At 1/2/22 07:16 PM, Gimmick wrote:
At 1/2/22 06:18 PM, Curta1nsJoe wrote:
At 1/2/22 04:06 PM, Gimmick wrote:
At 1/2/22 03:55 PM, Curta1nsJoe wrote:
At 1/2/22 03:51 PM, Gimmick wrote:
At 1/2/22 03:38 PM, Curta1nsJoe wrote:
At 1/2/22 02:56 PM, Gimmick wrote:
and conclusive studies are often wrong.
[citation needed]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? I don't think you understand what the replication crisis entails.
That Scientific studies often produce incorrect results and the peer review process is generally pretty inadequate.
That's exactly why you have multiple studies being conducted on the vaccines' safety...and if multiple of them have come out with the same results then how does saying "rEpLiCaTiOn CrIsIs" disprove anything?
I said
conclusive studies are often wrong.
If I meant “I can prove that the vaccines are more dangerous than claimed” then that’s what I would have said.
But do multiple studies that back each other up prove each other?
Not if they are all flawed.
Why would studies carried out all be flawed?
Because they all were deliberately set up to find the same results.
Now we are in the realm of high comedy.
Any research set up by a multi-billion dollar company to determine something in which they have a vested interest is automatically suspect, not only that with enough money it is quite possible to bury inconvenient research from independent sources.
Governments also have vested interests in the vaccine being declared safe, the existence of the vaccine make it look like they are in control, many politicians have vested interests in pharmaceutical companies, but worst of all if it came out that the vaccine they have just spent an incredible amount of money on developing, purchasing and implementing and were encouraging/coercing/forcing the public to take was dangerous then it would create one of the worst political scandals ever, that would probably spell the end of the careers of all involved.
Governments are masters at carefully exerting pressure and suppressing information.
Then there are the individual researchers, if they came out with a study that suggested that the vaccine might have significant dangerous side effects, then they may cause public panic which they may be reticent to do so until they were absolutely sure of their research which could take a lot of time and they may also be frightened of being branded an “anti-Vaxxer” and ultimately a “discredited anti-vaxxer” which may not be good for their career.
Scientific journals which also play a role may also have vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry and may buy in to the dogma around the vaccine.
So given this environment I would not be at all surprised to see multiple flawed misleading studies backing each other up.
*Yawn*
100% of what you're saying is baseless and cannot be confirmed,
Have you attempted to confirm it?
If not you cannot know whether or not it is baseless.
and you have literally 0 sources to back your claim up. I know for a fact that if I probe you for sources, you will refer to things like
gay frogs
there is honestly no point continuing this discussion
kills a bit of time, makes you think a bit lol
but continue gish galloping your way to "victory"
I cannot win if a make a succinct statement I’m told I’m not including enough detail, people nit-pick and go with questionable interpretations of what I said, but if I say something more detailed I am accused of word salad and Gish galloping.
That has and will always be your modus operandi, as I've seen that countless times in this thread and others.
I think in statements is that unusual?
If your statement - that the vaccines really were "dangerous",
I do not believe that is what I said.
to the point that governments would suppress the research for fear of public panic - then why the fuck did they halt the J&J and AZ vaccines when the first news came out of the potential blood clotting in younger people?
It was at an earlier stage for a start the situation was different.
I’m not suggesting IF there was any sort of effort to keep potentially embarrassing reports from being published it would be done in a particularly organised or consistent fashion.
Why did we have to go through the entire media circus of the J&J and the AZ vaccines being "deadly", when your premise is that the government would suppress that very research?
Maybe not would… definitely they could with MI5, FBI etc, they probably could wrangle something with a certain amount of political pressure to keep it from the public it in such a way that doesn’t make them look bad and is kept quiet, would definitely have a motive to if it was more severe, they usually have doubtful scruples.
Then again if you happen to know what goes on in the corridors of power then maybe you could knock my theory in to the water, but I’m inclined to believe it’s a bit underhand a lot of the time.
Either of multiple possible reasons come to light:
All 3 are possible, but given the history of your posts, I think that #3 is overwhelmingly the case. You give links to random wikipedia articles without being able to articulate clearly what you're saying, so that when others call you out on it, then you can change your viewpoint to retroactively counter any opposition to make it look like you came out on top.
If I am as you say unable to clearly articulate what I am saying, then how do you know that I am retroactively changing my viewpoint?
The marketplace of ideas was always a flawed concepts because people like you will just flood the markets with the equivalent of cheap chinese trash
I say!
then wonder where all the good discourse went.
Show me some of this good discourse then.
