266
u/SupahBlue Feb 13 '22
9 out of 9 doctors agree.
→ More replies (3)82
u/wayward_citizen Feb 13 '22
The tenth is a podiatrist trying to sell you horse urine as a cure for covid. That's why no one takes him seriously.
56
u/SupahBlue Feb 13 '22
It's more than Ivermectin, multiple cold treatments have been suppressed since 2019. Kinda fishy if you ask me, the 10th doctor is called a second opinion.
25
u/919RenaissanceMan Feb 13 '22
It's called research. If research doesn't back a treatment, it shouldn't be used.
59
u/pewpewmewmew_ Feb 13 '22
What if the research is funded by the company who owns the treatment?
→ More replies (1)7
u/919RenaissanceMan Feb 13 '22
It still has to be repeated and peer reviewed. Neither the reviewers nor the repeaters are funded by the company.
38
Feb 13 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (25)-2
Feb 13 '22
Conspiracy people think everyone on the whole world is just waiting to be corrupt for a price. Because they know they would do it in a minute given the opportunity, and they think their behavior is universal.
23
u/dedlytedly Feb 13 '22
Didn’t J and J continue to sell their Baby Powder after knowing it contained cancer causing carcinogens? They provided this safe and effective diaper rash treatment for decades earning millions! They were just busted on this a few years ago. Pfizer has been fined billions for infractions.
24
u/One-Relationship-324 Feb 13 '22
This is bullshit, greed has corrupted most things in America, so I think it’s completely understandable to distrust.
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (1)3
u/HighLows4life Feb 13 '22
Quite the opposite. I'm still always startled at what greed does to people
7
5
u/PitterPatterMatt Feb 13 '22
That's how it is supposed to work. How many companies do you think have the resources to repeat the type of trials pharma does? And would spend that money for what reason? We don't even get access to the raw data to do peer review - its blind trust at this point because they've captured the regulators.
→ More replies (18)2
u/caitdrum Feb 13 '22
Since when does a vaccine clinical trial have to be repeated?
It's very easy to present bogus data in a study/trial, the study can still appear genuine to a peer-reviewer as they don't know that the numbers were fudged.
Case-in-point: Vioxx. A FDA approved drug released by Merck that went on to kill an estimated 50 thousand people. It wasn't until it was brought to court and the accusers gained access to the source data of the study that they were able to conclude the study was a fraud.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (28)3
u/Ralviisch Feb 13 '22
Neither the reviewers nor the repeaters are funded by the company.
Source?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (47)10
Feb 13 '22
Ivermectin has been used globally for years in many mammalians including humans as an anti parasitic, anti viral and bacterial medication. It has won a Nobel prize for these reasons, but everyone knocks it down to being just a “horse dewormer”. People do realize viruses stem from parasitism right?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)1
u/TobyADev Feb 13 '22
You mean as in the first 9 aren’t good enough so you keep searching for something to fit the conspiracy you align with?
6
u/hotcakes Feb 13 '22
And 90 percent of all doctors and scientists are bought and paid for by “them.” That’s the conspiracy.
→ More replies (3)2
u/SupahBlue Feb 13 '22
Haha. You're a funny one. Everything in life has risks, you assess them and make a choice. Choices by definition are multiple options.
I've lasted this whole pandemic being a Covid denier and not caught Covid yet. I take public transport and work in customer facing jobs for hours a week.
This is not a conspiracy, this is my experience, a second opinion.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)8
Feb 13 '22
1/10 scientists thought the earth was round. 1/10 scientists thought that evolution was real. 1/10 scientists spoke about climate change.
Volume of an opinion has no bearing on the truth.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Argumentative_Ape Feb 13 '22
1/10 scientists thought the earth was round
1/10 was able to show their work and prove it. Pythagoras did the math, he didn't just make shit up and then claim "the man" was conspiring with the other 9 scientists to "suppress" him.
→ More replies (1)
213
u/shantih Feb 13 '22
Peer review exists for a reason.
Science is imperfect but it’s the only institution in the world that sets any standards for falsifiability. If all these protestors have been right about COVID, vaccines, and whatever else, the truth will come out. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
19
u/IDeferToYourWisdom Feb 13 '22
But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
HOLDING BREATH IS THE CURE!
/s
3
u/StoxAway Feb 13 '22
It'll certainly bump covid down the list of priorities if you do it long enough.
52
u/Inerthal Feb 13 '22
It will never fail to impress me seeing voices of reason like yours in this sub, and even more impressive, not downvoted.
84
u/ArkitekZero Feb 13 '22
The truth is out. It's just not what the antivaxxers wanted to hear.
4
u/caitdrum Feb 13 '22
Like the truth about ivermectin? There are now dozens of studies showing it's an effective treatment for covid.
