By avoiding all public discussions with scientific peers who disagree with them, the narrative promoters are actually helping the "misinformation spreaders"!
The guidance (“peer-reviewed article”) on how to rebutt science denialism is great. To be able to learn these strategies, you have to pay from $9.99 (48h) to $39.95 (buy a PDF). In other words, yes, you should show up for the debate, but first ask for money. Simple and effective.
Tell the people the truth then.....that the virus doesn't exist, there are no spike proteins, and the gain of function bioweapon is all bull--made up in a computer. All the evidence is out there. Its the protocols and blaccines causing death along with all the toxins in food, water, personal hygiene products, gmos, drugs, fear. Why is PEG in everything ? Tell us the truth Steve. My bet is that you will remove this post.
Lets go folks - dont believe me - go look up Dr. Cowan, Stephen Lanka, Amandha Vollmer, Andrew Kaufman, Mike from virLIEogy, Dr Sam Bailey, Christine Massey. BECAUSE IT MATTERS
Yesterday I had my annual medical check up. I spent over 30 minutes discussing the vaccines with my doctor. He is completely captured by Big Pharma. The only thing he acknowledged was the myocarditis in young boys. He told me I was reading misinformation. This has become a yearly encounter with us and I’m frankly fed up with his attitude. Seriously considering switching to another doctor.
“Science denial” or “science denier” is such a derogatory bullshit term. Very very few of the people that would be given the label don’t believe in the scientific method or that science when carried out properly isn’t useful. The argument being had mostly is that the process has been hijacked by people who have monetary and ideological concerns and that the “science” isn’t accurate. Questioning the results and/or process which gained results is the literal process of science. The entire framing of this study is reflective of the problem with the so called scientific community.
They’re not interested in doing what’s right. Their number one goal is to maintain power and control through any means necessary. Public debate is a necessity in searching for solutions. They’re not interest in solving problems only in destruction can they build their “Utopia”. Hmmm......like how do we turn suburbs and cities into 15 minute European style communities.
I would like to see debating in a formal written format. The reason is this:
A person can make a claim, even quote a paper that the opponent has never seen (there are thousands of papers published every month). Without details, without the ability to actually LOOK at the material one cannot always make an effective or accurate response.
A written format where sides alternately get so many words to address their opponent would be more enlightening.
THE LAST THING BIGPHARMA WANTS IS TO DEBATE THE TRUE FACTS AND FIGERS AS THEY WILL LOOSE. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO KEEP TO THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. NOT LIKLEY TO SUE AS THEY KNOW THEY WOULD LOOSE. DO THEY ACTUALY BELIEVE THEIR PROPERGANDER LIES OR ARE THEY BLIND BECAUSE OF THE $ BILLIONS MADE AND IF THE TRUTH COMES OUT THEY WILL GO BUST AND BE NO MORE..ALL VERY SAD BUT IN THE END THEY WILL LOOSE..
It's a shame the incentives are all wrong for getting scientists to defend their work in unsympathetic forums. I work in the physics field and have authored/coauthored papers in scientific journals so I think I see how it works. The incentives are 1) to publish - papers are looked upon by employers of scientists as the product they are paying for; 2) to present your paper at as many professional conferences as possible to increase the clout of both you and your employer; and 3) to garner as much influence in the field as possible through citations of your paper in other work and collaboration with other scientists based on your work. There's no incentive for a scientist to go to a VSRF conference or any forum that's generally hostile. He stands to gain nothing for that. Yes, there is sometimes unsympathetic debate at professional conferences, but it's not that common. By the time your paper makes it through peer review, you are usually in a pretty good position to defend against the attacks by that "echo chamber" type of audience, half of which is asleep anyway. That's why climate "science" conferences survive. It's mainly a bunch of junk scientists patting themselves on the back to protect their salaries. Nobody wants to kill the goose that lays that golden egg.
In "real' science" anyone presenting a research paper's conclusions at any true scientific meeting with a live audience must take questions from anyone. They can't self-select or otherwise limit their audience to a silo of only those who are guaranteed to agree with their lab or mathematical results and conclusions. They also can't hand-wave away others' results and conclusion made from different facts or math.
I've attended international chemical organic free radical meeting lectures by both academic and industry chemists presenting real scientific papers. They all relished debating new scientific ideas in the lecture halls and anywhere else anytime, testing and probing for any flaws in anyone's research or conclusions. That is the only way to advance real scientific knowledge.
I saw the world of chemistry like many other scientific fields begin to fall apart by the mid-1970's in the ever growing "publish or perish" world of academia with ever more complete "garbage" papers published. A nose dive of ethical standards. Just look at how the head of Stanford University resigned quietly during Summer 2023 after his exposure for publishing scientific fraud thanks to his outrageous lack of due care of his lab's subordinates in medical papers he put his name on. Caught not by his scientific peers but by the editorial and reporting staff of the Stanford students' newspaper!!!! Follow the money. Who actually funded his garbage papers? And who allowed the attempted coverup and whitewash for more than a year by the Stanford Board of Trustees who hired him? What golden parachute from the Stanford trust did he get to resign?
The guidance (“peer-reviewed article”) on how to rebutt science denialism is great. To be able to learn these strategies, you have to pay from $9.99 (48h) to $39.95 (buy a PDF). In other words, yes, you should show up for the debate, but first ask for money. Simple and effective.
No one will risk exposing their own lie.
