I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I think there is a space for people who want to eliminate the corruption in our government but sees the development of a vaccine for a global pandemic as an achievement of regular people like us that benefits people like us.

In regular times, sure, that would be a great goal. But consider, even if you take the data at face value (for how many deaths there are, mortality rate), we are talking about a virus which is equivalent to a bad-to-severe flu, but nowhere near catastrophic levels. With a few obvious caveats of how it effects the old & the fact that none of the population (or very little, if you assume T-cell immunity) had immunity, and thus, it could spread more easily.

And all of that is IF you assume the numbers at face value to be true, which is quite dubious, as they've been manipulated up the wazoo. Does a, at worst, severe flu, justify: draconian measures, lockdowns, a loss of several freedoms, mask mandates, basically coerced vaccinations, and so forth? I think we all instinctively know the answer to that.

Forcing a vaccine on the population, one with this amount of risk, for a virus which isn't like the plague or something, and where you'll have severe consequences for not taking it (no air travel at the bare minimum, though, it's quite likely they'll even start restricting employment, restaurants, grocery stores, and banks for vaccinated people only), is just down right immoral and tyrannical.

Once you dig more into the adverse effects & looming questions about the vaccines, as well as, "why would they do this?" (hint: great reset, control, division, etc.), I suspect you'll come to a similar conclusion. If you come to this conclusion, and are a well-meaning person (as you seem to be), I'm highly doubtful you would push the pro-vaccine narrative.

LoobintheToobin is the user who posts the weekly updates. He's been a hero. I haven't vetted all of the material myself, but, I've seen enough to be highly skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine. I'd only ever consider it after one of the more traditional types of vaccines (one where you get a small amount of the virus injected into you), is tested properly, for a few years, with typical vaccine side effects & in typical percentages of the population for these side effects.

His most recent thread:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhinjJH/weekly-update-vaccinations/

You can look through more of their comment history for additional details.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I think there is a space for people who want to eliminate the corruption in our government but sees the development of a vaccine for a global pandemic as an achievement of regular people like us that benefits people like us.

In regular times, sure, that would be a great goal. But consider, even if you take the data at face value (for how many deaths there are, mortality rate), we are talking about a virus which is equivalent to a bad-to-severe flu, but nowhere near catastrophic levels. With a few obvious caveats of how it effects the old & the fact that none of the population (or very little, if you assume T-cell immunity) had immunity, and thus, it could spread more easily.

And all of that is IF you assume the numbers at face value to be true, which is quite dubious, as they've been manipulated up the wazoo. Does a, at worst, severe flu, justify: draconian measures, lockdowns, a loss of several freedoms, mask mandates, basically coerced vaccinations, and so forth? I think we all instinctively know the answer to that.

Forcing a vaccine on the population, one with this amount of risk, for a virus which isn't like the plague or something, and where you'll have severe consequences for not taking it (no air travel at the bare minimum, though, it's quite likely they'll even start restricting employment, restaurants, grocery stores, and banks for vaccinated people only), is just down right immoral and tyrannical.

Once you dig more into the adverse effects & looming questions about the vaccines, as well as, "why would they do this?" (hint: great reset, control, division, etc.), I suspect you'll come to a similar conclusion. If you come to this conclusion, and are a well-meaning person (as you seem to be), I'm highly doubtful you would push the pro-vaccine narrative.

LoobintheToobin is the user who posts the weekly updates. He's been a hero. I haven't vetted all of the material myself, but, I've seen enough to be highly skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine. I'd only ever consider it after one of the more traditional types of vaccines (one where you get a small amount of the virus injected into you), is tested properly, for a few years, with typical vaccine side effects & in typical percentages of the population for these side effects.

His most recent thread:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhinjJH/weekly-update-vaccinations/

You can look through more of their comment history for additional details.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I think there is a space for people who want to eliminate the corruption in our government but sees the development of a vaccine for a global pandemic as an achievement of regular people like us that benefits people like us.

In regular times, sure, that would be a great goal. But consider, even if you take the data at face value (for how many deaths there are, mortality rate), we are talking about a virus which is equivalent to a bad-to-severe flu, but nowhere near catastrophic levels. With a few obvious caveats of how it effects the old & the fact that none of the population (or very little, if you assume T-cell immunity) had immunity, and thus, it could spread more easily.

And all of that is IF you assume the numbers at face value to be true, which is quite dubious, as they've been manipulated up the wazoo. Does a, at worst, severe flu, justify: draconian measures, lockdowns, a loss of several freedoms, mask mandates, basically coerced vaccinations, and so forth? I think we all instinctively know the answer to that.

Forcing a vaccine on the population, one with this amount of risk, for a virus which isn't like the plague or something, and where you'll have severe consequences for not taking it (no air travel at the bare minimum, though, it's quite likely they'll even start restricting employment, restaurants, grocery stores, and banks for vaccinated people only), is just down right immoral and tyrannical.