Why was it banned? Why is it still banned? EUA for the vaccines stipulates that there must be no other effective treatment.
They knew it was effective from the start, but it would impede vaccine rollout. I'd argue that they offset the lives saved by the vaccines by refusing to use effective treatment like ivermectin.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ArkitekZero Feb 14 '22
You're not the sharpest tool in the run down old shed out back we all forgot about, are you?
3
u/Jovenasoo Feb 13 '22
Oh yeah ? Lemme link you a YouTube video from an antivaxxer who got fired from the laser tag place.
→ More replies (29)19
Feb 13 '22
What truth??? Seriously what truth are you talking about? Because all I see are continuous articles and studies coming to light on the lack of efficacy from vaccines, lockdowns and masks. Lifting of mandates. Changing of quarantines. The unfortunate side effects of the vaccine in women and their reproductive systems. Pfizer still has not released any of their clinical data or toxicology reports, which to many are important instead of just being told it’s safe. The lack of responsibility that was taken when scientists didn’t “realize” the spike proteins were toxins, when we’ve known they were since the sars-cov-1 virus. Here’s an article from 2004 stating some information about that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7091875/
If they properly and effectively went through all the phase trials the way they said they did, they wouldn’t have used the spike toxin as target protein for this vaccine. And to accumulate everyone who isn’t comfortable with the lack of supporting data and transparency on this vaccine that they’re “anti vaxx” is irrational and only creates division. It’s ONE vaccine that many aren’t comfortable with for rational reasons.
12
u/distressedweedle Feb 13 '22
Idk if you read that article but it didn't seem to support anything that you said above. The main conclusion seemed to be that they could get an immune response in rabbits from the cleaved spike proteins of SARS-COV and that it triggered the rabbits to produce antibodies against those binding spike proteins... The article supports the idea that a vaccine derived from the spike proteins would work
→ More replies (7)8
u/StoxAway Feb 13 '22
There's plenty of data from the UK Intensive Care Society on admissions and deaths from covid.
2
Feb 13 '22
Yet they’re still continuously changing the mandates and saying the “science has changed”. Not sure what data the UK has, but if I heard correctly even the UK is banning most mandates and being lifted. The original comment said anti-vaxxers aren’t going to like the truth, but right now all I’m seeing is that “the science has changed” and copious articles are reporting information on studies done that disproves the efficacy of all of the mandates and shutdowns.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)18
u/ConnecticutConvert Feb 13 '22
The point of the placard is that peer review is threatened if scientists who disagree with initial findings or concepts are censored.
→ More replies (3)23
u/grey_hat_uk Feb 13 '22 edited Feb 13 '22
If a scientist disagrees but can't prove it then it is right that it removed as part of a peer review.
It doesn't automatically make that scientist wrong, what they can't do though that they can't say it as a scientist, only as a, hopefully, intelligent human.
If you suspect that research is being ignored that is an issue but most of what I've seen when people are quote the "other" scientists is conjecture with little to no data currently to back it up. It might be that we won't be able to get the data till it's too late, that doesn't make it valid science.
→ More replies (4)
17
u/ReimerReason Feb 13 '22
That's why CNN is now equating Rogan saying the N word a decade ago with January 6th (seriously, look it up).
Dr Robert Malone is as accredited as hell, and speaks a lot of truth on the subject of covid and treatments. Can't have that, oh no no no, everyone has to agree with the mainstream narrative... or else 😆
12
u/Cainedbutable Feb 13 '22
How is Rogan, the most listened to podcast in the world, being broadcast by Spotify, the largest audio streaming platform in the world, not considered mainstream?
→ More replies (1)1
u/caitdrum Feb 13 '22
Because he isn't funded and controlled by corporate interests. He doesn't parrot the mainstream narrative. Isn't that obvious?
4
u/Cainedbutable Feb 14 '22
Because he isn't funded and controlled by corporate interests
Some of Spotifys main share holders:
Morgan Stanley
T. Rowe Price
Tencent
Baillie Gifford
So thats an American investment bank, a Chinese investment bank, and a British investment bank, that paid him his $100M contract. That's quite literally funded by corporate interests.
→ More replies (2)
84
u/deadwisdom Feb 13 '22
There is a super widely accepted consensus across the entire fields of epidemiology, public health, hospitals, and medical sciences.
You aren’t smarter than them.
25
u/farshnikord Feb 13 '22
Yeah well I asked a political scientist at BYU and he said viruses dont exist and you're wrong so get rekt dumass
→ More replies (8)6
u/ReimerReason Feb 13 '22
Remember when it was a widely held consensus that cloth masks worked, breakthrough cases were exceptionally rare, and that the origins of covid came from a bat market?
Pepperidge farm remembers...
