Can anyone provide me any good fact-based resources on this so it can't just be dismissed as "coming from obscure conspiracy sites"?
Well, this is pretty simple. Your father's claim that "You're just getting that from conspiracy websites" is a formal fallacy of reasoning. It is a form of what is called "argumentum ad hominem". That is Latin for something like "arguing to the man", as opposed of arguing to the point. In this case "the man" is web sites which do not meet your father's approval, but the underlying reality holds: he is addressing the source of an argument as a way to avoid the actual argument. Even better, I'll give an example:
This is a relatively "obscure conspiracy site", right? I'm going to make a claim. Here it is: 1 + 1 = 2. Is the veracity of the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 compromised by the fact that I am making the claim here on this "obscure conspiracy site" or does it hold because it is true and represents a fact of reality in and of itself?
It is easy to come up with other examples: "fire is hot", "ice is cold", "the force of gravity generally causes what goes up to come back down", etc. All of these are true independent of what site states them.
So how might you use this? You simply point out the objective fact that your father is not refuting anything. He is just criticizing the source without addressing the arguments at all. Therefore, his tactic changes NOTHING.
More to the root regarding to take the experimental jab or to not take the experimental jab, it is really a rather simple choice that is probably best assessed probabilistically. We now have over a year's worth of data as to the risk of dying from the China Virus. The long-term outcome of the experimental injections is essentially unknown. Plus, we have many effective therapeutics with established safety. Beyond that, it is up to the individual: very low, known risk with WuFlu (and therapeutics) or unknown risk with an experimental drug undergoing an unprecedented clinical trial? Seems I've heard of people catching the virus after the injection. Seems I've also heard that there will need to be endless boosters. My faith is in God, my immune system, and well-established prophylactics and therapeutics. Many years from now, if legit data is available, and if my risk profile changes, I might reconsider the injections. For now, the injections just don't seem to make any sense for anyone at all other than those who wish to volunteer for a dangerous clinical trial for whatever reason.
For anyone aware of the election fraud and surrounding reality, there may be further concerns worth considering given that it is mostly the same people we've already caught lying and being generally evil that are now pushing this clinical trial aggressively and trying to bully and frighten people into taking it.
One other fact that comes to mind is that the lobotomy procedure won a Nobel Prize and was highly regarded for many years. As I recall, the first procedures were conducted with the founding doctor's wife's icepick from the kitchen drawer. Point being, we know the so-called scientific establishment can make huge, life-ruining and life-ending mistakes. They have made many and will likely make many more. It is important that people take responsibility for themselves and remember that we are all human and we are all fallible. Choose whom you trust with the utmost care: especially now!
Another notable point is that, even under the exaggerated numbers for the China Virus, it seems to be competing with medical malpractice for a top five position for causing deaths in America. That could theoretically inform an assessment of the clinical trial's risk. I mean a clinical trial has to be more likely to result in your death than standard, well-established medical practice, right? (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us)
Well, this is pretty simple. Your father's claim that "You're just getting that from conspiracy websites" is a formal fallacy of reasoning. It is a form of what is called "argumentum ad hominem". That is Latin for something like "arguing to the man", as opposed of arguing to the point. In this case "the man" is web sites which do not meet your father's approval, but the underlying reality holds: he is addressing the source of an argument as a way to avoid the actual argument. Even better, I'll give an example:
This is a relatively "obscure conspiracy site", right? I'm going to make a claim. Here it is: 1 + 1 = 2. Is the veracity of the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 compromised by the fact that I am making the claim here on this "obscure conspiracy site" or does it hold because it is true and represents a fact of reality in and of itself?
It is easy to come up with other examples: "fire is hot", "ice is cold", "the force of gravity generally causes what goes up to come back down", etc. All of these are true independent of what site states them.
So how might you use this? You simply point out the objective fact that your father is not refuting anything. He is just criticizing the source without addressing the arguments at all. Therefore, his tactic changes NOTHING.
More to the root regarding to take the experimental jab or to not take the experimental jab, it is really a rather simple choice that is probably best assessed probabilistically. We now have over a year's worth of data as to the risk of dying from the China Virus. The long-term outcome of the experimental injections is essentially unknown. Plus, we have many effective therapeutics with established safety. Beyond that, it is up to the individual: very low, known risk with WuFlu (and therapeutics) or unknown risk with an experimental drug undergoing an unprecedented clinical trial? Seems I've heard of people catching the virus after the injection. Seems I've also heard that there will need to be endless boosters. My faith is in God, my immune system, and well-established prophylactics and therapeutics. Many years from now, if legit data is available, and if my risk profile changes, I might reconsider the injections. For now, the injections just don't seem to make any sense for anyone at all other than those who wish to volunteer for a dangerous clinical trial for whatever reason.
For anyone aware of the election fraud and surrounding reality, there may be further concerns worth considering given that it is mostly the same people we've already caught lying and being generally evil that are now pushing this clinical trial aggressively and trying to bully and frighten people into taking it.
One other fact that comes to mind is that the lobotomy procedure won a Nobel Prize and was highly regarded for many years. As I recall, the first procedures were conducted with the founding doctor's wife's icepick from the kitchen drawer. Point being, we know the so-called scientific establishment can make huge, life-ruining and life-ending mistakes. They have made many and will likely make many more. It is important that people take responsibility for themselves and remember that we are all human and we are all fallible. Choose whom you trust with the utmost care: especially now!
Another notable point is that, even under the exaggerated numbers for the China Virus, it seems to be competing with medical malpractice for a top five position for causing deaths in America. That could theoretically inform an assessment of the clinical trial's risk. I mean a clinical trial has to be more likely to result in your death than standard, well-established medical practice, right? (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us)
Good luck!