Once you dig more into the adverse effects & looming questions about the vaccines, as well as, "why would they do this?" (hint: great reset, control, division, etc.), I suspect you'll come to a similar conclusion. If you come to this conclusion, and are a well-meaning person (as you seem to be), I'm highly doubtful you would push the pro-vaccine narrative.

LoobintheToobin is the user who posts the weekly updates. He's been a hero. I haven't vetted all of the material myself, but, I've seen enough to be highly skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine. I'd only ever consider it after one of the more traditional types of vaccines (one where you get a small amount of the virus injected into you), is tested properly, for a few years, with typical vaccine side effects & in typical percentages of the population for these side effects.

His/her most recent thread:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhinjJH/weekly-update-vaccinations/

You can look through more of their comment history for additional details.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I think there is a space for people who want to eliminate the corruption in our government but sees the development of a vaccine for a global pandemic as an achievement of regular people like us that benefits people like us.

In regular times, sure, that would be a great goal. But consider, even if you take the data at face value (for how many deaths there are, mortality rate), we are talking about a virus which is equivalent to a bad-to-severe flu, but nowhere near catastrophic levels. With a few obvious caveats of how it effects the old & the fact that none of the population (or very little, if you assume T-cell immunity) had immunity, and thus, it could spread more easily. And all of that is IF you assume the numbers at face value to be true, which is quite dubious, as they've been manipulated up the wazoo. Does a severe flu justify draconian measures, lockdowns, a loss of several freedoms, mask mandates, and so forth? I think we all instinctively know the answer to that.

Forcing a vaccine on the population, one with this amount of risk, for a virus which isn't like the plague or something, and where you'll have severe consequences for not taking it (no air travel at the bare minimum, though, it's quite likely they'll even start restricting employment, restaurants, grocery stores, and banks for vaccinated people only), is just down right immoral and tyrannical.

Once you dig more into the adverse effects & looming questions about the vaccines, as well as, "why would they do this?" (hint: great reset, control, division, etc.), I suspect you'll come to a similar conclusion. If you come to this conclusion, and are a well-meaning person (as you seem to be), I'm highly doubtful you would push the pro-vaccine narrative.

LoobintheToobin is the user who posts the weekly updates. He's been a hero. I haven't vetted all of the material myself, but, I've seen enough to be highly skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine. I'd only ever consider it after one of the more traditional types of vaccines (one where you get a small amount of the virus injected into you), is tested properly, for a few years, with typical vaccine side effects & in typical percentages of the population for these side effects.

His/her most recent thread:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhinjJH/weekly-update-vaccinations/

You can look through more of their comment history for additional details.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I think there is a space for people who want to eliminate the corruption in our government but sees the development of a vaccine for a global pandemic as an achievement of regular people like us that benefits people like us.

In regular times, sure, that would be a great goal. But consider, even if you take the data at face value (for how many deaths there are, mortality rate), we are talking about a virus which is equivalent to a bad-to-severe flu, but nowhere near catastrophic levels. With a few obvious caveats of how it effects the old. And that's IF you assume the numbers at face value to be true, which is quite dubious, as they've been manipulated up the wazoo.

Forcing a vaccine on the population, one with this amount of risk, for a virus which isn't like the plague or something, and where you'll have severe consequences for not taking it (no air travel at the bare minimum, though, it's quite likely they'll even start restricting employment, restaurants, grocery stores, and banks for vaccinated people only), is just down right immoral and tyrannical.

Once you dig more into the adverse effects & looming questions about the vaccines, as well as, "why would they do this?" (hint: great reset, control, division, etc.), I suspect you'll come to a similar conclusion. If you come to this conclusion, and are a well-meaning person (as you seem to be), I'm highly doubtful you would push the pro-vaccine narrative.

LoobintheToobin is the user who posts the weekly updates. He's been a hero. I haven't vetted all of the material myself, but, I've seen enough to be highly skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine. I'd only ever consider it after one of the more traditional types of vaccines (one where you get a small amount of the virus injected into you), is tested properly, for a few years, with typical vaccine side effects & in typical percentages of the population for these side effects.

