Steve/(all), I suggest another way, based on an existing and contemporary 'template', a successful precedent.
However, it should be understood and accepted that intention toward a society-wide switch of belief is likely to be a 'long game', and wide.
The 'low carb' movement is the precedent. And it is much, much bigger than its deceptively benign sounding name might suggest.
That movement is far from being merely about dietary macronutrient proportions. By default, it simultaneously encompasses and addresses a suite of modern chronic diseases that have manifested since a world-changing decision, based - just as with pro- or anti-vax - on a two-way choice. In this case, the choice was between fat or sugar as the most likely contenders behind just one chronic disease initially but of major concern in the US after Eisenhower's diagnosis in the 1950s, heart disease, and with heart disease skyrocketing from virtual obscurity earlier in the century to a major killer.
The 'decision' was made in 1977. Arbitrarily. By US senator McGovern, who made it based on gut instinct as against as science and stated something along the lines of "politicians need to make decisions now, not wait until all, (or even correct), evidence is in".
His decision resulted in the inception of national dietary guidelines. These were progressively adopted globally, and consistently vilified dietary fat, in particular saturated fat, and cholesterol. By default, the guidelines resulted in a significant rise in consumption of the very thing that happened to be the opposing choice, carbohydrates, since: if you reduce fats you have to make up nett energy requirements from the only other two macronutrients - protein and carbs, and carbs are cheap; and since all carbs either are already, or break down in the digestive system, to sugars.
Subsequently, for nearly 50 years now, society, globally, has seen a coincident rise in - name a chronic, modern disease: obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, Alzheimer's, depression, cancer, etc, etc and, albeit confounded by changes in levels of smoking, heart disease.
Many people have been involved ever since, with trying to reverse society-wide beliefs that dietary saturated fats and cholesterol underlie heart, or any other disease.
UK researcher Zoe Harcombe, a self-acknowledged former vegan, did her PHD thesis on the entire evidence base available in the pre-1977 scientific literature, to see if they supported the dietary guidelines when they were first introduced. No evidence supported their introduction. A follow-up study, this time in collaboration with others, looked at the entire evidence base of literature - after - 1977. Again it was found there was no evidence supporting carb-based (low fat) dietary guidelines.
Former physicist turned freelance researcher Gary Taube, and journalist Nina Teicholz (also a former vegan) along with may doctors and other scientists have written books and presented their findings to numerous audiences, outlining the history of the sugar, fat wars.
In 2015, the USDA finally back-flipped on the stance it had held against dietary cholesterol for decades, stating: 'cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern".
Progressively, ever more individuals have adopted lower, low or very low carb (keto) eating, with consistent success, albeit to varying degrees given varying degrees of condition severity etc, against various of the chronic diseases.
Consequently, progressively ever more doctors who have witnessed beneficial changes in their - patients who happen to be low carb - have adopted the switch for themselves and/or applied it to other patients.
Other doctors and researchers have progressively built an ever more compelling multi-faceted case through perhaps the most impactful instrument, the LCDU (low carb down under) forum, which includes public conferences in different major cities of various countries, with scientists and doctors presenting data, insights, case studies, and compilations of others' research, for audiences to consider, question live, cross-check, try for themself and challenge their beliefs. All video-captured then shared on at least one of the world's major media platforms, YouTube.
Furthering of the 'low carb' (aka eat and live healthier) cause has included of outcomes of several high profile cases brought by vested industry (Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Medicine), or dietitian's associations on their behalf, against individuals recommending low carb to patients or members of the public (heresy against the dietary guidelines), including against Professor Tim Noakes in South Africa, Dr. Gary Fettke in Australia and Dr. Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden. Despite all being David vs Goliath cases, thus far, each individual has won. In part because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the low carb position. In part because of assistive collaborations of support of the accused by certain 'subject-matter-expert' members of the low carb community.
A new playbook, against vaccines, in a nutshell? . . .
Absolute top priority is to build trust, in a sufficient proportion of the global population, to reach/force a tipping point, a worldwide shift in consensus opinion.
