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:
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?
I don’t know what that means.
Suppose that somebody with a PhD who has been studying a subject for over a decade as a full time job actually does understand the climate better than you do. Just imagine it for the sake of this example.
And imagine that a better understanding of the climate, based on eight hours a day for a decade of studying the climate, actually did tend to lead them to a liberal conclusion on how to address climate change.
How would you ever know if you hadn’t also spent that much time studying the climate? How could you conclude that they’re brainwashed for CERTAIN, and that it wasn’t you who was lacking the information to come to the correct solution for the problem?