Morpheus
Don Juan
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2015
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 35
Yes. I'd be inclined to agree with your assessment. While I can't say that I found the study to be very well intentioned, rigorous or
beyond criticism as you noted, there may well be and probably is something to what they discovered. Presumably one is both selected for and acquires some sort of capacity to research a topic, if one successfully completes a PhD. The non-completion rates for PhDs are themselves very high.
Moreover, medical interventions are a very serious matter. This is where there is an interesting overlap with medical workers, many of
whom also require high levels of education, though I've been told that much medical training is not that critical in orientation. However, they are, by the same token, much closer to the coalface and so have much more direct contact with the injuries and deaths arising from these vaccines. Everyday one seems to see more accounts of the number and severity of the adverse reactions surfacing, particularly in the United States. Here, in Australia, we hear practically nothing as our medical doctors, for instance, have largely been muzzled by their regulator (AHPRA) and we are behind the vaccination curve as it were.
I wasn't aware that these pre-print sites had comment sections, so thankyou for drawing my attention to that. The ones you selected all have merit, although I want to focus on parts of the first and the last.
The last, particularly succinctly, although also perhaps rather too simply, sums up important aspects of the situation in general which have been important components in the rational decision making process advocated by the independent medical doctors and physicians (eg. McCullough, Malone, Kory) who have done the most to fight the astonishing wave of disinformation and misinformation about SARS-2-Covid put out by governmental agencies, professional associations, the mainstream media, big tech, big pharma, politicians etc right across the world.
Where can you find this rational, critical (as you noted) 'reflection' in any of these so-called sources of information about SARS-2-Covid? On this, the first comment about the ceaseless emotional manipulation, logical fallacies and appeals to authority (for instance, to other politically or industry captured agencies) etc is precisely on point.
Just listen to any of the above, truly outstanding, individuals (which I have to note are all American doctors, although their are others who are not) and tell me how there is any comparison whatsoever with the above official so-called sources of information about SARS-2-Covid? By this, I do not just mean technically, but also, and perhaps more importantly, given just how ugly this has become, in terms of their grasp of the significance and application of the most fundamental principles of western medical ethics (informed consent etc).
I'm not really familiar with that much, as this is way outside of my usual fields of expertise or interest. However, the following is the
best single account that I have encountered of both the context of and how truly disastrous the whole response to SARS-2-Covid has been. It's long (about 2 hours) and not much of an interview but McCullough is ridiculously articulate and passionate about what he stands for. It is also somewhat historical at this point, but, as anyone who has been awake will know, the fate of ivermectin has been just a replay of what happened to HCQ.
Anyway, if anyone one knows of a better or even comparable account, I'd love to know about it. As @LARaiders85 said on this site somewhere, it is really just a matter of nuance.
Last edited:
