Goddess

Given this fine definition, is it normal in science to censor new evidence and data and to silence and cancel the careers of doctors and scientists who provide that new evidence? Is what we've seen happen to science for the last 3 years normal? My view is that it is not. Because of scientific censorship, the public was misled about both covid and the inoculations. While some of these can be "mistakes" or new evidence coming in, I think the sheer volume of misleading and incorrect information that the public received, goes far beyond "mistakes." Partly because the "mistakes" are never corrected. I think of Trudeau campaigning in the last election and his insane Hitler-like screaming about how unvaxxed people had NO RIGHT to move about freely in society and put his or YOUR children in danger. It was all rubbish. By spring of 2020, we already knew the risk to anyone who was not very elderly, morbidly obese or already with a foot in the grave was extremely low and that children's risk was even lower than that. By the time Trudeau screamed the above to a cheering crowd, we already knew the jabs weren't preventing anything. We were lied to, misled and manipulated by hate-filled propaganda, scientific censorship and a steady diet of fear-porn. I'm not surprised that gullible people have trouble admitting it. It was shameful.

Whatever. Just stop derailing the thread with your anti-science conspiracy theories.

Did you speak up when jailing people was talked about? No, you did not. You cheered the whole thing on. And it was all based on lies. And now you refuse to admit it.

I mean, I get it. You are the ones who cheered loudly for unvaxxed people to be jailed, fined, fired from their jobs, barred from society, one of you wanted them sent to refrigerated trucks to die, eyeball talks breathlessly and excitedly about the possibility of firing squads because the unvaxxed are "murderers." And you all did this LONG AFTER the data showed that the jabs prevented nothing. "I was wrong." is not an option for you. I'd rather be me, than whatever the fuque the rest of you became in the last 3 years.

So, seeing the studies and data that identified myo and pericarditis as a serious adverse event is......BIAS to you? Authorities insisted to the public that myocarditis, first - didn't exist as an adverse event and then when they couldn't hide it any longer, FINALLY admitted it was happening. In fact, it was happening to the point that many countries stopped the jabs in people under 50. Same thing happened with menstrual issues - deny, deny, deny - until they couldn't deny it any more. This is not BIAS. It's extremely bizarre to me that you view studies and data as BIAS but MSM propaganda and lies, as truth. It's not just bizarre, it's utter stupidity. I mean, seriously - how many times do you have to be outright lied to by the same people before you wise up?

I'm going to expand on an illustration I've used here before, but it uses the science of engineering instead of medical science: The government decides that a bridge must be built. It will reduce traffic congestion greatly and the public has been clamoring for it. So they award the bridge building contract to a company of 10 engineers with a long history of putting profits before people by committing fraud and bridge collapses that cost many lives. They have been heavily fined for these lapses in the past. But the government assures the public that THIS time, the company will play right. Now, other engineers look at the plans of specs of the new bridge and raise concerns with the public - there are issues with the physics of the bridge, some of the engineers are paper-pushers who haven't built a bridge in years and corners are being cut on the quality of cement and strength of the steel being used. In response, the government takes away the diplomas and certificates of those dissenting engineers and warns the public not to listen to them, that they are nothing but crackpots. The news is nothing but how great the bridge will be and how wonderful the company is that is building it. Anyone who raises concerns is painted as a crackpot and has their career ruined. But some people who read the dissenting opinions and who understand physics, can read a blueprint, understand the correct mixture of cement and remember the frauds and collapses perpetrated by this company before.....they have real concerns about sending themselves or their families over this bridge multiple times a day. Over the next year, the bridge gets built and starts to be used. Thousands of people cross the bridge and they report to the dissenting public "You bunch of id-iots! Look, the bridge is built and it's great! You were stupid to listen to the dissenting engineers!" Meanwhile, sinkholes start appearing in the sidewalks on the bridge and people are getting sucked into them and dying. The nightly news is forbidden by the government from telling the public this. In fact, government officials are interviewed on the news stating that the sinkholes and people dying are LIES - it's not happening at all. "There are no sinkholes and no one is dying." is the official line. 3 of the engineers from the company that built the bridge quit their jobs. They no longer want their names attached to this bridge and they anticipate the company is going to get sued soon. If any of the public find out about these engineers who quit, the government simply says they are, again, crackpots. Soon larger sinkholes start popping up on the bridge road - now cars full of people are getting sucked into them and dying. The public is starting to wonder now - not everyone, because some are still believing the government and they have been shielded from ever knowing that many engineers have raised concerns about the safety of the bridge. Now the government can't hide it any longer, so they assure the public that the vast majority of people crossing the bridge, do so in complete safety and anyways, some loss of life was always expected (although they did not say so at the time.) The dissenting engineers, who warned early on about the bridge, start to see cracks in the cement and pieces of steel breaking free and they believe the families of those killed by the sinkholes. But the government and the bridge company continue to assure the public that nothing is wrong with the bridge, in fact it is working perfectly and as expected. They point out the "consensus" of engineers is that the bridge is safe. Now. I am not one of the public who cannot read a blueprint and who does not understand how the consistency of cement is important in building. I am going to avoid the bridge. I listen in sadness to the stories of those who have lost loved ones to the sinkholes and those who broke legs and arms in near-misses with the sinkholes and those who broke their back in a sinkhole and are now permanently disabled. I wonder why they did not pay attention to what was happening and why they put blind faith in the bridge company with the history of fraud. I know the bridge will collapse soon - all signs point to it. It's crumbing now. Nervous and swirling? No. Just sad that so many don't want to read the bridge specs or even attempt to understand physics. Sometimes angry that the government continues to assure everyone the bridge is 100% safe, when it's clear it's not. Sometimes frustrated that so many people insist that all engineers say the bridge is safe, when this is absolutely untrue. But I see they are being shielded from hearing the truth. And either laziness or outright stupidity keeps them from reading anything but propaganda. Fallacy of sunk costs applies here, too. Some have been so vocal about hating unvaxxed people, that they cannot go back and see that the hatred was fed to them or admit that they fell for it. So they continue full-steam ahead. At this point, use the bridge all you want. It's your choice. Send your kids over it. It's obvious those of you who come here to jeer and call me names, have no interest in physics or engineering or how to make cement and steel strong. I do think some of you are just not intellectually capable of grasping the actual science, so are content to spout cliches like "Trust the engineers who say the bridge is safe!" and "Why would the government lie to us?" and "There is a consensus of engineers who certify the bridge is safe." For those interested, I'm going to continue to post the data and studies. Many countries released their yearly data in February and I've only had a chance to go over the Australian and UK data, which shows massive excess deaths, miscarriages/stillbirths, explosions of cancers and heart disease and stroke. Singapore, Taiwan Japan and others are also.....not looking good.

