Comment by loceng
4 years ago
Do you know if DDG also did the same - or perhaps their rankings were already captured by the likes of Reuters et al ("fact checkers") - for the COVID pandemic narrative?
It's quite apparent their desired narrative is falling apart now, where a Pfizer executive publicly admitted they didn't even test for transmissabiity - meanwhile that was arguably the primary promotion point for the mRNA shots propagated by the captured MSM (arguably primarily by big pharma), by politicians (captured heavily by big pharma, enough to be toeing their line); and where Pfizer's CEO at last minute cancelled his in-person testimonial to EU parliament inquiry - arguably because they know they've been caught and will be held accountable by those who aren't toeing their line/profiting from it.
This is the "new" war using "soft" power, a war against all of society that arguably billions of people are now awake to; which speaking of it gets you flagged and lazily downvoted as "conspiracy theorist" to suppress a seemingly endless and growing amount of concrete proof points to support the hypothesis of what's actually going on.
I'm not very inclined to discuss mRNA on a tech forum, but "fact-checkers" do also fall under this kind of umbrella, yeah.
Any large organization presenting what they claim to be the truth is subject to all sorts of unscientific biases, which is why it's so important that people aren't shouted down, that sites aren't de-ranked.
If you let anyone but individual people decide their conclusions, it's a nice, paved, flower-laden walkway to the dystopian corporate hellscape that's bemoaned by the same people who advocate for "fact checkers" and de-ranked search results.
P.S. For those who believe that putting "fact-checkers" in quotes is denying truth, promoting misinformation, etc, etc -- I put it in quotes because even giving them that title gives them more power than they should have.
"P.S. For those who believe that putting "fact-checkers" in quotes is denying truth, promoting misinformation, etc, etc -- I put it in quotes because even giving them that title gives them more power than they should have."
It's part of the same problem of media et al referencing "experts" or "the science" - where the majority of society seems to blindly trust those words or concepts, trusting that the utterers of it are equally trustworthy.
My dad is a expert video-game fact checker and Half-Life 3 should be coming out tomorrow.
It almost beggars belief to have to say that of course the vaccine testing is on efficacy of infection prevention, not transmissibility. But wouldn't you know it? The less likely you are to get infected and the faster your body clears the virus, the less the virus is or can be transmitted. Yes, peak viral load for infections that do "breakthrough" may be the same as unvaccinated. That's not a smoking gun.
There is a lot of sinister stuff happening in our world, a lot of coordinated efforts against labor and the working class. Tying that narrative to a conspiracies about COVID vaccines rightly nudges you into conspiracy theorist territory.
And that is the last comment I will ever make about vaccines on this site.
You admit to there being coordinated efforts against labor and the working class - so how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance with 1) the history that the pharmaceutical industry continuously being a very bad actor with the reward of billions in profit, 2) that pharma industry in the U.S. (for example) accounts for something like 80% of the advertising revenue on all mainstream-legacy media channels (capturing the narrative of what news is able to air), and 3) practically all U.S. politicians on both the Republic and Democrat side are given $$ - lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry?
The rest of what you shared seems to be relatively shallow narratives you've been trained/programmed to believe for you to then parrot.
My question above isn't about "vaccines" - so hopefully you're willing to answer and won't avoid the cognitive dissonance you're certain to encounter if you attempt to answer it; or perhaps we'll see what mental gymnastics you need to use to dismiss the multiple very clear conflicts of interest and guaranteed-obvious influence that pharma has on our society via politicians that make policy decisions - and via narratives propagated to the masses via mainstream-legacy media channels.
There is zero cognitive dissonance for me. I freely admit to everything you stipulated above in paragraph 1. But none of those statements logically flows to your conclusion, despite how strongly you seem to think they do. Such statements of fact do not implicitly or explicitly compromise the quality of the science and the weight of the evidence for vaccine efficacy, especially when those results are independently verified using multi-source methods.
> The rest of what you shared seems to be relatively shallow narratives you've been trained/programmed to believe for you to then parrot.
What more does this merit than an eye roll? You know nothing about me, but you're telling me all I need to know about you. It's frankly distressing, but such are the times.
1 reply →
"Coordinated efforts against labor and the working class" doesn't convince anyone of anything. Almost every company ever tried to pay their workers the least they could get away with. There are also "coordinated efforts by labor against the wealthy class" - ie union organizing. Every worker in the world hopes to get paid more, even me. But there's no coordinated effort to lie to you about the fact that covid vaccine helps protect you from getting covid. No one made all the scientists believe that a virus causes covid. Fauci didn't want to get people vaccinated because he was being paid, he studied public health and wasn't an idiot, that is all it took for those professionals to see we should encourage vaccination.
> It's quite apparent their desired narrative is falling apart now, where a Pfizer executive publicly admitted they didn't even test for transmissabiity
This was known when the clinical trial docs where first published. No one said it did at the very beginning, it was never hidden by anyone. The data of reducing transmission was collected when the vaccines began to roll out. And for pre-omicron strains it did reduce transmission.
This whole thing about the recent Pfizer thing is just some anti-vaxx narrative.
Yeah, all the conspiratorial anti-vax BS is just sad. There weren't millions of people killed by getting vaccinated, so all that pre-shot BS about the danger of a new vaccine didn't pan out - because they'd been testing it for years, and it wasn't actually dangerous.