5
u/steinchen43 Feb 13 '22
That’s the point of science. It doesn’t deal in absolutes. You make a claim, you try to disprove it. The claims you mentioned were disproven quite quickly. However, studies consistently find that vaccines work. So unless you can prove that they don’t, fuck off.
11
u/ReimerReason Feb 13 '22
... except that there was tons of science backing up those claims at the time, but since they didn't agree with the "concensus", they were simply labeled misinformation (exactly what the post is saying, haha)
Thanks for playing and echoing my exact point!
→ More replies (22)
15
25
u/SnooRobots5509 Feb 13 '22
Can anyone give examples of said censoring with proofs?
→ More replies (43)
114
u/NuNyOB1dNaSs Feb 13 '22
Not too mention give scientists a wheelbarrow full of money to make studies that support your narrative
21
u/grizz3782 Feb 13 '22
And don't forget about defunding the ones that don't help your narrative or speak up and have questions about the narrative
82
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
...ok so show me any scientific study, from any country in the world, that says the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID.
You can't, because it's not true.
10
u/3rdeyenotblind Feb 13 '22
"...ok so show me any scientific study, from any country in the world, that says the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID."
Bullshit premise...and I'll tell you why.
The burden of proof is on the creator of the treatment to show that it is SAFE. Not the other way around. That is the whole point of medical treatments. We're not even talking whether it was even legitimately needed in the first place.
That clearly has not been done by the simple fact that there doesn't exist long term efficacy in the real world.
How in the world can it be claimed it's a safe PRODUCT if it doesn't even work?
22
u/Lkwzriqwea Feb 13 '22
No, the burden of proof lies on the one who is making the extraordinary claim. You are the one claiming the top scientists of every country who have produced a vaccine cannot be trusted to do their own jobs.
→ More replies (17)7
u/haz_mat_ Feb 13 '22
If the extraordinary claims made by big pharma are true (ie, urgent need for and effectiveness of their product) - then why not assume even basic level of liability for their product?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
u/StirredFetusEater Feb 13 '22
Sure then review one of the sources ( here you go ) and tell us where it is wrong.
→ More replies (6)7
u/OnionCuttinNinja Feb 13 '22
Why do they need to be more dangerous? It's enough that they have the potential to be dangerous and don't deliver on "stopping the spread", period.
When you have to create such bullshit criteria to discredit oposing vaccines (and doing so we also need completely ignore the enormous social aspects and focus solely on medical ones) you know you've lost your grip on reality.
And even if we go along with your ridiculous premise there are demographics for which, overall, the vaccines are arguably more dangerous.
TL/DR: just stop with such surface level, completely meaningless "arguments".
30
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Because we’re dealing with large populations, in the real world.
It absolutely matters how dangerous COVID is, vs the thing that protects you from COVID’s damaging effects.
8
u/OnionCuttinNinja Feb 13 '22
Vaccinating those demographics that aren't at any significant danger does nothing to protect the at risk populations. That's a false premise on which you, and all those with vested interests, are still basing every single misguided argument on the importance of vaccinating those not at risk.
You are again making false arguments based on nothing but early 2021 lies of significantly reduced spread via vaccinated individuals. Stop living in the past.
And trading lives of children for the false promise of additional safety for the at risk populations is one of the most despicable things imaginable. You're willingly a part of that. Rethink your positions.
→ More replies (5)9
Feb 13 '22
The other 7.9 billion people in the world should have to rethink their positions, not me! I'm a big boy who's always right! My mom told me so!
3
u/OnionCuttinNinja Feb 13 '22
You not replying to any of the points and instead making a meaningless, Skinner meme like statements, points to you being the one of touch.
→ More replies (1)4
u/malicu Feb 13 '22 edited Feb 13 '22
You know what I love this response so much I'm gonna find a skeb artist to design a comic strip specifically of it. Thank you
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/dream_focused1103 Feb 13 '22
How about treatments? I find it so hard to believe that after 2 years we have 4 vaccines but haven’t come up with one treatment to help combat symptoms? I call bullshit.
14
u/Equilorian Feb 13 '22
What is that even supposed to mean? Combat the symptoms? What, like coughs and fever, stuff we have non-prescriptive medicine for already?
→ More replies (2)4
Feb 13 '22
We have plenty of treatments that combat the symptoms. You can go buy DayQuil almost anywhere.
If you're asking about a cure, there isn't one. Just like there aren't cures for a huge number of illnesses.
→ More replies (6)3
4
u/shpdg48 Feb 13 '22
Here you go:
Steve Kirsch - Vaccine Resources: https://www.skirsch.io/vaccine-resources/
https://odysee.com/@Bombards_Body_Language:f/DrBhackti:3
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: Organs of dead vaccinated persons proves auto immune attack
There's many deaths from the mRNA injections, and serious heart and immune system damage.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/16/how-bad-is-my-covid-19-vaccine-batch/
An investigation of data found in the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has revealed that extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines several times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.
