2600 bro wrote:
Tin Foil Hats Prevail wrote:
But what if Weinstein, Malone, and McCullough are right in the positions they take? In fact, Weinstein was one of the first scientists to come out publicly with clear evidence that a lab leak was the most likely scenario when the "Scientific Consensus" said the opposite. To this point, nothing he said has been disproven, and most has been confirmed and now most people believe Covid leaked out of the Wuhan lab. Fauci and his acolytes have created a fake "scientific consensus" and Fauci has repeatedly crushed dissent due to the fact that he controls billions of federal funding for scientific research. So that brings me back to the point that what if these people, some of who have incredible credentials, you want to not have a platform are right? Scientific Consensus has been wrong over and over again throughout history and oftentimes there are tragic results and suffering caused when this happens.
We already know that in the Pfizer trials data was manipulated or falsified. This has been publicly admitted, it is not a tinfoil hat theory. You can find numerous interviews of Fauci and others saying the vaccines would stop transmission. We now know that was false and that you need boosters at least every 6 months to maintain vaccine effectiveness. Maybe we should be listening to these people. Because it doesn't seem like the arbiters of truth are very honest.
New evidence and data changes scientists positions. The vaccines were excellent at stopping transmission until Delta. Then with boosters they were decent against Delta. Now with Omicron they are just ok again (30-50% against transmission).
Changing your interpretation based on new data and changing conditions is a requirement for good science... not a failure of scientists.
Same issue with the boosters. Most vaccine courses are determined empirically. You dose, wait, see how immune responses look, and dose again if necessary. The majority of vaccines require 3+ doses.
Interestingly... there is virtually zero evidence for severe long/short effects in any frequency from vaccination, but plenty of evidence (see: 800k+ dead Americans) for severe effects from COVID. So remind me who is "ignoring data"
Except this isn't scientists changing their position, this is them lieing. You look at the AIDS crisis the same BS and lies that Fauci and NIAIH pulled back then are being repeated almost exactly. There is a difference between evolving your position with the data and actively suppressing data and then finally changing your position once your old position can no longer be defended. During the AIDS pandemic, most people didn't really care because only a small group of Americans, who were largely socially ostracized at the time, were impacted. That is not the case here.
And no wonder the data shows the vaccines are safe for kids when you manipulate trial data and the VAERS system suppresses cases of adverse reaction. Not to mention that we have no idea what the impact will be on these kids a 3 or more years down the road.