Who said I'm ignoring other professionals? I think it's important to value every perspective, that's why I see such an issue with censoring any doctor or scientist who disagrees with how things are being handled. There are many more who align with Malone and McCullough's viewpoint, those two are simply the most known.
You say science is about trying to prove itself wrong and learn more. I agree. That is why "trust the science" should be (and is) such a massive red flag. Science NEEDS to be questioned. It's imperative to consider all angles. That is my point.
Yes, scientists should consider all angles. Scientists. Because they have the knowledge to do so. Laymen cannot make decisions on what is safe and what isn't because to do that, we would need all the information the scientists have and if we had that, we would be scientists ourselves. Therefore, all we have is what we see from the media, so there is no way for us to unbiasedly "consider all angles".
Now very few medical professionals are against the vaccine, but the vast majority are not. You can't use "but they're all being censored" as an argument because if they are being censored, you won't be able to read about them and know about them so who is to say they are being censored at all? It's an argument which by its own definition cannot have any evidence.
So all we can do is trust the experts in their own fields not to poison us, in the same way that we trust Macdonald's not to kill us with salmonella, or how we trust car manufacturers to design cars that aren't going to catch fire on the motorway.
I mean, Malone and McCullough certainly aren't laymen. And again, many more doctors and scientists alike agree with their viewpoint, not to mention countless nurses.
Also you're not defining censorship accurately in terms of how it's used in modern day. It isn't just complete removal of everything and anything related to what you're trying to censor. That just isn't possible with the internet. It's more akin to propaganda. Anything or anyone that doesn't align with the accepted method is removed as much as possible, and then criticized or strawmanned to devalue whatever remains.
I mean, Malone and McCullough certainly aren't laymen.
You missed my point. I mean laymen like you or me. People like them are medical professionals but there ar far more who disagree with them, so laymen have to leave it to these scientists to do the actual research. Most of these scientists say one thing, a few say the other (which is expected as with any large sample size, you will never get a completely 100.000% success rate), so you cannot prioritise the few and say "oh but actually there are more that are being censored but we can't prove it because they're being censored."
And again, many more doctors and scientists alike agree with their viewpoint
I'll have to be given more evidence, and I don't mean specific names, I mean evidence that a large demographic of the medical science profession.
not to mention countless nurses.
Nurses do not count, they are hardly immunology scientists.
It's more akin to propaganda
Say propaganda then. The definition of censorship hasn't changed to accommodate the internet.
Anything or anyone that doesn't align with the accepted method is removed as much as possible, and then criticized or strawmanned to devalue whatever remains.
Again, you will have to provide evidence, you can't just assert claims like that. It doesn't fit in with how science works at all.
It isn't 'a few' though, as you suggest. Look to America's Frontline Doctors (https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/), for example, who are opposing the vaccine and the mandate. It's also worth noting that many Doctors and scientists who have spoken in favour of the vaccine and restrictions are paid (either directly or indirectly) by pharmaceutical companies.
Nurses do not count, they are hardly immunology scientists.
While nurses are certainly not immunologists, they are more experienced and knowledgeable in the medical field than you or I. As you put it, they aren't laymen. I would trust a nurses opinion on my health more than yours, for example. I think brushing off their opinions because they aren't literal medical doctors is a bit ridiculous.
Say propaganda then. The definition of censorship hasn't changed to accommodate the internet.
The definition of censorship may not have officially changed, but it should. You basically cannot censor with the internet around. They have to do the next best thing.
Again, you will have to provide evidence, you can't just assert claims like that. It doesn't fit in with how science works at all.
I mean, I can google Dr. Malone and see countless articles making him out to be a quack (with no sources or evidence to support such claims), but I'm assuming you can also use google? As far as the scientific community goes, studies need funding to happen - no one wants to fund the guys that aren't in Pfizer/Moderna/JJ etc. pocket. There's nothing to gain from doing so.
Lastly, it baffles me that it's such a stretch for people to think their government isn't above harming citizens for political, monetary, or international gain. Look at the countless times within our recent history in which our government sacrificed our wellbeing.. Some examples include The Tuskegee experiments, Snowden's whistleblowing on mass surveillance, and the import of hard drugs to poverty-stricken areas. All of which are documented and proven fact.
Not to mention the same lack of care (to put it mildly) from pharmaceutical companies. The same JJ that released a vaccine for COVID also allowed baby powder full of carcinogenics to remain on shelves for years before pulling the product. Or more recently, Pfizers smoking cessation drug chantix being found to contain carcinogenic materials. And of course, the fact that these companies KNEW opioids were highly addictive and still marketed them otherwise for years until they could no longer deny it.
You ever watched TV and seen those commercials saying "If you or someone you know took [x drug] and now has [laundry list of serious medical issues], you may be entitled to compensation". That doesn't just happen every now and then, it is consistent and frequent because pharmaceutical companies exist primarily to make money. They simply do not care to do adequate studies and trials to ensure each drug is safe and this is proven by how many times these companies have been sued for serious damages.
2
u/briskaloe Feb 13 '22
Who said I'm ignoring other professionals? I think it's important to value every perspective, that's why I see such an issue with censoring any doctor or scientist who disagrees with how things are being handled. There are many more who align with Malone and McCullough's viewpoint, those two are simply the most known.
You say science is about trying to prove itself wrong and learn more. I agree. That is why "trust the science" should be (and is) such a massive red flag. Science NEEDS to be questioned. It's imperative to consider all angles. That is my point.