COVID Vaccinated Continue to Report Bizarre, Horrific Debilitations a Year Later

[Fledermaus]

Social media is something new, and the big ones are central to all political debate now days. They have no legal obligation to provide anyone a platform. But the federal government DOES have a legal obligation to stay out of it. For example, Biden can't decide that vaccine skepticism is dangerous disinformation, and therefore youtube must ban it. THAT is totally unconstitutional and illegal and just plain WRONG. But it happens anyway.

What obligation does the government have to allow medical disinformation?

 

[Ambig]

By the "other side," I meant the other side of a particular controversy, the side you don't agree with.

Yes, I think I understand. But I rarely see things that way. If the other side aligns with science, I don't call their position disinformation.

In this case, people are endangering lives by pushing disinformation about the vax and masks and social distancing. If those people were on my side, I'd still oppose and try to shame them.

 

[Ambig]

For example, Biden can't decide that vaccine skepticism is dangerous disinformation, and therefore youtube must ban it. THAT is totally unconstitutional and illegal and just plain WRONG. But it happens anyway.

The government threatened YouTube over a video they didn't like? What did the government threaten to do? Can you give me particulars?

 

[Good4Nothin]

What obligation does the government have to allow medical disinformation?

You want the government to decide what is or is not medical disinformation? Really?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yes, I think I understand. But I rarely see things that way. If the other side aligns with science, I don't call their position disinformation.

In this case, people are endangering lives by pushing disinformation about the vax and masks and social distancing. If those people were on my side, I'd still oppose and try to shame them.

The idea of aligning or not aligning with science actually makes no sense. Science is naturally controversial and scientists are allowed and expected to disagree with each other. What is being called "science" now, by the medical authorities, is dogma. It has more in common with the old Catholic Church than with the modern democratic scientific method.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The government threatened YouTube over a video they didn't like? What did the government threaten to do? Can you give me particulars?

The government partners with facebook, google, twitter, youtube, etc., to police online content.

 

[Ambig]

The government partners with facebook, google, twitter, youtube, etc., to police online content.

But what if you are confused? Or even lying?

So I ask again: Can you give me particulars?

What, exactly, is the government doing to police online content?

 

[Ambig]

The idea of aligning or not aligning with science actually makes no sense.

Nonsense. Science says the earth is roundish and orbits around the Sun.

But many of the faithful say that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

Should be lean toward the science or toward the faithful?

Science is naturally controversial and scientists are allowed and expected to disagree with each other. What is being called "science" now, by the medical authorities, is dogma.

Nah. If you believe that, you don't understand how science works.

Dogma. Yikes.

No. Scientific truth -- unlike political or religious truth -- will change in a New York minute if better evidence or explanations come along.

It has more in common with the old Catholic Church than with the modern democratic scientific method.

Yeah, you don't have any idea how science works, I'm pretty sure.

You think it's the same as faith.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Nonsense. Science says the earth is roundish and orbits around the Sun.

But many of the faithful say that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

Should be lean toward the science or toward the faithful?


Nah. If you believe that, you don't understand how science works.

Dogma. Yikes.

No. Scientific truth -- unlike political or religious truth -- will change in a New York minute if better evidence or explanations come along.


Yeah, you don't have any idea how science works, I'm pretty sure.

You think it's the same as faith.

NO, REAL SCIENCE is NOT the same as faith! Take some reading lessons. Dogmatic assertions from the medical authorities IS NOT SCIENCE.

Not allowing any dissenting views IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

[Good4Nothin]

But what if you are confused? Or even lying?

So I ask again: Can you give me particulars?

What, exactly, is the government doing to police online content?

Partnering with social media, which we know is policing online content. Youtube does not allow podcasters to disagree with official dogma on covid vaccines, for example.

 

[Ambig]

Partnering with social media, which we know is policing online content. Youtube does not allow podcasters to disagree with official dogma on covid vaccines, for example.

So you're either fibbing or confused, as I guessed.

You have no idea what the government is doing to police online content.

It's just something you heard on Fox, right?