His/her most recent thread:

https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkhinjJH/weekly-update-vaccinations/

You can look through more of their comment history for additional details.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine are probably well meaning individuals, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details about the vaccines which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I believe the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound remotely like reality/the truth).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (given that nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

It can be corrupted to avoid finding certain scientific truths, or, in some cases, even publishing pseudo-science. Drawing conclusions which aren't necessarily clear from the data. I think the second case is more prevalent in the social sciences, but, probably occurs to some degree in the hard sciences (I've seen some silly results which wreck of this, pushing a particular political narrative that at a gut-level doesn't sound like the real result).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

One right-wing politician pushed climate change because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated population for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID, given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

In the documentary for climate change, one politician pushed it because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated populated for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still too new and fresh to all of this, and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole. Or, some combination of the two is true.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

In the documentary for climate change, one politician pushed it because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated populated for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still to new and fresh and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

In the documentary for climate change, one politician pushed it because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines are being censored/silenced, along with all of the other details which are shared here and on similar forums, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated populated for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was one of the bigger red flags.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community here do have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still to new and fresh and haven't gone that far down the rabbit hole.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

In the documentary for climate change, one politician pushed it because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.

Take-away point, while most of the scientists working on the vaccine might very well be well meaning, the direction the community is being pushed on this particular issue is very concerning. Add that to the fact that scientists who work with vaccines being censored/silenced, and well, you get the idea.

I'll have to take a closer look. To be honest the primary source is also terribly written and formatted too haha. Someone should tell these guys if they ever want to be believed they need to look the part!

Yes, it was poorly formatted. I do have some questions about their analysis, it is crude, and could take into account some more variables (like, was there a measurable difference between the vaccinated population & the un-vaccinated populated for underlying conditions, which could arise if people of the middle-age group who got the vaccine were the ones who thought they were more likely to suffer from COVID given they had underlying conditions ... if so, it would be good to see some analysis which takes this into account, and see how much the 260x drops ... I suspect this would not account for a 260x increase, but, maybe it drops to something like 100-150x). Overall, their analysis does take into account the bulk numbers, and it is difficult to write-off a 260x difference.

And I knew the definition of shill, I just meant I didn't know if being pro-vaccine automatically made me one.

There is diversity among the community here, but, there are some things the vast majority have consensus on. If you violate one of those, it's a red flag. Anti-COVID19-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and, distrust of most of the government, are probably some of these key issues.

I believe there are some here who are anti-vax in general, and some here who are just against the COVID-19 vaccine and ones like it (experimental, rushed, etc.). I fall into the second category.

And when I called you a potential shill, maybe a bit hastily, I was drawing from your brief comment history. Not just this single post. I will return to your comment on my thread about climate change later. This post in particular was a good one to single out, as it was the biggest red flag.

Some times I worry that people's engagement and distrust of government leads spirals into distrust of other aspects of society that may or may not warrant it.

Yes, I believe some of the members of the community have a tenancy to make connections where I think there likely are none. They are well meaning, and have seen enough shit to end up in this mindset. Alternatively, I'm still to new and fresh and haven't gone that far down the rabbit whole.

But, there is a lot of reason to distrust the government (Trump & company being an exception). Once you see the blatant lies and hostile actions taken against the people, through the politicians, MSM, Big Tech, etc., you begin to become very skeptical of anything they say. There might be a kernel of truth to it, but, plenty proves to be false or misconstrued. You see that enough, and well, you end up quickly distrusting the government.

Personally, I don't have as much of a distrust of the scientific community and therefore the vaccine.

I'm also a scientist. At least for the time being (thinking about changing the direction of my career, given the toxic culture in the Universities at the moment, where you can be doxxed for saying anything that steps outside of the Leftist narrative a bit.)

My research touches on climate science, but, I haven't had to dig too deeply into the particulars for my particular projects. Plenty of the articles I read implicitly rely on models which tie CO2 and temperature together, and so, they assume the meta-narrative of climate change is mostly correct.

In any event, since I've taken the time to look into climate change more thoroughly, I have concerns about said papers and their results. The overall methods of the articles are probably generally sound, but, that assumption alone about CO2-temperature relationships would change the overall results. I'm still investigating. Will comment more on this on the other thread about climate change.

I personally don't have a distrust of the individual scientists in the scientific community, at least for the most part. They are generally well-meaning people, many of whom are just going with what they know. In terms of their politics, they are either obliviously Leftists, or, are frightened conservatives who are afraid to expose themselves as such.

Here's where my distrust comes in. The scientist community isn't a single entity. It has external forces which push on it (e.g., funding, politics, culture), and it has internal forces (people who have been indoctrinated, activists, etc.).

The documentary on the climate change thread actually gives a great example of this. A convergence of forces, which push the scientific community to seek results of a particular type, ask certain types of questions, avoid certain types of conclusions, and so forth. This is like a low-key corruption, where most of the scientists aren't aware of the extent it is taking place.

In the documentary for climate change, one politician pushed it because it helped them shift the political winds from fossil fuels to nuclear (because nuclear doesn't have significant CO2 emissions), environmentalists jumped on board because it helped justify their goals & gain funding, bad political actors (communists) liked it because it helped advance their goals, and so forth. This quickly led to a tonne of additional funding to the field, and, high personal and professional costs to anyone who dared to challenge the theory of climate change. Feedback effects, essentially.