re: 37% of placentas from jabbed mothers contain spike protein

quote:

---

So how do we tell the difference between bad crisis communication and deliberate lying?

---

One way to do it is consider those out front of the effort. In this case, we're mostly talking about politicians in white coats with a few greedy bastards thrown in to help lead the sheep (sheep being rank/file medicine).

When that's considered, I think it's fair to assume that the probability something like "there is no natural immunity with Covid" is a deliberate lie is about 90%.

There was a method to their madness. Every last one involved knew exactly what that shite was gonna do. They weren’t doing trials for safety, they were researching how much damage they could cause

And all you Shot takers can go frick off.

quote:

---

There are not enough hours in the day to link all the stupid shite this board has spewed about the vax the last five years. lmao.

quote:

---

I was repeatedly told by this board that I would be dead by now from the vax and it's been going on 5 years on since I got the two doses and I'm not dead like the poliboard vaxx experts said I would be.

---

---

So no examples of your claim? Why am I not surprised?

quote:

---

My daughter got the jab and is having trouble getting pregnant and has spent a lot of her money and my money to get pregnant. She is actually heading to Little Rock this next week to start the process.

---

My sister never got jab and has struggled to get pregnant.

quote:

---

Science does usually converge on better answers over time is b/c it’s a community process where researchers replicate each other’s work, criticize it, argue about it, have incentives to prove each other wrong, etc.

---

"Science" does no such thing. "Science" is a method; scientists are just people, and people have their own motivations. They lie, cheat and steal on the bell curve just like everybody else and they do not deserve some inherent trust just because they profess to use the scientific method.

Excellent. Now you're pushing this the right way - If experts are fallible humans (and you're right, they are), how should citizens decide what to believe?

Scientists definitely aren’t saints & scientific methods don’t magically purify human nature. The reason science works better than most ways of figuring things out in spite of this (e.g. even compared to great internet debate/discussion ) is that the system is built around the very expectation that scientists will be wrong, biased, or overly confident sometimes and has a system for compensating for this (it's a little like the adversarial legal system -we don’t trust either lawyer to tell the whole truth, but generally trust the whole process to mostly sort it out). Science has its own special social-epistemic tech for that that have gotten us to the moon, eradicated smallpox, split atoms, etc. So the reliability of science doesn’t come from trusting scientists.

To go back to my point about epistemic citizenship, though, there are "layers" of exposure to science, and the hard part for citizens is that we usually see the public messaging layer, not the messy actual adversarial argument underneath it. So we end up asking “should we trust these people?” when they are skeptically sorting things out. The more relevant question for citizens is “has the wider scientific community had time to test and argue over this claim yet?” If they have, we should trust provisionally (not totally, because even the system errs, at least for a time). If not, that's another ball of wax.

quote:

---

Also appreciated this
quote:
I have also been aggressive at replacing vit D prior to COVID and encouraged all my pt's to take zinc and vitamin C.

---

Was also using hydroxychloroquine with great effect and later added Ivermectin. Helped having a wife with a pharmacy. We also refused to give the vaccine. Conservatively we could've made $1-1.5 million by giving it, but I refused to be complicit. My conscious is clear and now I'm in a position to prevent it from happening again.

quote:

---

Your side made the very confident claim that millions would drop dead within 3 years and crickets....

---

It will be explained off as best it can be, whatever the totals, by the medical establishment. But speaking of predictions where are your sides dire global warming and climate change predictions we’ve heard for decades???

Yes, you've said that before. Trust in public health and medical institutions took a real hit during the pandemic. It exposed how fragile the relationship between science, politics, and public trust really is and a lot of people who weren’t especially political about medicine before now view it through a much more skeptical lens. The part I wrestle with is what a society does after that kind of trust shock. Most people don’t want to become their own epidemiologist or immunologist (I agree), and realistically they can’t. Out of curiosity, what would rebuilding that trust actually look like from your perspective? Apology? More transparency? Different messaging? Less political involvement? Something else?