"If you know any anti-vaxxers on social media, scroll over to their feed and look for some sciency-looking research that warns of the alleged dangers of COVID vaccines. Copy the name of the first author listed on the paper and stick it in Google. Does he or she have relevant credentials?"
Information comes to us from many sources, it doesn't just exist in statistics and scientific papers. When we work out the truth of something we need to take into consideration all the information we have access to. When we were first told of an alleged covid pandemic, I didn't know a jab was coming but had I known I would have decided against getting it then and there on account of the images against reality we were shown of people falling flat on their faces and lying on the ground and on hospital floors https://twitter.com/rachadchahine/status/1220785179146563585. These were clear signs of a psyop followed by a few others.
I have very little interest in people's credentials these days as I know they mean so little, what I'm interested in is their argument and the argument against what they say if there is one and then what their argument is against the argument against theirs. I knew there would be no special virus before a number of doctors and scientists came out and said there wasn't so I wasn't going to get the jab regardless of safety and efficacy because I knew it wasn't a matter of safety or efficacy it was a matter of requirement - there simply is no requirement for the jab regardless of anything else.
Two fundamental rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong - this does not mean blindly accepting what is said in scientific papers. This means engaging with material that comes out against the mainstream narrative with a reasonable degree of rigour
2. Confine your analysis to the most unarguable-with data
Here are two pieces of very common sense unarguable-with data:
1. If we weren't told about a pandemic 24/7 by goverment and media we'd have zero clue there was one.
2. As covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and there is no gold standard test (thus it is not a clinically diagnosed condition), if testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way of knowing if someone had covid or nothing at all or a cold, flu, pneumonia whatever.
"The JCVI says young children are at very low risk of developing severe disease from Covid, while most will have gained natural immunity from infections."
This is not the beginning of a long debate. I am busy. Trying to convince an investigative journalist that mind-control conspiracy theories and anti-vax woo are based on great research is a silly hobby. Please go away and annoy someone else. Or read a book!
Think about COVID from a public health perspective. The antibodies in the global population were a rounding error close to 0% in March 2020. This is a catastrophic situation for a new disease. I know you will refuse to do the reading, but if anyone else is following, read about the waves of coronavirus pandemics that devastated China at the end of the Northern Song dynasty (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/meet-the-family).
The risks were off the charts in 2020: Massive numbers of deaths, hospitals collapsing, the disease mutating, linger after-effects of the disease, etc. From a public health point of view, the authorities had to do two things: (A) Slow the spread of the disease and (B) get antibodies into the population as safely as possible.
So, actions in (A) included lockdowns, social distancing measures, masks, hand hygiene, strict travel rules, etc. The vaccines were the key part of (B). Of course, (A) and (B) worked synergistically together. Many people, including me and my family, delayed catching the disease until we were vaccinated. You can quibble about the rules, but the general approach was absolutely sound.
We recently entered a new phase. Antibodies are now widely spread throughout the population. That means that many of the rules imposed to cover (A) and (B) can be rethought.
There is nothing sinister here. Flu vaccines are highly recommended for some people, but not necessary for everyone. Young children mostly got very mild versions of the disease.
Also, the authorities did not "ban" vaccines for children. That is misinformation spread by people with anti-science agendas. Vaccines will no longer be offered automatically to healthy children. "UKHSA confirmed all children aged five and over in clinical risk groups would continue to be offered Covid jabs, including through the booster programme" (from Guardian link).
Anyway, I am going to mute you now. I politely told you several times that I was busy at work and you just kept going. You lost me for good with your nonsense about holograms on 9/11. Bye.
What is your response to this, Rupert?
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-bans-covid-vaccines-for-all-kids
"If you know any anti-vaxxers on social media, scroll over to their feed and look for some sciency-looking research that warns of the alleged dangers of COVID vaccines. Copy the name of the first author listed on the paper and stick it in Google. Does he or she have relevant credentials?"
Information comes to us from many sources, it doesn't just exist in statistics and scientific papers. When we work out the truth of something we need to take into consideration all the information we have access to. When we were first told of an alleged covid pandemic, I didn't know a jab was coming but had I known I would have decided against getting it then and there on account of the images against reality we were shown of people falling flat on their faces and lying on the ground and on hospital floors https://twitter.com/rachadchahine/status/1220785179146563585. These were clear signs of a psyop followed by a few others.
I have very little interest in people's credentials these days as I know they mean so little, what I'm interested in is their argument and the argument against what they say if there is one and then what their argument is against the argument against theirs. I knew there would be no special virus before a number of doctors and scientists came out and said there wasn't so I wasn't going to get the jab regardless of safety and efficacy because I knew it wasn't a matter of safety or efficacy it was a matter of requirement - there simply is no requirement for the jab regardless of anything else.
Two fundamental rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong - this does not mean blindly accepting what is said in scientific papers. This means engaging with material that comes out against the mainstream narrative with a reasonable degree of rigour
2. Confine your analysis to the most unarguable-with data
Here are two pieces of very common sense unarguable-with data:
1. If we weren't told about a pandemic 24/7 by goverment and media we'd have zero clue there was one.
2. As covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and there is no gold standard test (thus it is not a clinically diagnosed condition), if testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way of knowing if someone had covid or nothing at all or a cold, flu, pneumonia whatever.
Testing stops, covid effectively disappears.
Here's a news story from a credible source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/06/anger-at-plans-to-roll-back-covid-vaccines-to-under-11s-in-england
"The JCVI says young children are at very low risk of developing severe disease from Covid, while most will have gained natural immunity from infections."
Of course, the background in late 2022 is wildly different from 2020-2021. More than 96% of the population have COVID antibodies (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/antibodies).
This is not the beginning of a long debate. I am busy. Trying to convince an investigative journalist that mind-control conspiracy theories and anti-vax woo are based on great research is a silly hobby. Please go away and annoy someone else. Or read a book!
This is the last comment before I ban you.
Think about COVID from a public health perspective. The antibodies in the global population were a rounding error close to 0% in March 2020. This is a catastrophic situation for a new disease. I know you will refuse to do the reading, but if anyone else is following, read about the waves of coronavirus pandemics that devastated China at the end of the Northern Song dynasty (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/meet-the-family).
The risks were off the charts in 2020: Massive numbers of deaths, hospitals collapsing, the disease mutating, linger after-effects of the disease, etc. From a public health point of view, the authorities had to do two things: (A) Slow the spread of the disease and (B) get antibodies into the population as safely as possible.
So, actions in (A) included lockdowns, social distancing measures, masks, hand hygiene, strict travel rules, etc. The vaccines were the key part of (B). Of course, (A) and (B) worked synergistically together. Many people, including me and my family, delayed catching the disease until we were vaccinated. You can quibble about the rules, but the general approach was absolutely sound.
We recently entered a new phase. Antibodies are now widely spread throughout the population. That means that many of the rules imposed to cover (A) and (B) can be rethought.
There is nothing sinister here. Flu vaccines are highly recommended for some people, but not necessary for everyone. Young children mostly got very mild versions of the disease.
Also, the authorities did not "ban" vaccines for children. That is misinformation spread by people with anti-science agendas. Vaccines will no longer be offered automatically to healthy children. "UKHSA confirmed all children aged five and over in clinical risk groups would continue to be offered Covid jabs, including through the booster programme" (from Guardian link).
Anyway, I am going to mute you now. I politely told you several times that I was busy at work and you just kept going. You lost me for good with your nonsense about holograms on 9/11. Bye.