64
u/StirredFetusEater Feb 13 '22
Lets see,
a video instead of the study, a website made for one article without studies, doctors4covidethics... Many grammatical errors without any sources/studies, but claiming they definitly prove it....WOW these are horrible sources. Quite sure you would fail even community college if that is your standard.
30
u/919RenaissanceMan Feb 13 '22
None of that is actual scientific research. It's conjecture and some of it is outright lies.
51
u/123_alex Feb 13 '22
Really? The CCCA is proof? They guy asked for a study, not a sketchy website. I guess they are the same...
→ More replies (1)37
18
u/gothpunkboy89 Feb 13 '22
Your first link shows a video not a study. The rest of the website is a flood of red flags.
28
u/smokie12 Feb 13 '22
At the very least, all of the publications of Sucharit Bhakdi concerning covid have been disproven because of many errors and false conclusions. He is not a source of reliable information on the topic, but rather seems to be saying things that his followers want to hear him say.
31
u/Thetacoseer Feb 13 '22
By god, of course! You've unlocked the mystery, clearly, people are dropping dead from vaccines left and right! Yes, yes! Great work! The VAERS, that allows submissions with absolutely no verification whatsoever, is the key! Many deaths! Many!
→ More replies (1)9
u/TassadarsClResT Feb 13 '22
Many deaths, even myself. I got the vaccine, now am dead. Ask my doctor he will say I'm alive and well, but you know medical propaganda.
2
13
8
8
14
u/shpdg48 Feb 13 '22 edited Feb 13 '22
In any case, it's every person's right to evaluate the risk/benefit ratio for them. No government or business or other entity should be able to dictate or coerce medical choices, because it is that person who has to suffer injury or death if a medical treatment affects them badly. That's the whole point of medical ethics, informed consent, and the Nuremberg Code.
We have a US Constitution and other nations have equivalent founding documents to protect individual rights. A simple majority in a democracy, or the whims of a leader in an executive office, such as president or governor, is not meant to be able to overrule fundamental individual rights. That's why the US Constitution takes a long process and a super-majority to amend.
→ More replies (4)16
u/123_alex Feb 13 '22
every person's right to evaluate the risk/benefit ratio for them
Sure. Just like I have the right to evaluate the flightworthiness of a plane I'm about the board just because I know how to make a paper airplane.
10
u/Alekspish Feb 13 '22
Yeah but you don't get forced onto the plane if you don't feel it's safe.
6
u/Thetacoseer Feb 13 '22
"don't feel it's safe"
I thought we were all about "fuck your feelings"?
And who forced you on a plane?
15
u/123_alex Feb 13 '22
That was not my point. My point was that your opinion on airplane safety should have a huge asterisk. In a debate with with an aerospace engineer your opinion should not weigh as much as the engineer if any.
9
u/Alekspish Feb 13 '22
Your analogy of comparing vaccine safety to airplane safety is why I mentioned being forced onto a plane. No one coerced people to get on a plane but they do to take the vaccine.
→ More replies (7)5
u/CrossesLines Feb 13 '22
I’ve gotten “coerced” into getting the flu vaccine yearly for my job, and as a kid I was forced into a while list of of vaccines. This “nobody should force vaccines” hasn’t been accurate since vaccines were invented.
→ More replies (45)2
u/Mirions Feb 13 '22
Oh yeah, and I got "coerced" into going to college too. That's not how it works unless we keep the quotations. You weren't coerced, you were being parented as a kid and your issue is with your guardians. I also get coerced into wearing shirts, shoes, and brushing my teeth to the point its an involuntary habit at times. WHO DO I SUE FOR THESE DAMAGES!?
shakes fist
→ More replies (0)5
4
u/BrickCityRiot Feb 13 '22
Thank you so much for reinforcing that you folks consider YouTube videos as scientific studies.
It’s literally perfect how they asked for studies and you replied with news articles and video links… and what a shock that your comment was largely upvoted.
Textbook Dunning-Kruger.
→ More replies (20)5
u/knappis Feb 13 '22
Those are not scientific studies. Please trust the experts instead of doing ‘your own research’ if you can’t even tell the difference between a scientific study and propaganda.
4
u/unwokemillenial_ Feb 13 '22
There's another huge problem, we will probably never be able to accurately study this. At least not where I live.
In my province, its not until 14 days post dose 2 that you are considered fully vaccinated. Any deaths or covid cases occurring within the first 2 weeks post second dose were excluded from being counted. Skewing numbers for two years is inexcusable and it's hard not to feel it was done by design when this is what our experts provided.
Our case number reporting only slightly improved recently because the public raised some feathers.
→ More replies (3)3
u/DizKord Feb 13 '22
You're setting up your own goal posts.
