|
| For the first point you made:
The reliability of sources is only an opinion and your opinion will obviously be different than my own. It is my opinion that there has actually not been any reliable source of information for several years now. The sources you consider reliable seem to often be at the very extreme end of any topic and have to change their views way too often to mirror the more moderate “conspiracy theories”.
There are some really wacked out true conspiracy theories that seem to always be proven wrong also in the end. When it all comes down to it it appears that those who beliefs are much closer to the middle seem to be by far the most reliable for being correct. Those viewpoints are neither on the conspiracy theory side, even though there is a strong push to ca them that, nor are they on the narrative side. They are thoughtful conclusions derived from listening to both the consensus and those that oppose the consensus.
Second point:
The competing scientist have always been putting their hypothesis forward. I repeat, check out my advice to look for signs of bias as to why their hypothesis are suppressed. As I already stated, you are free to use popularity to decide what to believe. Unfortunately, that means that you will usually be the last to know but that is entirely your choice. But don’t think you have a right to take my choice away either.
You are one of those loud voices on the internet and obviously you get most of your opinions from social media as you are always posting online studies.
You are taking chemicals not advised by the doctors I believe. I am taking chemicals not advised by doctors you believe. We are the same in that aspect.
Answer to the third point you made:
You sure berate people for not believing exactly what you believe in so I think I am right over the mark with the feeling of superiority comment.
You claim to be an avid follower of the scientific method yet you have clearly demonstrated that you refuse to acknowledge clear and obvious bias in the way the data of your studies is collected. Again, you are free to do so but if you are trying to determine the truth you will have to discard tainted data and any study that uses it. If multiple studies use the same tainted data they will reach a consensus but anyone that understands bias, as I believe you do, will know that will result in all the studies, while reaching consensus, will suffer the same flawed conclusion.
Fourth point:
Your concern about about that one death from people who didn’t follow the consensus. Do you also hold your own scientists and researchers who joined the consensus who berated every scientist that stated that the shots will not stop transmission and infection? If you believe Covid killed so many people, which you have clearly stated you do, then following the consensus about being immune from Covid and not being able to transmit it to others would have had to have killed many more than one person. People literally started to congregate after they got the shot because they believed the consensus spouters that they were immune and couldn’t spread it to others. This caused outbreaks. That obviously means that blindly following the consensus was far more deadly than the measles issue you are so concerned about. I FULLY expect you to be very biased, and likely even spread lies, also known as disinformation BTW, to try to avoid admitting that following the consensus also killed people.
Counter to the fifth and 6th point you made:
Even I can not believe you are so arrogant so as to belittle the mental issues the lockdowns caused to children. I can not believe you are literally trying to disregard and even deny the increase in suicides amongst the children caused by the lockdowns. The covid lockdown measures that Fauci and several others in charge literally admitted that they had just made up. It is hard to believe your concern about one child dying of measles when you are so willing to ignore the increase in child suicides caused by the isolation of the covid lockdowns.
You do realize some children live in mentally, physically, and sexually abusive households don’t you? Now imagine the consequences to those children of being locked up in those abusive households with their abusers, who also often lost their jobs due to covid measures. They had nowhere to escape to because even if they did some cranky old geezer like you would turn them into the police if they tried to escape to a park or playground or heaven forbid get near enough to them to infect them with their coodies.
Sorry but not sorry. I am thoroughly disgusted at your response.
Seventh point:
It has been well documented that children were by and large unaffected through Covid. It has been admitted that the shots also cause harms to children and some are still suffering from those effects. We will not agree on which is worse so no point in arguing about it.
Eighth point:
If you don’t think many elderly died alone you did not pay attention. I don’t think even you believe your statement but if you do, you are spending way too much time looking for studies instead of living in the real world.
Ninth point:
Ok. See my response to you fourth point.
Tenth and eleventh point:
As I said, you are free to make your own decision however you choose, including by popular choice. But you need to also realize that even if you lack the skills necessary to notice when you are being lied to, which is your claim, not mine, that doesn’t mean that other people also lack those skills. That means that just because sometimes people don’t accept a given narrative it doesn’t automatically mean that they are the ones believing some sort of misinformation. It just might be that they simply can recognize that the narrative, or consensus, is the misinformation. Even if you don’t see it yourself. Every time that the narrative, consensus, science or whatever you want to call it has to change to what was previously just called a “conspiracy theory” by the consensus scientists that is exactly what happened.
If you truly believe that science is about learning, you need to keep an open mind and that includes being open to the possibility that others are able to see that the consensus is likely wrong.
Edit to add: Once you accept that, you will realize the likely reason for the push to label and censor those who oppose any given narrative. It isn’t about keeping misinformation away from you. It’s about keeping you from having the info available to determine when the consensus is the misinformation.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/15/2024 06:07
| |
|
Temperature article