? You're kidding me, right? ? So you believe that your doctor, who had about 10 hours of lectures on immunology a long time ago in medical school, sat through some "information sessions" (which were likely paid for by Pfizer).....and now this doctor has more knowledge to recommend an inoculation, than scientists, virologists, epidemiologists and immunologists with decades of experience???? ? OMG, that was the best laugh I've had since "The covid jabs will stop transmission." and "Natural immunity does not exist." Seriously dude - I can see this topic is waaaaaay over your head.

No, it's not. I've provided 49 pages of doctors and scientists, data and studies - who are not part of your fake "consensus." It's your claim that there is consensus that is baseless and unfounded. It's a cliche you picked up from CBC and now spout, even though if I asked you to name 5 scientists who are part of your "consensus", you wouldn't be able to do it. But I can name you at least 30 who are not part of your fake "consensus" and I can do it without Googling. If you don't have any actual studies or data that you want to discuss here, then stop commenting and derailing my thread. This thread is for actual science - not your CBC propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Canada’s Unprecedented Inquiry 2 — Coping with Heartbreak (gatheryourwits.com) Reporter reporting on NCI testimony in Toronto. If you want to watch the proceedings, you can no longer watch it YouTube, as it's been censored there. You know - the censorship that Contrarian denies is happening. You can watch it on the NCI website, though. From the above - this is how utterly id-iotic the coronamaniacs are:

THERE IS NOT A CONSENSUS. Far from it. You think there is because you are only being exposed to the small number of professionals who have agreed to promote a certain narrative, while those who disagree are being censored and silenced.

At work, in the last week or so, many prominent financial analysts have approached us to be interviewed about the coming financial collapse. They are all basically saying the same thing - this crisis and the war in Ukraine is manufactured and other countries, like Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and China are preparing for and making sure that the US dollar no longer has its reign of terror on the world. Bob Moriarty was interviewed this week and Michael Hudson, who he mentions in the video as someone to heed, will be interviewed by us very soon: Here is an article (or you can watch the video interview) with Michael Hudson that expands on Mr. Moriarty's views: Considering the Collapse of Antiquity and the Bank Panic, by Michael Hudson - The Unz Review

I agree. Especially the frontline doctors who actually treat patients. So why are they being censored and silenced?

In normal times, I would agree with this. But these are not normal times. For instance, all of the studies and data show that the risk/benefit analysis for jabbing children and young adults is poor. Children and young adults have statistically zero risk from covid and that risks of adverse events following inoculation are greater. For this reason, many countries (not Canada, as we do not follow the science and never have) have discontinued the jabs for children and healthy people under 50. But if you ask your Canadian doctor whether your child or teenager or yourself should get the jabs, they will tell you that you definitely should. Because if they tell you what the actual studies and data show, they will lose their license to practice. So in normal times, when doctors were not muzzled by politics, I most definitely would agree to trust your doctor. Nowadays, you can heed your doctor, knowing full well that he is being politically muzzled from telling you the truth OR you can follow the science.

You haven't posted any data or logic, though.