Mirror the LCDU model, but super-sized: public conferences, in major cities, internationally, with presentations by MDs, PHDs, lawyers, authors, researchers, victims, etc., video-captured, shared online via major media channels including YouTube but also facilitated in all major world languages including Mandarin etc, and inclusive of multiple layers of redundancy to combat censorship, deletion, system attacks, etc., and alternative major media platforms to YouTube to maximise audience views and minimise risk of any one platform applying Big Brother tactics. Perhaps the LCDU mirror could be called ALTX, for 'alternative' whatever - viewpoints, evidence, treatments, medicine, etc. (and as an unintended but useful implied connection to Twitter/X).
Do NOT start with vaccines. Doing so would risk permanently losing the very audience most required to be won over, those with opposing beliefs.
Start instead with topics close to us all personally, health, disease, causes of death, of loss of loved ones, and in particular medicines. Once a large body of doubt has been produced and shared online about medicines A, B, C, ... X, Y, Z, ... Aa, Ab, Ac, ie a suite of examples that becomes apparent as being endless if not encompasses them all, for a massive, tipping-point proportion of the world's population, then, finally, presentations on the other form of 'medicine', 'vaccines' may be introduced to the forum with reasonable confidence that they won't simply be outright dismissed, discredited, deplatformed, etc, per current tactics.
By the way, for reasons aired by many Commenters in this forum, but also for others highlighted in the book 'The Real Anthony Fauci', Steve's starting suggestion may be referred to as 'How to Lose a Million Dollars':
Journal articles aren't read by but a few.
They are understood by even fewer.
Many authors are industry funded, across their entire career, so will be unlikely to bite the hand that feeds their families.
Likewise, many publishers are not independent but have also been captured by industry.
Even if an honest article somehow made it to an honest publisher, who in the media would publish stories about it since many of the major media platforms have also been captured by industry and/or are required to comply to government directives for fear of heavy penalties if not termination.
Conversely, if there were none willing to even accept the challenge from the pro-vaccine camp, what would be achieved; who of the world's entire population would care, who would know, other than the followers of this forum, and, again, who of mainstream media would publish a story on it?
Steve/(all), I suggest another way, based on an existing and contemporary 'template', a successful precedent.
However, it should be understood and accepted that intention toward a society-wide switch of belief is likely to be a 'long game', and wide.
The 'low carb' movement is the precedent. And it is much, much bigger than its deceptively benign sounding name might suggest.
That movement is far from being merely about dietary macronutrient proportions. By default, it simultaneously encompasses and addresses a suite of modern chronic diseases that have manifested since a world-changing decision, based - just as with pro- or anti-vax - on a two-way choice. In this case, the choice was between fat or sugar as the most likely contenders behind just one chronic disease initially but of major concern in the US after Eisenhower's diagnosis in the 1950s, heart disease, and with heart disease skyrocketing from virtual obscurity earlier in the century to a major killer.
The 'decision' was made in 1977. Arbitrarily. By US senator McGovern, who made it based on gut instinct as against as science and stated something along the lines of "politicians need to make decisions now, not wait until all, (or even correct), evidence is in".
His decision resulted in the inception of national dietary guidelines. These were progressively adopted globally, and consistently vilified dietary fat, in particular saturated fat, and cholesterol. By default, the guidelines resulted in a significant rise in consumption of the very thing that happened to be the opposing choice, carbohydrates, since: if you reduce fats you have to make up nett energy requirements from the only other two macronutrients - protein and carbs, and carbs are cheap; and since all carbs either are already, or break down in the digestive system, to sugars.
Subsequently, for nearly 50 years now, society, globally, has seen a coincident rise in - name a chronic, modern disease: obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, Alzheimer's, depression, cancer, etc, etc and, albeit confounded by changes in levels of smoking, heart disease.
Many people have been involved ever since, with trying to reverse society-wide beliefs that dietary saturated fats and cholesterol underlie heart, or any other disease.
UK researcher Zoe Harcombe, a self-acknowledged former vegan, did her PHD thesis on the entire evidence base available in the pre-1977 scientific literature, to see if they supported the dietary guidelines when they were first introduced. No evidence supported their introduction. A follow-up study, this time in collaboration with others, looked at the entire evidence base of literature - after - 1977. Again it was found there was no evidence supporting carb-based (low fat) dietary guidelines.