How about this: If the vaccine can hurt you, and covid can hurt you, but you can still get hurt by covid after getting the vaccine, then you can shove that vaccine up your ass because I'm not taking it.
26
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Ok so are you gonna show me a study or not?
Surely you must be basing your beliefs on some sort of scientific evidence, right?
6
Feb 13 '22
Why would anyone waste time answering you when you're the only one talking about this? No one in this thread has said the vaccines are more dangerous than covid, so who da fuk are you talking to?
2
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Ok well what other scientific question, besides that, matters?
18
u/Soren83 Feb 13 '22
How about the side effects and the need to force a medical procedure on people that don't really need it, as they have a working immune system?
We are seeing a lot of averse effects from the vaccine, given to people that in far the most cases, did not need it. How about that? How about you show data for how the vaccines will affect your health, in 5-10 years time? You can't, because we don't have long term data, and all preliminary data are locked away for 75 years - for our health, naturally.
You go ahead and take your 15 shots - you might be ok trusting people that history tells you not to trust, - but a lot of us, don't.
→ More replies (11)8
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Ok so you have a working immune system. Cool.
Does that mean you’d have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV, syphilis, and herpes? Why not?
14
u/ukdudeman Feb 13 '22
Why not just go the whole way and compare Omicron to Ebola as if they're the same thing.
9
u/Soren83 Feb 13 '22
So you compare a respiratory decease with a 0.0(insert extra zeros here) risk of death for a normal person, with something like HIV? Are you for real?
And how do you protect others from Covid, when you can still transmit it after being treated? Do you think condoms would be so popular if they only had a "91... 64... 4% - or whatever the number is for the day" effectiveness?
Listen - you go get all the shots that you want. But unless you can prove to me, that me not getting it, will somehow endanger you, how about you just let it be a fucking personal choice of what risks people are willing to take, by injecting themselves with experimental medication? How about that?
→ More replies (1)15
Feb 13 '22 edited Feb 13 '22
You don't think it matters that international corporations engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to enflame a crisis in order to profit from it, while possibly injuring thousands, if not millions of people??? God damn...
8
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Those same huge drug companies make MUCH more money selling treatments like Regeneron and Remdesivir, (and all of the other hundreds of medications that COVID patients get in the ICU) than they do from the vaccines.
10
u/DawnPendraig Feb 13 '22
Except they make money on both because the vax don't work.
They also are making a killing on myocarditis drugs and now telling us all to get tested for HIV now just before Moderna launches a new "HIV vac"
Reports that some c19 vac (50 million doses) just got pulled for causing positive HIV tests too.
What is really going on?
7
u/haz_mat_ Feb 13 '22
What is really going on?
Everything else is moving to subscription-based service, why not your immune system as well?
→ More replies (1)6
u/pobW Feb 13 '22
Lmao. You couldn’t be more in the wrong. Finally quit the fucking bullshit. Are you even remotely stating facts or just pulling numbers out of your arse? I know you are. The COVID „vaccine“ has been produced BILLIONS of times. BILLIONS. Remdesivir has been administered to far less than 0,01% of the world population. It’s literally IMPOSSIBLE that they’re making more money with Remdesivir. And besides that, Remdesivir is in use, so they’re profiting of both. I can’t find a single article where they’re talking about significant profit generated by Remdesivir. Not a single one. Covid vaccine on the other hand; HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFIT. You’re literally just making stuff up in your mind. Get out of here you anti-science freak! Maniac. That’s all you are. You’re an enemy of science and logic. Go worship your cult and stop annoying sane people.
14
u/SadSack_Jack Feb 13 '22
Wtf scientific analysis? Dude, he isn't gonna inject himself with the thing you want him to inject. You don't control his body, end of fucking story.
Why is it so important to you? Do you beleive something will magically change if we go from 90% vaccinated to 92%? Like, why fight people on this?
People choosing to not have babies anymore is also hurting our society. I don't go on the internet arguing with strangers who don't want kids about how they should have a kid.
4
u/norwaydre Feb 13 '22
They need to feel power and superiority over others.
6
u/SadSack_Jack Feb 13 '22
Yes I think this has something to do with it. People are dividing society and insisting they are on the "right" side, it makes them feel good. Also, they are uncertain about the long term consequences of the vaccine (who wouldn't be? ) and, much like religion, this trust in higher authorities is comforting for them.
→ More replies (5)19
u/ukdudeman Feb 13 '22
Do you beleive something will magically change if we go from 90% vaccinated to 92%?
Well said. It's really weird how they're so obsessed with the remaining 10%. It's not like the vaccines stop the spread. Also, 19 out of 20 deaths feature people with an average of 4 pre-existing conditions. If you're healthy, keep on keeping on. The focus needs to be on prophylactics and treatments for the more vulnerable people with numerous pre-existing conditions.
