Автопилот

[ak_47]

Хотел написать о чём-нибудь хорошем или несерьёзном, но ютьюб подсунул недавнее интервью Брета Вайнштейна. (Спасибо balalajkin'у за наводку на его подкаст.) Брет один из многих американских левых, которые сидели на месте и неoжиданно для себя оказались справа от центра. Но знаменит он не этим, а тем что стал сомневаться в ковидной догме, за что и поплатился

Comments

[vsopvs]

статья о нем в Wiki увлекательная 😀

разъясняет в чем он не прав с точки зрения британских учОных™

[ak_47]

Вики сегодня как БСЭ. Надо читать между строк. А самая информативная статья это та, которая должна быть, но её нет.

[vsopvs]

:)))

это точно

[silly_sad]

Weinstein, despite his already established reputation, also avoids speaking about most fundamental most important aspects of the Plandemic, and avoids most powerful arguments, sticking with minutia of which treatment is better

[vsopvs]

what are these "most fundamental most important aspects of the Plandemic"?

and what are these "most powerful arguments" he avoids?

[silly_sad]

there are so many, i dont know where to start.
like, what is the legal definition of "vaxxed person",
how many times the definition of "vaxine" changed,
how many THOUSANDS tmes the guidelines for assigning "cause of death" changed,
why the "follow the science" crowd insists on the "hospitalisations" number?

and most importantly EACH of this alone is sufficient to completely throw away all the "statistics" on "deadly pandemic".

this is the key argument: the entirety of the govt "data" is meaningless and void. all of it.

UPD
and then the corpus of legal actions that also render all claims about pandemic void.
the vaxinators immunity from lawsuits alone!

[vsopvs]

now i'm confused: are you rather with Weinstein or against?

[silly_sad]

i am neither :)

[vsopvs]

no wonder i'm confused :)

[silly_sad]

i follow evidence not people

[vsopvs]

fair enough

though one Friedrich Nietzsche said: "There are no facts, only interpretations."

surely he was joking :)

[silly_sad]

i dont know the context of this particular quote, could be a joke, coud be a smart joke, coud be a stupid joke.
let's say for clarity: there is no such thing as "interpretations".

there is a lengthy thought processing line along which people put ARBITRARY milestones: "boyond this mark interpretations", "beyond this mark speculations" etc.

we can get however arbitrarily close to the beginnng of the line.
say: FDA requested FOIAA exemption for vaxine trials data
this request exists in a way i would never be able to ascribe to my imagination.

[vsopvs]

he was arguing against positivism, you can see relevant discussion here (and much more in google)

as to FDA, Weinstein etc - i do not discuss this, not knowledgeable enough

though what he says about pharma i find rather compelling

[silly_sad]

he is no doubt saying truth, and FORBIDDEN truth.
but he refuses to develop his argument beyond some shamefully cowardly red line.

on the other hand, we know all too well that people of his ethnicity are masters of weaponized truth.

[vsopvs]

i agree with all

[silly_sad]

we were ridiculing a claim "u r not a vaxine expert" few hours ago.
and i realized one point we missed that is relevant to this particular thread.
this claim is not even valid.
BECAUSE the definition of "vaxxine" has been changed very recently.
there are no experts in vaxxines any more.

people FATALLY understimate the importance of the ever changing "definitions"