But... But... Doctors would say something if the vax was dangerous!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
This statement is referring to doctors just talking. "Providing misinformation."
That's a far cry from what you and I have discussed, which are the ability of scientists and doctors to conduct properly-controlled scientific studies which are then subject to peer review and publication. That is not what is being contested here.
If a doctor says, "The vaccine is a poison that is going to kill you", then they need to back up their statements with actual studies that can prove that. Otherwise, it's considered misinformation. The fact that this information comes from a doctor does not in itself automatically make it credible.
Scientists recognize that VAERS data is not that proof. Anecdotes are not that proof.
But if a doctor wants to run a study and provide actual data for other doctors to review, this statement doesn't appear to suggest they will be disciplined.
Such a study has not been provided to date, to my knowledge.
It's a subtle difference from the outside, but it's a pretty stark distinction to scientists.
I understand the point you're making. I just don't agree with it.
Normal doctors are busy treating patients and aren't set up to perform studies. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, but it can provide evidence powerful enough to change the way you do things. Also, biased, massaged, and misleading scientific studies aren't proof, either. They're propaganda disguised as proof.
nobody in the history of the the world has ever successfully used a "study" to find any long term problem with any vaccine.
therefore, any time a "scientist" claims they "can't find the evidence" that vaccines cause X,
i simply ask them to demonstrate their proficiency in using a study to find any vaccine problem, and invariably they fail to demonstrate proficiency and/or competence.
one "anecdotal" white buffalo is all it takes to debunk 10,000 "scientific studies" that "can't find the evidence" that white buffalo exist.
"anecdotes" are considered "proof" all of the time, in a court of law.
yes, your honor, i "anecdotally" eye-witnessed the defendant commit the crime.
what "isn't" proof, is a scientific study, because we all know that scientists can put whatever data they want into their study, or omit any data they want, to get the pre-determined results they want.
and besides, every atheist knows you can't "prove a negative"
therefore you can't actually prove "vaccines DO NOT cause X".
why does Frank DeStefano still have a job, after publishing this FRAUD?
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14754936/
~ Dr William Thompson, CDC whistleblower
https://i.redd.it/1rb482xb9ty41.png
Not to mention, studies rarely (if ever) receive funding to disprove left wing narratives.
Is is possible for someone to interrupt an alternative point of view as "providing misinformation?"
The problem with your argument is that many Doctors have provided case evidence that would make the need for the shot unnecessary. They have verified and peer reviewed treatment plans using HCQ, Ivermectin, and other natural vitamins that work to eliminate the short term and long term risk of the viral infection.
The track record of those doctors ability to treat and cure the infection is evidence that the world does not need the shots. Natural immune response provides significantly longer lasting results than any of the current shots. Ironically, calling these a vaccine is such a joke as they do not provide immunity. If they did, would not need additional shots?
Think logically, if the shot gave anyone immunity, would you need a third dose or a fourth, etc...
You are waiting for a study to be provided to you by they people that have 0 to gain and thus 0 interest in producing that study.
Yes, it is possible that an alternate point of view can be mislabeled as "providing misinformation."
What you overestimate is the number of scientists that would have a vested interest in lying about this.
The vast majority of scientists do not work for Pfizer. Or Moderna. Or J&J. Or NASA. Or the CDC. Or any of the other scientific institutions that you are concerned with.
Many, many scientists work independently on tenure through university. Tenure prevents people from being fired purely for their academic study interests. On purpose, to prevent exactly this sort of problem from occurring.
Science is FAR more competitive than people here give credit for.
I'm a broken record, but don't forget that the only reason Einstein is famous is because he toppled the existing paradigm set by the world's most famous scientist, Newton.
Almost all scientists, from climate scientists to medical scientists to biologists to random grad students are looking for the evidence that can topple the system. They all want to publish that paper. They want to be the next Einstein and show they were smarter than everyone else in the field.
Which is why scientific consensus is so powerful. If everyone who wants to "win" science agrees on some idea, then we don't have a stronger idea. Because if we did, someone is going to publish it. And it's going to be a big deal.
Just because a study exists doesn't mean it's powerful enough to topple the best existing evidence.
Perhaps one day HCQ and ivermectin will reach that status. But it hasn't happened yet.
Skeptics don't just exist here. There are MANY skeptical scientists. Science is an attractive field for skeptics, and that's an unadulterated truth.
Have you ever heard of the Dead Scientists List?
How have you ruled out the possibility that there are good reasons that highly-educated people tend to lean liberal for reasons other than brainwashing?
https://www.planet-today.com/2021/08/dr-bryan-ardis-exposes-truth-behind.html?m=1#gsc.tab=0
This is a very informative video