PsychoVagabondX on Nostr: I'll accept evidence that is verifiable and based on facts, not propaganda. I ...
I'll accept evidence that is verifiable and based on facts, not propaganda. I certainly won't accept a medical study performed by an antivax economist, paid for by antivaxxers, then peer reviewed by anti vaxxers and yet rejected by every independent scientist.
What kinds of crack do they put in the water in Slough? They've found numerous faults in his study and they have been widely documented. The core one being that the source of his data was misinterpreted data from VAERS, a database that anyone can contribute to without verifying the claim. It should be noted that using VAERS to back antivax studies long predates COVID.
Even the data he presented showed that you are 4 times more likely to die from the vaccine if you were republican supporting than if you were democrat supporting. How does that not highlight to you that the data was not objective? The reason for political affiliation being a major contributing factor was that the "data" he used was based on people making the claim that someone died from it, not based on any actual evidence of people dying from it.
I certainly know about confirmation bias. I don't engage in it because unlike you I don't form a conclusion then religiously stick to it regardless of what the facts show. If the actual facts showed that there was a high likelihood of death from the vaccine then I'd accept that, but realistically COVID vaccines are rejected by the same luddites that make up crazy conspiracies about 5G.
I get that scientific advancement is scary to you, but that doesn't mean all advancements are out to kill you.
What kinds of crack do they put in the water in Slough? They've found numerous faults in his study and they have been widely documented. The core one being that the source of his data was misinterpreted data from VAERS, a database that anyone can contribute to without verifying the claim. It should be noted that using VAERS to back antivax studies long predates COVID.
Even the data he presented showed that you are 4 times more likely to die from the vaccine if you were republican supporting than if you were democrat supporting. How does that not highlight to you that the data was not objective? The reason for political affiliation being a major contributing factor was that the "data" he used was based on people making the claim that someone died from it, not based on any actual evidence of people dying from it.
I certainly know about confirmation bias. I don't engage in it because unlike you I don't form a conclusion then religiously stick to it regardless of what the facts show. If the actual facts showed that there was a high likelihood of death from the vaccine then I'd accept that, but realistically COVID vaccines are rejected by the same luddites that make up crazy conspiracies about 5G.
I get that scientific advancement is scary to you, but that doesn't mean all advancements are out to kill you.