Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Yet they're still pushing it!

[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]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Source please
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Whatawebsite Source? Facts. Readily available to all.
@WalterF Anyone can write what they want, is this information from a medical journal or from a government institution?
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Whatawebsite It is collated information from all available sources. (It's not only medical journals and government institutions that can summarise and express such data.)

If you have any doubts about the veracity of any of these, then please check them out
@WalterF I will just take the information posted as fake untill I know the source comes from a creditable institution
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Whatawebsite That's your right and privilege. It does seem like a strange way to approach life, but each of us is (for now) free to believe what he wishes.
@WalterF Thats why when I state something I know its coming from a creditable source
WalterF · 70-79, M
@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.
@WalterF Posting something where you cant name where you found the written material is certainly not creditable.
WalterF · 70-79, M
@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.