At least the anti-science people have stopped denying the presence of the virus and the pandemic entirely.
It is always easy to pull snippits from discussions, and at different times in the introduction of the vaccine to me ale w hg steven point you be wish. The data is there though, the number of cases and deaths, the difference between the case loads apparently depending upon the vaccine penetration in the areas. Don't start picking nonsense about side effects now to counter, that has been debunked so often, it makes no sense to argue with people who refuse to listen to reason and science. The evidence of the long term effects of the virus on the brain is astounding, long term permanent effects. Prevention is still the best approach.
On the contrary, I had never been a rebel, always obedient to authority, always believing the authoritieswere acting for our good.
BUT when at the beginning of 2020, as we turned on the news at 4pm, all the reporting became so dire and depressing, and Boris Johnson wheeled out his 3 Sage stooges at 5, and put us all on a war footing, I felt most uneasy, suspicious even.
We turned the TV off for good in March 2020. I started reading between the lines, investigating other scientists' opinions. My wife got the vaccinations, I refused. Ready too fast, experimental technology never used on this scale before, no informed consent with warnings read to patients with the opportunity to say no, a sinister degree of pressure exercised by the government, masks, distancing, attempts to override people's common sense by locking them down (a prison term), whereas previous pandemics had been dealt with sensibly (now look at the huge cost of these "lockdowns")... this just was not normal.
So if you're not at ease, you question everything. In semi-retirement, I had / have the time. I have the sense not to be taken in by charlatans, to see through pretenders. ("Charlatans", by the way, is another key FC term for any scientist they don't like.)
The volume of scientists, studies, research, investigations into the vaccines, the adverse effects, the famous spike protein which can travel everywhere in the body, is enormous. Every day I receive a number of emails containing the latest discoveries and articles. And these are not made of homemade tin hat stuff. These are scientists and intellectuals!
This is not some bagatelle that will go away. It is very very serious.
@WalterF you made your mind up, so let's cease this. I studied the technology at the basis of the mRNA vaccines be, for m the vantage point of future vaccines, since the 1990s. We were trying to prepare for the next pandemic, natural or man-caused after the first attack on the world trade center. We hope to feel and an mRNA vaccines to revolutionalize influenza vaccine. It takes too long by come up with the annual flu vaccine.
IF of course the quotes are fair and accurate, given we don't know their contexts and qualifying comments by the same people...
.... I am surprised Drs. Fauci and Walensky would say that, but perhaps just as surprisingly, at least Bill Gates is nearer the facts than the rest.
I think I can see what Bourla means but he might have worded it a bit better! The vaccines are meant to protect us, not the virii!
"No we know..,." Do we? I have no idea if Maddow is a experienced science and medicine journalist, a general reporter or simply the news-reader; nor can I judge MSNBC's probity or know if she said that[i] as part of [/i]a clear statement of personal opinion or within a news report. it's certainly not correct because SARS_CoVid_19 and its brothers, wherever they came from (still not known for sure) like humans and are here to stay... just as are poliomyelitis, tetanus and various others diseases most of us have been vaccinated against without all this pseudo-political campaigning. Even Bubonic Plague is still about, though rare.
Re Gates' comment: The anti-vaccine, pro-disease lobby seem to think themselves immune and immortal, and not to care about infecting other people.
Frankly, rogues' galleries of mug-shots and carefully-plucked opinions are about as sincere and reliable as 'Happy Christmas from President Xi'.
@ArishMell This was a recording made of an MEP speaking during a session of the parliament. Not anything else! Not a trailer for her latest book, not a press conference... That should be clear from the video?
Probably not a scientist, but not a simpleton either. She will have done a lot of research before reaching these conclusions, with the confidence to present them before a fairly distinguished public.
(Please remember that "doing research" does not mean making notes from newspaper and TV reports. It means disregarding the fact-checkers' blanket rubbishing of all non-compliant sources, no matter how qualified and experienced they are. It means realising that censorship is going on, and penetrating the barriers, to find hidden facts and the TRUTH)
@WalterF Sorry - I did not realise it was from a video; but please do explain who is censoring what for whose benefit, and how do you know they are doing it and how you know for whom!
(I appreciate politicians will put a slant on things for partisanship, and obviously commercial interests are trying to sell us something.)
@ArishMell Three years of research, prompted by the suspicion right from the start that this whole business wasn't as clear cut as they said, has led me to the 100% certainty that it has all been engineered, AGAINST the interests of the ordinary person.
I will send you more info by PM. But to do the research you have to be brave, and persistent. The firewall is so strong that you will be tempted to give in.
Here's an example. Below is the mini-cv of one Mike Adams. Not an unaccomplished person. Yet look him up on Google and the first entries will (I'm certain) warn you to stay away from this man who has the audacity to "peddle" (fact-checkers' favourite word) "quack cures" (another favourite), and therefore must be avoided! (Remember that natural remedies make not a single cent for BigPharma.)
@WalterF I do. I think it's wise to know one's adversary or opponent. There's also always the hope of compromise and not understanding what the other wants is remiss. There's also the outside chance you make a point I hadn't considered or didn't have the information for.
That said, I think you and I might disagree on what actually constitutes a legitimate source.
@Graylight Well, I am perfectly willing to send you a few of my sources by PM, if you want. The condition would be that you check these out directly on their own sites, sampling and evaluating the content by your own judgement, WITHOUT passing via the "fact-checkers", who will INEVITABLY systematically destroy every one of these voices, for the simple reason that they are dissenters.
They can be scientists with faultless records of service and decades of relevant pharma and medical experience, with many papers to their names - yet they will be dismissed as misled and misleaders of others by those appointed to police the information that is allowed out.
An ex-head of Pfizer - should his views not be listened to? They say no, he's a renegade for this reason or that reason, and no attention whatsoever must be paid to his writings. He will be "spreading disinformation" and therefore "harming people" and quite possibly "killing people", and should be considered as a "terrorist". You know how it goes! systematic character assassination, using the worn old tropes of the Guardians of The Science.
Their interest is in preserving the fragility of The Science, in all its one-sided glory. The ex-Pfizer man mentioned is concerned, not with biased blinkered stuff, but with REAL science - key words: debate, discussion, sharing of ideas, with the aim of furthering knowledge and finding the best way forward to treat the ill. NOT protecting at all costs the preserve of those who refuse discussion and hang on grimly to the interpretation that best suits them and their vested interests.
