instance, needs to stop thinking that common sense should have to always apply just because something is patently ludicrous. All 'vaxxies' have ever done is make life better for children by eradicating polio & smallpox as well as minimising the impact of Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Now many of those children are grown up enough to post on Bluelight, those fucking vaxxies are of no further use, nor is the science. Why should anyone care about something that does not affect them personally, especially if there is good enough potential for others to come to harm. Fucking experts think they have the right to know what they are talking about, just because they have spent their lives invested in such knowledge.
Click to expand...
I feel like you've never met a scientist in your life before
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Yea it sounds like bullshit, don't believe everything on the internet? You can read the published papers it's that easy
Click to expand...

The journals are all controlled now. Censorship has been rampant during the pandemic. Peer reviewed research is not exactly trustworthy anymore, at least when it comes to this topic. You have to dig a lot deeper and talk to a lot of experts off the record. I do read peer reviewed research all the time as I'm trained in science, but I don't take it as the gospel.

I'm not saying the nanotech thing is real. Like SS I'm talking about possibilities.
 
For it to be a possibility it actually has to be possible, which I showed in the case if SS' claim it isn't.

Sure people game the system and billionaires buy papers but those things are combatted by mechanisms in the system. I guarantee you have zero evidence showing that the journals are "controlled" beyond your claim that "it's possible"
 
Dropperneck said:
The dude is asking for a peer reviewed study that proves the peer review process has been corrupted by power and money.
Click to expand...
A lot of it is a patronage network for grant money. I remember a few papers being unpublished the last few years due to reasons like "endangers marginalized communities" because the data produced by the study shows trends/rates that are politically incorrect to discuss but are still factual, so they unpublish and condemn to continue receiving grant money
 
Electrum1 said:
A lot of it is a patronage network for grant money. I remember a few papers being unpublished the last few years due to reasons like "endangers marginalized communities" because the data produced by the study shows trends/rates that are politically incorrect to discuss but are still factual, so they unpublish and condemn to continue receiving grant money
Click to expand...
Do you think the fear of not receiving grant money might change their behavior or opinions on things? Seems like another coincidence theory. Also, chud studies about gender spread dangerous mal information about feminine penis’. So they may be right to unpublish some things tbf
 
Dropperneck said:
Do you think the fear of not receiving grant money might change their behavior or opinions on things? Seems like another coincidence theory. Also, chud studies about gender spread dangerous mal information about feminine penis’. So they may be right to unpublish some things tbf
Click to expand...

Sure, it's a perennial problem but you get the money and then you conduct the study. Remember - a negative result is as valuable as a positive result because it's evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect. Since you have to detail your methodology, another team can double-check and it often happens, especially if it's a significant finding.

Are there bad actors? Yep. But anyone who has faked data will often retract if another group contacts them and merely queries a detail. Because retractions due to faked data will destroy your career. The whole community will know. But I hasten to add that most retractions are due to sins of omission and not commission. Or more often honest mistakes. Many papers are retracted because the team realize they got something wrong.

Nobody enters the sciences believing they will become rich or famous. Everyone I know just wants to KNOW, or at least get closer to knowing the answer to a question that they want resolved. It's lots of work, lots of time and lots of effort... and you often discover that all you have done is revealed more unknowns. BUT someone will read your paper and hopefully they will be driven to answer those questions.

That is why science doesn't care about your opinion or my opinion. The only thing that refutes science is better science. A study is just one piece of evidence. A scientist will only trust something confirmed or refuted hundreds of times which generally mean studies from all over the world.
 
AlsoTapered said:
Sure, it's a perennial problem but you get the money and then you conduct the study. Remember - a negative result is as valuable as a positive result because it's evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect. Since you have to detail your methodology, another team can double-check and it often happens, especially if it's a significant finding.

Are there bad actors? Yep. But anyone who has faked data will often retract if another group contacts them and merely queries a detail. Because retractions due to faked data will destroy your career. The whole community will know. But I hasten to add that most retractions are due to sins of omission and not commission. Or more often honest mistakes. Many papers are retracted because the team realize they got something wrong.

Nobody enters the sciences believing they will become rich or famous. Everyone I know just wants to KNOW, or at least get closer to knowing the answer to a question that they want resolved. It's lots of work, lots of time and lots of effort... and you often discover that all you have done is revealed more unknowns. BUT someone will read your paper and hopefully they will be driven to answer those questions.

That is why science doesn't care about your opinion or my opinion. The only thing that refutes science is better science. A study is just one piece of evidence. A scientist will only trust something confirmed or refuted hundreds of times which generally mean studies from all over the world.
Click to expand...
I think we all want the same things, and I don’t doubt there are some outliers. But I’m here to tell you that the process/industry has been fully subverted. And to most of us it’s more than obvious after Covid. So many ways to bias a study, and get the results you paid for.
 
Well thanks for telling me.

But who relies on one study? I did explain how much weight of evidence is required i.e. a great deal.

For a covid vaccine - 100% sure that every other maker WOULD repeat the study. ALL the studies. What with so much money to be made. They would have a vested interest in finding fault.
 
AlsoTapered said:
who relies on one study?
Click to expand...
it reminds me of when ppl jump to "you got vaxxed? d'huh'huh you trust everything pfizer blah blah blah (nonsense bullshit regurgitated from some grifter's blog)"

like, you know more than just pfizer had vaccines? and it's fallacious to say EVERY SINGLE thing they put out is gonna be mass- killing crapola, and it's stupid to think that they're responsible for EVERY study related to sars-cov-2 and the vaccines.

antivaxxers are often one- dimensional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top