All of dachamian's Comments + Replies

I may not have time to read through all of that, but thanks for the links. I quickly learned some new things by following a few links there + googling around. Most notably, some key evidence presented by Steve K that took center stage in the video, both evidence of the dangers of "the vaccines" and evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, comes from groups led by the same person, Theresa Lawrie.  1. Lawrie apparently founded a web site for ivermectin advocacy (registered March 7, 2021) after presenting evidence on Ivermectin's efficacy on January 13 (to "13 clinicians" and 7 others) 2. Lawrie is the director of a group of 4 people calling itself "The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy" that called for "an immediate halt to the [Covid] vaccination programme" on June 9 3. Lawrie published the meta-analysis Steve was raving about (with 6 co-authors), which found "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" (published June 17 but, obviously, completed earlier) Now, is Lawrie just one of those productivity superheroes vying for a Nobel prize? Or is there something suspicious about too much evidence and advocacy coming from the same person? What makes me the most suspicious is that 1. the anti-vaccine document performs no cost/benefit analysis before concluding that all three vaccines are too dangerous to use. 2. it includes no analysis of base rates (the number of adverse health events that would normally occur in a large population in the absence of any vaccines). 3. Edit 1: seriously, what are the chances that all three vaccines are both dangerous and equally so? Has that ever happened in history? I think not. (4 different vaccines are implicitly demonized by the video since it talks about US and UK data, but this document is UK-specific; the UK and US have used 3 vaccine brands each) 4. Edit 2: I don't say this enough, but one must also consider the reaction of other experts. Large numbers

What's an actual criticism of that paper from that article? That meta-studies are garbage-in-garbage-out? That's weak at best, the author seems to have spent no time in spot checking any of the papers included to check whether this actually happened. ... by a nameless "Concerned Scientist". I don't want to play ranking authorities, but it's obvious someone is mad at Bridle enough to steal his name to put up that website. It's hard to read that website assuming good faith, at least Bridle seems courageous enough to argue his points in the open under his own name, like any "Scientist" should do, especially "Concerned" ones. Regarding the spike protein toxicity, my understanding is that the claim is a bit more nuanced. A recent tweet from Malone says: And then links to this Salk article. Basically claiming that we know SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic and unless proven otherwise it's fair to assume the version expressed by vaccines is similarly cytotoxic. All the "fact-checker" linked from that website are "we have no evidence that [...]", and this is very much a case in which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The problem is, Bret is one of the few non-conspiracy adjacent vanguards fighting against the established "science". Because of his prior experiences being driven off campus by mob politics, he's become "anti-fragile" so to speak, willing to fight because he has found success by being true to his set of values & principles, which is admirable. But, the burden should not fall on him, we should have a system that welcomes open debate. To me, this is obvious. Truth wins through proving something to be true, not through conjecture, mass manipulation, and isolating anyone with a hint of skepticism. The dangers are obvious, America is in ruins from this rapacious empire, we have a seriously destructive society. It's impossible to not blame media for the state of the country (who are heavily influenced by various governmental & business actors). That's what is so angering to me about this entire situation, never in the history of the world has there ever been a propaganda machine quite like the United States, its the most powerful element to the American empire. Its been able to hold the veneer of political credibility through "democracy & openness", when its really a lightly managed democracy, whose leadership class will use fear & deception to rule. Its not a "right-left" thing either, there is no doubt a class of oligarchs who move between the two parties seamlessly (ahem, Bloomberg). They are all entirely open about their desire to control humanity with vaccine passports, digital currency run by the IMF out of Switzerland, and an entirely new surveillance economy in the West to compete against China's surveillance economy.  I've slowly become totally distrustful of any established narrative, because the longer you live, the more obvious it becomes just how powerful the propaganda machine in America is. They have managed to lie the country into endless wars, lied the country into a mass surveillance program with the Patriot Act, allowed the Financial Crisis to play ou