You say: If anything, the last two years have shown us that Milgram's results were spot on. If told by authorities to commit atrocities, huge majority of the population went along with it. This is true to some degree, but not a very close comparison.
Yes a great majority of medical personnel did go alone with what was tantamount to to harming people, but they did not do so based solely on the real or perceived authority of another, which was the case in the Milgram experiment, but were motivated by many other factors like financial, peer pressure, etc.
Lets imagine that the Milgram experiment was setup such that experimenter told the person in the role of teacher, that upon each wrong answer he would have to administer the shock to the other person, and if he did not, then the shock would be given to him instead. This would bring in motivational factor of harm to self if one did not follow command of authority. That experiment would be much more close to Covid parameters.
Next point:
Your claim that what we have learned in the two years with a great majority of people blindly following the Covid narrative has merit, but we have also learned a great deal in the last few years about a subject that equally adds I think a greater degree of merit to claim that experiment results were faked.
We now are very aware of the propensity of scientific researchers to fake study/experiment result in the interest of funding, and for the attention gleaned by getting the papers on medical journals, so they can keep there jobs, so they can appear respected among the equally corrupt peers. As Dr. Willie Soon stated in Trucker interview, that 80-90% of published papers should not be published.
My question is simple: Does the information that was purportedly left out of the study paper seen here exist or not.
If the information does exist, and was left out of the paper, then the results were faked. If not then maybe it is as you claim.
I'd like to respectfully argue the following:
You say: If anything, the last two years have shown us that Milgram's results were spot on. If told by authorities to commit atrocities, huge majority of the population went along with it. This is true to some degree, but not a very close comparison.
Yes a great majority of medical personnel did go alone with what was tantamount to to harming people, but they did not do so based solely on the real or perceived authority of another, which was the case in the Milgram experiment, but were motivated by many other factors like financial, peer pressure, etc.
Lets imagine that the Milgram experiment was setup such that experimenter told the person in the role of teacher, that upon each wrong answer he would have to administer the shock to the other person, and if he did not, then the shock would be given to him instead. This would bring in motivational factor of harm to self if one did not follow command of authority. That experiment would be much more close to Covid parameters.
Next point:
Your claim that what we have learned in the two years with a great majority of people blindly following the Covid narrative has merit, but we have also learned a great deal in the last few years about a subject that equally adds I think a greater degree of merit to claim that experiment results were faked.
We now are very aware of the propensity of scientific researchers to fake study/experiment result in the interest of funding, and for the attention gleaned by getting the papers on medical journals, so they can keep there jobs, so they can appear respected among the equally corrupt peers. As Dr. Willie Soon stated in Trucker interview, that 80-90% of published papers should not be published.
My question is simple: Does the information that was purportedly left out of the study paper seen here exist or not.
If the information does exist, and was left out of the paper, then the results were faked. If not then maybe it is as you claim.