This story should stop the world. Heads must roll. The "safe and effective" and "y'all are misunderstanding VAERS" crowd need to fall on their knees and beg for forgiveness for having been fooled and perpetuating evil.
When @EduEngineer wrote about how the PRR system was flawed, I thought he had blown open the way the data was being pushed under the rug. Joke's on us, they weren't even running the analyses. Why cheat when you can win by not showing up? roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-awa…
While we're at it, here's a moderate proposal. If we can't #defundTheCDC, at least break it up so that the advocacy mission doesn't interfere with the data gathering and evaluation mission.
@ScottAdamsSays you taking that guy seriously is dumber than your dumbest tweets, and come to think of it, the two might not be unrelated.
This sick fuck is now accusing me of not responding to evidence he's posting after he blocked me.
Congratulations, you found an RCT published 6 months after authorization, that shows a booster might give you 2 months of protection, **if you hadn't had covid already**.
Remember, I asked Claire to correct the Quillette article about @BretWeinstein in the most trivial ways: e.g. the article says he won his lawsuit against evergreen, when in fact they settled. Her answer?
"A 'legal settlement' is often used interchangeably with 'win'."
I didn't ask her to correct these 3 things because they were the most important errors. I asked to correct those three because anyone could see they were blatant errors with no or minimal research. If she couldn't admit those, she would not admit anything.
Sam Harris drops new episode on Trump & Media bias.
I've not heard it yet. The one question I have is whether he clarifies if he would break the law in case of asteroid headed towards the earth. Let's see.
"and this is the problem with taking clips of audio or video out of context".
I will clarify that I posted a 2 minute and 20 second clip, under a 3 minute and 40 second clip, and if I had clipped much more, Kisin would probably have sued my ass for copyright infringement.
"but I think it's important to be honest, even when attacking someone you know to be a terrible human being. And relying on clips is a great way to be misled".
Apparently my clipping was as bad as the "very fine people" incident was for Trump. Or something.
A little thought experiment. Let's say there were broadly two positions that could be taken on a specific question. One of the positions is much more accurate than the other. But the other is a position that vested interests would like to have accepted as true.
One would expect any honest arbiter who looks at the facts to conclude that the "more accurate" side has the advantage. Thus, you would also expect the "less accurate" side to try to shut down any honest dialogue between sides, as it would show them to have no leg to stand on.
Long story short, some times the lack of honest dialog is not because two sides are talking past eachother. It is because one side knows what the outcome would be and is content to use any other method to settle the dispute than the one that would lead to their certain demise.
After thinking about this comment for a while, here's a list of reasons why "vaccines should be mandated because the unvaxed impose a burden on society by being hospitalized" is a very bad argument.
1. I see no way of supporting this without also supporting mandated fitness camps for the obese, as well as outlawing whole classes of foods. Far higher burden on society. On the extreme end, we could justify state-mandated diets. Same logic.
2. Vaccine mandates ended up leading to the firing of nurses, therefore reducing the number of beds actually available.