[b]... so all these facts need the attention of the "fact-checkers" so that they can impose their own version of the facts. (Here’s a heads-up: [i]"No, these vaccines are perfectly safe and effective, especially for women of child-bearing age")[/i][/b]
@Whatawebsite Define credible. It all turns on that. Does "credible" mean singing from exactly the same songsheet as all those in the public eye who push the same message day after day?
Remember that, in science and elsewhere, a CONSENSUS means an agreement between different sides of an argument / proposition. There can be no consensus when the views of the other side are stifled and smothered. This is why the "trust the science" slogan is flawed.
@Whatawebsite I can name it. I choose not to. Know why? Because you have been trained to rush to a "fact-checker" site - any one will do, they're all paid to fulfill their mission to deny any material contrary to The Message - key in the name of the person / publication / journal in question, and gratify yourself on the usual artificial take-downs, mostly beginning by " No, there aren't..." or " No, it hasn't..."
I reject these facile responses, so I won't give anyone the pleasure of churning them out here.
And then, if I say, "Check it out for yourself, explore a bit" you will say you can't possibly do that! You have been trained NOT to think for yourself. To believe that thinking for oneself is naive and "harms people" (the new thought crime of the covid era).
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but I've had enough of people who don’t listen to the two sides and make their own minds up, preferring to believe the wall-to-wall propaganda.
You don't need to know the source; you need to consider the FACTS PRESENTED. Only you can do that.