Former physicist turned freelance researcher Gary Taube, and journalist Nina Teicholz (also a former vegan) along with may doctors and other scientists have written books and presented their findings to numerous audiences, outlining the history of the sugar, fat wars.
In 2015, the USDA finally back-flipped on the stance it had held against dietary cholesterol for decades, stating: 'cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern".
Progressively, ever more individuals have adopted lower, low or very low carb (keto) eating, with consistent success, albeit to varying degrees given varying degrees of condition severity etc, against various of the chronic diseases.
Consequently, progressively ever more doctors who have witnessed beneficial changes in their - patients who happen to be low carb - have adopted the switch for themselves and/or applied it to other patients.
Other doctors and researchers have progressively built an ever more compelling multi-faceted case through perhaps the most impactful instrument, the LCDU (low carb down under) forum, which includes public conferences in different major cities of various countries, with scientists and doctors presenting data, insights, case studies, and compilations of others' research, for audiences to consider, question live, cross-check, try for themself and challenge their beliefs. All video-captured then shared on at least one of the world's major media platforms, YouTube.
Furthering of the 'low carb' (aka eat and live healthier) cause has included of outcomes of several high profile cases brought by vested industry (Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Medicine), or dietitian's associations on their behalf, against individuals recommending low carb to patients or members of the public (heresy against the dietary guidelines), including against Professor Tim Noakes in South Africa, Dr. Gary Fettke in Australia and Dr. Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden. Despite all being David vs Goliath cases, thus far, each individual has won. In part because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the low carb position. In part because of assistive collaborations of support of the accused by certain 'subject-matter-expert' members of the low carb community.
A new playbook, against vaccines, in a nutshell? . . .
Absolute top priority is to build trust, in a sufficient proportion of the global population, to reach/force a tipping point, a worldwide shift in consensus opinion.
Mirror the LCDU model, but super-sized: public conferences, in major cities, internationally, with presentations by MDs, PHDs, lawyers, authors, researchers, victims, etc., video-captured, shared online via major media channels including YouTube but also facilitated in all major world languages including Mandarin etc, and inclusive of multiple layers of redundancy to combat censorship, deletion, system attacks, etc., and alternative major media platforms to YouTube to maximise audience views and minimise risk of any one platform applying Big Brother tactics. Perhaps the LCDU mirror could be called ALTX, for 'alternative' whatever - viewpoints, evidence, treatments, medicine, etc. (and as an unintended but useful implied connection to Twitter/X).
Do NOT start with vaccines. Doing so would risk permanently losing the very audience most required to be won over, those with opposing beliefs.
Start instead with topics close to us all personally, health, disease, causes of death, of loss of loved ones, and in particular medicines. Once a large body of doubt has been produced and shared online about medicines A, B, C, ... X, Y, Z, ... Aa, Ab, Ac, ie a suite of examples that becomes apparent as being endless if not encompasses them all, for a massive, tipping-point proportion of the world's population, then, finally, presentations on the other form of 'medicine', 'vaccines' may be introduced to the forum with reasonable confidence that they won't simply be outright dismissed, discredited, deplatformed, etc, per current tactics.
By the way, for reasons aired by many Commenters in this forum, but also for others highlighted in the book 'The Real Anthony Fauci', Steve's starting suggestion may be referred to as 'How to Lose a Million Dollars':
Journal articles aren't read by but a few.
They are understood by even fewer.
Many authors are industry funded, across their entire career, so will be unlikely to bite the hand that feeds their families.
Likewise, many publishers are not independent but have also been captured by industry.
Even if an honest article somehow made it to an honest publisher, who in the media would publish stories about it since many of the major media platforms have also been captured by industry and/or are required to comply to government directives for fear of heavy penalties if not termination.
Conversely, if there were none willing to even accept the challenge from the pro-vaccine camp, what would be achieved; who of the world's entire population would care, who would know, other than the followers of this forum, and, again, who of mainstream media would publish a story on it?