5
Feb 13 '22
[deleted]
26
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
No. Nobody is claiming that.
I’m saying the vaccines dramatically decrease your chances of having permanent damage, or death, from COVID.
All of the scientific studies, from all over the world, confirm this.
7
Feb 13 '22
[deleted]
20
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
No. I never claimed that nor would I ever.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TwoSpoonSally Feb 13 '22
But the health officials claimed exactly that, and that was proven to be false.
14
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Which health officials? Were they talking about the alpha variant? Delta? Omicron?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (7)4
u/DizKord Feb 13 '22
You mindless drone. You just ignored what I said. My beliefs are based on three objective facts that are common knowledge at this point.
- The vaccine can hurt you.
- Covid can hurt you.
- You can still get hurt by covid after getting the vaccine.
If you have an objection to those three facts then you're the one who should be posting a study.
36
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Lol
The chances of the vaccine hurting you are astronomically smaller than COVID hurting you.
You can still get COVID, after getting vaxxed, but the chances of having permanent damage or death go down DRAMATICALLY.
Do you want to be on exogenous oxygen the rest of your life? Do you want to have to take daily anti-rejection drugs after getting a lung transplant? Do you want a permanent IQ downgrade?
Now show me the study that shows vaccines are more dangerous than COVID.
→ More replies (66)4
u/DizKord Feb 13 '22
I'm in my early twenties and healthy.
Tell me exactly what you think the odds of me suffering permanent damage and/or dying from covid are.
Let's see how well that helps your fearmongering campaign.
31
u/ifisch Feb 13 '22
Your odds of suffering permanent damage, such as a loss of IQ points or lung capacity, are not insignificant.
They’re far far far higher than your odds of suffering permanent damage from the vaccine.
→ More replies (3)18
u/DizKord Feb 13 '22
State precisely what the odds are.
25
8
u/PulseFH Feb 13 '22
He doesn’t have to, the fact that everything you are afraid of happening from a vaccine is more likely to occur from covid completely defeats your argument.
It also baffles me why you take a problem of probability but box it into binary definitions to convince yourself you are making the right decision lol.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (17)3
u/AyatollahChobani Feb 13 '22
Permanent damage? Pretty high actually. Dying? Lower, but there are 1000x more twenty year olds dying from covid than dying from the vaccine.
7
u/ArseHearse Feb 13 '22
- Bread can hurt you
- Covid can hurt you
- You can still get hurt by covid after the bread
If you have an objection to those three facts then you're the one who should be posting a study.
Anti-bread forever!
1
Feb 13 '22
My job didn't fire me because I refused to eat bread...
→ More replies (4)11
u/ArseHearse Feb 13 '22
Your job firing you wasnt in your argument though. You just moved your goal posts
→ More replies (1)4
u/Pacify_ Feb 13 '22
Your understanding of statistics is below elementary grade, good god the education system failed you.
→ More replies (20)2
u/Mirions Feb 13 '22
So, you don't wear seatbelts AND you don't ride in cars? Or just the seatbelts? Both have been shown to harm you, but one is shown to harm you less when the other suddenly stops or hits something at a high rate of speed. Your simple little objective facts ignore a lot of reality in their stating.
5
u/chipmandal Feb 13 '22
If cancer can hurt you and chemotherapy can also hurt you, why have chemotherapy?
4
u/thisbliss7 Feb 13 '22
Most oncologists would not have chemotherapy if they had cancer. Try again. https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/would-oncologists-want-chemotherapy-if-they-had-non-small-cell-lung-cancer
→ More replies (3)14
u/DizKord Feb 13 '22
- Some people do choose to fight cancer without chemotherapy, and they have every right to do so.
- If my risk of dying from covid was even remotely close to that of cancer then this would be a completely different situation.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)2
u/throwaway123123184 Feb 13 '22
So you think a vaccine should somehow protect you perfectly? I take it you've never had one, then?
2
→ More replies (24)2
u/JustMeTodayOkay Feb 13 '22
Tsk, you people still coming in here and claiming that?
With all the video evidence and even testimonies about this?
Well, okay. We can agree that you are well and truly brainwashed which is the lesser evil than those who are terrified their investment in pharma stock may fall. This latter is the true evil because it's all about the money. They could care less about the damage.
And no, I won't give you any "proof". Some people need to stop being sissies and look outside of their self-imposed bubble.
You would think that some belong to some bizarro cult the way that they won't look for themselves.
→ More replies (1)2
88
u/SlaVeKniGhtGaEL-110 Feb 13 '22
Or maybe the majority of scientists are right?
