Joe Hillshoist » Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:26 pm wrote:If people can't handle "fact checking" or someone calling out when stuff is demonstrably not accurate what is the point of this site?
Can we post any old shit now and expect people to take it on face value (like a religious sermon) cos its contradictory to the dominant narrative?
"demonstrably not accurate" isn't necessarily objectively true because Joe H. says so.
But, let's say you rightly called out certain inaccuracies or, minimally, data points that can't, at the time of writing, be 'proven' to be accurate. Even if you've accomplished this it doesn't mean the 'bigger picture' positions are false or inaccurate.
Let's touch on a few of the broader key issues raised here since the onset of this thread, which the mainstream has recently pivoted to accept (or are approaching broad acceptance):
1. Lockdowns: recent Johns Hopkins study finding lockdowns had little/no benefit, and actually caused
harms. A number of us flagged this back in 2020;
2. Masks: CDC recently acknowledged -- after 2 years -- that cloth masks do NOT work; they've pivoted to N95, which also have not been demonstrated to work effectively -- at least not well enough for broad-scale mandates; per the FDA, there are currently no N95 masks constructed for use by children. A number of us flagged the ineffectiveness of masks back in 2020.
3. Vaccines: it is now acknowledged these mRNA products do NOT prevent spread or contagion, and are NOT sterilizing. The claims that they temporarily prevent severe symptoms/death may be true, though much of this depends on how certain figures are presented and interpreted. In time there will be better clarity on this, but in any event,
protection is fleeting. It's quite clear these mRNA/viral vector products should NEVER have been
mandated, certainly not across all populations with no regard to an individual's risk factor, and
without acknowledging natural immunity in lieu of 'vaccination'. Again, a number of us have been calling this out since 2020.
4. Lab-created origins/gain of function research: what was initially identified by the mainstream as blatant "conspiracy theory" -- and aggressively censored* -- is now largely accepted as a probability. The details of this (accidental vs advertent 'leak', etc.) remain in question and will likely never be resolved, but again, this is a topic raised in this thread at the very 1st page.
What's your stance on these points, again?
*one of many verboten topics suppressed and/or censored from open discourse.I believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm applying a broad-brush summary -- you acknowledge a number of issues with covid-related policies enacted by govts but essentially explain them to be byproducts of corruption and/or greed, and that govt/science-based fuckups/instances of govt overreach over the last 2 years were primarily, if not exclusively, driven by a global effort to address and solve a health crisis.
To save lives, in other words. You currently
do not entertain the notion of other/more nefarious agendas as causes for current circumstances (such as a variation of a depopulation program, or facilitating a push towards a global social credit system/4th industrial revolution, etc).