 

[Ambig]

NO, REAL SCIENCE is NOT the same as faith! Take some reading lessons. Dogmatic assertions from the medical authorities IS NOT SCIENCE.

Not allowing any dissenting views IS NOT SCIENCE.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what science is... at least from the way you talk about it.

 

[Mongidig]

We still have the creeps posting in here?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm surprised @munkle didn't post the story about Dr. James Laidler, who logged into VAERS saying that the vaccine turned him into The Incredible Hulk.

 

[Fledermaus]

You want the government to decide what is or is not medical disinformation? Really?

The question was:

What obligation does the government have to allow medical disinformation?

And it isn't the government so much as the actual doctors, scientists and researchers that have studies COVID.

Not liars found on the innerwebz.

 

[Fledermaus]

Partnering with social media, which we know is policing online content. Youtube does not allow podcasters to disagree with official dogma on covid vaccines, for example.

You can still get your daily disinformation.....

 

[Mika-El]

Nobody is doubting that a few people have adverse reactions to the shot. But almost 5 billion people are vaccinated. I haven’t done the math but it’s something like .00001%.

There are more people with long COVID than that.

Seems like a pretty clear choice.

Well the point Brian of the post pointing out adverse effects is fear mongering. It appeals to fear. It appeals to people to suspend being rational and be afraid.. People like you and I who repeat your point (you do it thank you more briefly than I lol) would to a fear monger never be heard. Their fear will not allow them to entertain any info but the info they want to hear and they want to cause fear in others to rationalize that if their fear is wide spread it must be true.

 

[jaeger19]

The idea of aligning or not aligning with science actually makes no sense. Science is naturally controversial and scientists are allowed and expected to disagree with each other. What is being called "science" now, by the medical authorities, is dogma. It has more in common with the old Catholic Church than with the modern democratic scientific method.

Actually no.
There is a scientific process that you either align with.. if you believe in science.. or you don't. If you do not.

You don;t see the disconnect here. You claim that 'science is now " "dogma".
Okay.. compared to what? What is your alternative to science?

Think about that for more than a minute.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Actually no.
There is a scientific process that you either align with.. if you believe in science.. or you don't. If you do not.

You don;t see the disconnect here. You claim that 'science is now " "dogma".
Okay.. compared to what? What is your alternative to science?

Think about that for more than a minute.

Science is NOT assertions made by authorities. It is the opposite of that.

 

[Fledermaus]

Science is NOT assertions made by authorities. It is the opposite of that.

Quote anyone who stated science is assertions made by authorities.

You can't.

Assertions made by authorities can be based on science. Especially if said authorities are scientists, doctors, etc.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Quote anyone who stated science is assertions made by authorities.

You can't.

Assertions made by authorities can be based on science. Especially if said authorities are scientists, doctors, etc.

If the CDC makes an assertion, you assume it is objectively true and based entirely on solid evidence. You don't doubt or question, because they are scientists.

 

[Fledermaus]

If the CDC makes an assertion, you assume it is objectively true and based entirely on solid evidence. You don't doubt or question, because they are scientists.

Did I say don't doubt or question?

No.

You are free to doubt and question all you want.

But I guarantee the track record of the CDC is head and shoulders of ivermectin suckers and YouTube antivaxxers.

And the CDC consists of the very scientists and doctors who specialize in infectious disease.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Did I say don't doubt or question?

No.

You are free to doubt and question all you want.

But I guarantee the track record of the CDC is head and shoulders of ivermectin suckers and YouTube antivaxxers.

And the CDC consists of the very scientists and doctors who specialize in infectious disease.

And there are other scientists who say the CDC is utterly corrupt. And they have good reasons for saying that.

 

[Fledermaus]

And there are other scientists who say the CDC is utterly corrupt. And they have good reasons for saying that.

So what?

Some scientists say Vitamin C cures cancer.

 

[Good4Nothin]

So what?

Some scientists say Vitamin C cures cancer.

So, in general, we should only believe medical scientists if they agree with the CDC?