Seat belts restrain you or delay a timely exit sometimes when time is of the essence. Do you wear them? -- they do come in handy in a high impact collision.
There seems to be no logical reason for liberals to continue to refuse the fact that vaccines have been causing deaths in some. Why would liberals lie about that? Maybe for money? To save face? To keep from being ostracized or persecuted by the brainless brutal thugs and their accomplices and supporters who are in power?
I think you and others might confuse deaths after vaccine from Covid as being deaths caused by vaccine. Adverse effects of the vaccines are not out of proportion or degree with the adverse effects of common medications taken by millions of people - possibly you.
It could be because that it is not a lie, but it doesn't come in the form of the pretend absolute truth that you market in.
They simply cannot admit to themselves that they fell for the lie....from start to finish starting with the election. It'll take some major great awakening before they'll see.
Dr. Robert Malone explains to Joe Rogan how Uttar Pradesh has crushed COVID with early treatment.
I buy science and realize experts in a field know a bit more than I do. Your evidence is nothing but any questionable shred of an anomaly given undue importance. And, then you ignore the explanation of the discrepancy. Then you assume a ton of bad faith on the part of objective researchers.
You flipped the script here, com padre.
Until another expert in that same field comes along and tells the former expert their data was wrong.
Ignoring evidence is stupid, dishonest, and dangerous, yet leftists refuse to even consider the possibility that the mounting number of deaths that occur shortly after being vaccinated are even slightly related to the jab. Some victims have even been found by medical experts to have died from conditions suddenly brought on solely by the vaccine.
Peer review and establishing a consensus is part of scientific investigation. Nothing to be ashamed of. A far sight better process than prophesies claimed to be absolutely true -- even after they have failed to come to pass.
There are people who believe God no matter what secularist scientists claim science shows to the contrary, and there are those who believe the narratives the secularist mob of select scientists promotes in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. Peer review has become a purely secularist outlet for atheistic interpretations of scientific data, not outlets promoting truth in science.
They why do you continue to do it. I gave you evidence of one of Trump's gaffes you said you were unfamiliar with and doubtful of. You have never changed your view on the issue despite more and more video evidence.
This is hyperbole and a strawman argument. Researchers are not leftests per se. People with education do lean left but not monolithically so. And, even Msnbc shows some diligence in regard to quickly mentioning exceptions to a rule or generalization. They make statements like vaccines are safe, but a few seirous allergic reactions occur, specifically with the J and J version.
They are considered but evaluated to be rare. Unfounded interpretation of "evidence" is appropriately discarded. Present evidence from a quality source that isn't easily dismissed, and I will change my view.
God has made no press release on the corona virus
Variants and reduced vaccine effectiveness has always been a concern. It was never hidden. We have been relatively lucky so far. A changing narrative is what would expect with changing conditions and improving understandings. Did you really prefer a leader who made pronouncements based on fears about the stock market and the potential effects on his popularity rather than best practices and best estimates of experts?
You called one of Trump's statements a gaffe. That has not been proven. It is your opinion. You should learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You think Trump was mistaken to suggest disinfectants can be used internally, but disinfectants are already injected into humans to deal with infections, so I don't see how your opinion agrees with the facts.
The peer-review process is highly subjective, subject to bias, and often one-sided. Articles approved and published after review were then resubmitted in a test of the review process and were rejected by reviewers during the test. Peer review failed the test of accuracy, consistency, and honesty.
Without the universal flood, we would have no worldwide fossil record, but secular reviewers reject any evidence or interpretation of data that supports the flood of Noah's day. You cannot prove me wrong about that.