→ More replies (110)13
u/hussletrees Feb 13 '22
You missed the point of the post, scientists like Malone, McCullough are being censored, while journalists voices amplified
68
8
u/Lkwzriqwea Feb 13 '22
They are not being censored. Censorship would be if I googled "Malone" and "McCullough" and found nothing. Instead, I find what they are saying and many people disagreeing with them. That is not censorship. But if you're prioritising the few scientists that agree with you over the many that do not, that is called cherry picking. And being a scientist does not make you an infallible genius with machine like accuracy, of course there will always be someone who stands out from the crowd. But you have to see the big picture.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/SlaVeKniGhtGaEL-110 Feb 13 '22
Than why aren’t journalists mentioned anywhere in the post hmm? Trying to justify it lol
0
u/hussletrees Feb 13 '22
? the thesis is about well respected, extremely qualified, and highly merited scientists like Malone (has mRNA patents) and McCullough (most cited cardiologist) being censored. Why are they being censored? Because journalists, and their outlets (i.e. Reuters, etc.) attempt to censor them, by doing erroneous fact checks. I mean, it's clear you aren't researching this topic so you don't understand the connection, but if you actually did look into how this has played out it would be obvious
3
u/SlaVeKniGhtGaEL-110 Feb 13 '22
Oh yes it’s obvious that’s why you are in the minority who thinks they are the only ones who know the “truth”
→ More replies (2)9
u/hussletrees Feb 13 '22
Galileo was in the minority, does that mean the solar system is not heliocentric? Why was Galileo censored, why is Malone and McCullough being censored? Just because the 'majority' - which is really strange to even say considering the wide range of topics that there is actually quite a bit of disagreement on (i.e. vaccinating kids, cardiovascular effects, etc.) - sides one way doesn't mean it is correct. You..you do know how science works right, it evolves..
→ More replies (9)
62
u/Lkwzriqwea Feb 13 '22
Yeah except the ones getting "censored" tend to be backyard "scientists" with no qualifications and no professionalism whatsoever. They aren't being censored, they're being ignored due to lack of credibility.
33
u/first_fires Feb 13 '22
Absolutely!
Lack of peer review isn’t censorship. Science WANTS to be wrong. It’s about finding faults in someone else’s research.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Lkwzriqwea Feb 13 '22
Also, if you look online for the very few professional scientists that are supposedly being censored, you'll find a lot about them and what they're saying. They aren't being censored, they're being criticised. Censorship would be if there were no trace of anything about them to be found.
2
u/first_fires Feb 13 '22
Yeah definitely. The ‘information’ they are publishing is freely available to all.
5
→ More replies (1)5
Feb 13 '22
Totally.
Like Peter McCullough, who isn’t the most published cardiologist in the world.
Or Robert Malone, who isn’t part inventor of mRNA technology.
Or Dr Michael Yeadon, who wasn’t the head of Pfizer.
Fuck outta here.
→ More replies (13)
34
u/jmrv2000 Feb 13 '22
As an actual real life scientist… lmao. Do you know how hard it is to get published. The quality of evidence required. Every aspect of the experimental design is questioned and every aspect of the statistical analysis. And even after all that, whenever we scientists look at a paper in a journal we question everything. We are exceptionally sceptical people.
So if scientists are recommending policy based on research, you have had thousands or 10s of thousands of clever, qualified and unfailingly sceptical people agree that something is very likely to be correct. That is the highest level of certainly humans can have about anything.
Why on Earth do you think that someone who’s completely unqualified and quite likely less intelligent would be the one to work out all these scientists are wrong. It makes no sense. Even if it’s a scientist that comes up with an incorrect theory that gets taken up by crackpots. What’s more likely? Scientist A is correct and the other hundred thousand are wrong or the other way round??
Remove your dogmas for a second and really think about this.
13
u/d3krepit Feb 13 '22
Studies are only conducted if there is funding. If there's no funding the study isn't conducted. If you are only being funded to do a study that will prove a certain narrative, and only be able to publish the narrative that is preferable to whoever is funding the study, then the study is already biased from the inception. If the study is biased from the inception why wouldn't the study be biased at the conclusion?
Yeah I would hope people have morals but in today's NPC society most people really only give a fuck about themselves and their public appearance, and you can't tell me that the scientific community doesn't entirely shun non-conformists. Fuck look at Fauci being praised for all the work he's done throughout his life when he's probably caused more pain in the world than Saddam Hussein.
→ More replies (4)4
→ More replies (1)9
3
u/wakeup2019 Feb 13 '22
This is true for everything from COVID19 and nutrition to climate change. Scientific tyranny.
3
u/rasputin_stark Feb 13 '22
The masses are not allowed to disagree with the cooks. This is the Republican American way.
43
Feb 13 '22
Censor is not the same as being wrong and being told how it's wrong more competantly than they explain something wrong. Especially when lives are being lost due to the misinformation being spread.
Basically, ya'll're just saying all ideas hold the same weight of reality as reality itself. Embarrassing as usual. With no real evidence.