Tell the people the truth then.....that the virus doesn't exist, there are no spike proteins, and the gain of function bioweapon is all bull--made up in a computer. All the evidence is out there. Its the protocols and blaccines causing death along with all the toxins in food, water, personal hygiene products, gmos, drugs, fear. Why is PEG in everything ? Tell us the truth Steve. My bet is that you will remove this post.
Lets go folks - dont believe me - go look up Dr. Cowan, Stephen Lanka, Amandha Vollmer, Andrew Kaufman, Mike from virLIEogy, Dr Sam Bailey, Christine Massey. BECAUSE IT MATTERS
TRUTH OR TYRANNY
Trying to dissuade my sister- a nurse- she replied with pitty- “it’s sad that you believe that stuff.”
New English Dictionary 'Disinformation' = means 'TRUTH'!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed and ready to fight.
Yesterday I had my annual medical check up. I spent over 30 minutes discussing the vaccines with my doctor. He is completely captured by Big Pharma. The only thing he acknowledged was the myocarditis in young boys. He told me I was reading misinformation. This has become a yearly encounter with us and I’m frankly fed up with his attitude. Seriously considering switching to another doctor.
“Science denial” or “science denier” is such a derogatory bullshit term. Very very few of the people that would be given the label don’t believe in the scientific method or that science when carried out properly isn’t useful. The argument being had mostly is that the process has been hijacked by people who have monetary and ideological concerns and that the “science” isn’t accurate. Questioning the results and/or process which gained results is the literal process of science. The entire framing of this study is reflective of the problem with the so called scientific community.
WE can't trust the scientist or the Doctors, they were all paid off to lie about the safety of the poisonous jab.
Nothing says “trust the science” like you can sue us if we screw this up.
Oh, ok, just present the “facts” to us deluded moron. The “WHO’”
determines the facts. Literally the WHO- unassailable and pure- the gleaming hypodermic needle on the hill.
They’re not interested in doing what’s right. Their number one goal is to maintain power and control through any means necessary. Public debate is a necessity in searching for solutions. They’re not interest in solving problems only in destruction can they build their “Utopia”. Hmmm......like how do we turn suburbs and cities into 15 minute European style communities.
I would like to see debating in a formal written format. The reason is this:
A person can make a claim, even quote a paper that the opponent has never seen (there are thousands of papers published every month). Without details, without the ability to actually LOOK at the material one cannot always make an effective or accurate response.
A written format where sides alternately get so many words to address their opponent would be more enlightening.
THE LAST THING BIGPHARMA WANTS IS TO DEBATE THE TRUE FACTS AND FIGERS AS THEY WILL LOOSE. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO KEEP TO THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. NOT LIKLEY TO SUE AS THEY KNOW THEY WOULD LOOSE. DO THEY ACTUALY BELIEVE THEIR PROPERGANDER LIES OR ARE THEY BLIND BECAUSE OF THE $ BILLIONS MADE AND IF THE TRUTH COMES OUT THEY WILL GO BUST AND BE NO MORE..ALL VERY SAD BUT IN THE END THEY WILL LOOSE..
It's a shame the incentives are all wrong for getting scientists to defend their work in unsympathetic forums. I work in the physics field and have authored/coauthored papers in scientific journals so I think I see how it works. The incentives are 1) to publish - papers are looked upon by employers of scientists as the product they are paying for; 2) to present your paper at as many professional conferences as possible to increase the clout of both you and your employer; and 3) to garner as much influence in the field as possible through citations of your paper in other work and collaboration with other scientists based on your work. There's no incentive for a scientist to go to a VSRF conference or any forum that's generally hostile. He stands to gain nothing for that. Yes, there is sometimes unsympathetic debate at professional conferences, but it's not that common. By the time your paper makes it through peer review, you are usually in a pretty good position to defend against the attacks by that "echo chamber" type of audience, half of which is asleep anyway. That's why climate "science" conferences survive. It's mainly a bunch of junk scientists patting themselves on the back to protect their salaries. Nobody wants to kill the goose that lays that golden egg.
In "real' science" anyone presenting a research paper's conclusions at any true scientific meeting with a live audience must take questions from anyone. They can't self-select or otherwise limit their audience to a silo of only those who are guaranteed to agree with their lab or mathematical results and conclusions. They also can't hand-wave away others' results and conclusion made from different facts or math.
I've attended international chemical organic free radical meeting lectures by both academic and industry chemists presenting real scientific papers. They all relished debating new scientific ideas in the lecture halls and anywhere else anytime, testing and probing for any flaws in anyone's research or conclusions. That is the only way to advance real scientific knowledge.
I saw the world of chemistry like many other scientific fields begin to fall apart by the mid-1970's in the ever growing "publish or perish" world of academia with ever more complete "garbage" papers published. A nose dive of ethical standards. Just look at how the head of Stanford University resigned quietly during Summer 2023 after his exposure for publishing scientific fraud thanks to his outrageous lack of due care of his lab's subordinates in medical papers he put his name on. Caught not by his scientific peers but by the editorial and reporting staff of the Stanford students' newspaper!!!! Follow the money. Who actually funded his garbage papers? And who allowed the attempted coverup and whitewash for more than a year by the Stanford Board of Trustees who hired him? What golden parachute from the Stanford trust did he get to resign?
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/stanford-president-resigns-over-manipulated-research-will-retract-at-least-3-papers/
Totally agree, but they dare not have that conversation for the day they do, their gig would be up.