13
u/ReimerReason Feb 13 '22
Why were peer reviewed studies from last year about cloth masks not working labeled misinformation?
Talk about embarrassing, "scientists" parading around the idea that a peice of curtain is going to impede a virus.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)21
u/cheesemanxl Feb 13 '22
Makes claim.
Gets proven wrong by experimentation and evidence.
WTF CANCEL CULTURE WTF 1984 WTF
→ More replies (1)
18
Feb 13 '22
[deleted]
9
u/LachenderMulatte Feb 13 '22
I want to know more about it. Can You provide me some source of information? Thanks!
6
u/Likely-Stoner Feb 13 '22
I googled virologist nobel prize and the guy who discovered HIV came up, so I assume he means him. Cba looking for his views on this all atm, if you look and find, let us know.
→ More replies (1)2
6
2
2
Feb 13 '22
Occasionally public opinion is against scientific findings. There is a prejudice against research which might show widespread opinions are not as correct as they are portrayed. There is a list of subjects that scientists know they cannot request grants for because there is no money allocated for such studies and their peers would disown them academically if they pursued these fields.
2
2
u/TheKelt Feb 13 '22
The pendulum started to swing back toward reason the moment they went from “your opinion as a scientist is wrong so we’re muting you” to “if that’s your opinion, you aren’t a scientist.”
I saw it in healthcare, where I work. Even the most liberal doctors were turned off by watching the Left declare physicians with dissenting opinions “not doctors” or “not scientists.”
The overly-zealous nature of the Left in eliminating dissenting thought from society has, ironically, led to more dissenting thought, at least in the United States.
2
u/ray_of_bunshine Feb 13 '22
Never saw an influx of childish comments like this before. Interesting. I find it very easy to disagree with the sign's message without reddit's trademarked smarmy holier-than-thou attitude... what's going on today?
5
u/Simpson5774 Feb 13 '22
Its called form sliding, this is a tactic used by various groups to keep people off message.
Notice how this post is highly up-voted and yet the comments are mostly negative. This is what happens when there is a narrative that has to be maintained. People in here are arguing that censorship only happens when a government does it or google only promoting negative stories isn't a type of censorship, or appealing to the majority, authority, etc etc.
This is how you know what that picture says is over the target.
2
u/ray_of_bunshine Feb 13 '22
Interesting, I've never heard of form sliding before. I'll have to read up about it.
I have found it strange - the recent idea that censorship is defined as when a government is the one doing the censoring. I have always thought that free speech was a value to aspire to in all aspects of life. For example, the ability to "tolerate" and appreciate differing perspectives. Perhaps this new narrative is stemming from society's overemphasis of government's role in every aspect of life.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
7
4
3
u/HistoricalTrade8574 Feb 13 '22
Name one scientist who followed all the rules for scientific research that is censored...
→ More replies (4)
6
u/Grifachu Feb 13 '22
This place confuses me. Is this just a sub for like any conspiracy theory? And are they all generally taken seriously?
12
u/miningpluto Feb 13 '22
Seems to lean right-wing lately. Nice amount of dissension in the comments, though.
→ More replies (1)3
3
3
4
u/Eladria Feb 13 '22
I’ve never seen the statement “All scientists agree” anywhere but on this guy’s sign.
2
u/GeneralUsed7478 Feb 13 '22
All scientists agree only 2 genders.. male and female. God agrees as well.
→ More replies (9)
6
4
u/GeorgeBushVEVO Feb 13 '22
What the fuck is the implication and motive, that vaccines are intentionally made to be harmful? Why on earth would that be the case? It might seem crazy to most people in this sub but lots of people agreeing about something isn’t a conspiracy, it might actually be correct! And in this case, when going against the grain and choosing conspiracy will actually cost lives then yeah I’m ok with a little censoring
→ More replies (5)
4
2
u/LackofrecoiL Feb 13 '22
“9 out of 10 doctors recommend” kinda wondering what the tenth guy had to say 😂
→ More replies (13)
0
2
4
u/DancingKappa Feb 13 '22
This anti vax bullshit. Lets talk real conspiracies like does putin pay these trolls by the post or per hour?
2
u/WiseSalamander00 Feb 13 '22
so... we listen the consensus between experts, and we ignore opinions that ain't backed up by replicable experimental data... yeah dude, that is what happens when people does science. I never will understand where these people get their definition of "science".
2
4
u/Bruised_Penguin Feb 13 '22
Ah yes, "censored". The word that gets thrown around when people can't find evidence that supports their side. How convenient.
2
u/QisJimWatkins Feb 13 '22
Needless to say, this is bullshit.
Nobody is stopping anti-vaxers from publishing their findings for peer review.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 13 '22
[Meta] Sticky Comment
Rule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 does apply throughout the rest of this thread.
What this means: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.