The people who live Down Under mostly live clustered near the coasts, where there is access to water. The Eastern Coast includes the most well-known cities like Melbourne and Sydney. Darwin sticks up on the North Coast, and is an important naval center. There’s virtually nothing civilized at all in the middle of Australia except a tiny town called Alice Springs, which sprouted up at the only spot where water can be found. But Perth, a big city of two million people, along with a few nearby smaller towns making up about four million total souls, lies isolated on Australia’s Western Coast, protected by a massive, impenetrable desert. Western Australia might as well be on an island. There are very few ways to get there, so when that province locked down for covid, they had possibly the best access control in the world. And as the article explained, Western Australia locked down early, before covid got there, and even reached 90% vaccine rates before it ever experienced the pandemic. How the ‘hermit kingdom’ became the world’s control group for the largest vaccination trial ever - Umbrella News The story’s news is that the province just released its vaccine surveillance report for 2021 — when there was ZERO covid there — and guess what? The province experienced an ‘exponential increase’ in adverse events, with hospitals struggling to keep up with the carnage. Here is the official chart of REPORTED adverse events that were turned into Western Australia’s Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) system, which is their version of VAERS: According to Umbrella, despite the near-total absence of covid cases, in the second half of 2021, Western Australia media regularly reported that WA hospitals were overwhelmed, right as adverse events peaked. It was a pandemic of vaccination. The highest month for adverse event reports was October — the very same month workplace mandates issued, vaccine eligibility expanded to anyone 18 and over, and walk-in vaccinations came online. Only 16 cases of covid were reported in October. On October 31st, WA Premier Mark McGowan told reporters that hospitals were “under enormous pressure,” but said it was baffling to understand why that was. Just baffling. Adverse events for covid vaccines were reported in Western Australia at almost 24 times the rate of adverse events for all other vaccines — combined.

I don't even post all the studies and datasets that are out there. But the ones I do post, are good. And they're all saying the same thing right now. You guys come here, ignore the studies and data, post a CBC headline and a personal insult in rebuttal and strut around like you proved something. How am I supposed to take any of you seriously? And you think I'M the id-iot? ?

Support your view. That's all you have to do. It's actually one of the rules of this forum. I post 47 studies and datasets that say a certain thing. Your view is the studies and datasets are wrong. Fine. Have a different view. I don't care. But if you want to come here and state your view, then SUPPORT your view. And pick something that supports your view that ISN'T an MSM headline.

Yes, I use data. The data doesn't "fit a narrative." The data says what it says. You can ignore it, or you can continue to quote CBC headlines. Entirely up to you, dude.

But I HAVE been right about everything. And you've been wrong about everything. You do understand that you all participated in a medical experiment for which there were no long-term studies or data and that now the studies and data are coming in, right? If you don't want to know what the results were of the experiment you participated in, then don't come here. But don't come here and slag on me for posting the resultant studies and data. For someone who participated in a medical experiment and has zero interest in how it's going, you sure show up here a lot.

Or: They didn't refuse. They wanted the medicine but the government banned it and lied to the public about it being only for animals.

National Citizen's Inquiry, Toronto, Day 1 - Full testimony. I'll also post some snippets of Day 1 that the NCI posted.

Mark Oshinkie - Dispatches From a Scamdemic There’s nothing intrinsically virtuous, epistemologically sound or sensible about taking the position midway between two poles. The soundness of the center depends on where the poles are set. One, or both, of the poles can be completely undeserving of serious consideration. If I say it’s good to drink one beer a day and my friend says you should suck down 12, that doesn’t mean it’s right to consume six. Unfortunately, during Coronamania, most people hewed to some perceived center and sought comfort in the bosom of the crowd. Despite the obvious extremism and illogic of locking down/masking/testing/injecting everyone to “crush” a respiratory virus with a clearly limited risk profile, most people went along with society-wide “mitigation” because their peers, the media and ostensible experts endorsed these measures and because these measures seemed incremental and temporary. By reciting—and then quickly disregarding—the obvious problems caused by the various forms of mitigation, those who went along convinced themselves that they’d adequately considered these problems and could righteously adopt the ostensibly centrist media and government pro-lockdown/mask/test/vaxx, etc. stance. To them, a cursory mention of mitigation’s downsides made their view balanced and “nuanced.” Though mostly, they wanted others to like them. Week after week, people re-drew their line in the sand regarding which government restrictions or mandates were tolerable. Their degenerative—and factually groundless—rationalization process went something like this: “True, we’ve never confined people to their homes over a virus and doing so seems destructive and dystopian. But it’s only two weeks; to flatten the curve, and all.” “It’s sad that people can’t hold the hands of loved ones dying in hospitals. But if it saves just one life, then I guess some people should die alone.” “I doubt that masks work and I don’t like wearing one. But doing so couldn’t hurt. And I don’t want to cause a scene.” “People should be able to gauge their own risk and gather with family or friends, attend funerals or worship. But it’s safer if we all just use Zoom instead.” “Yes, printing 6 (or 8 or 10) trillion dollars might cause impoverishing inflation and a deep recession. But we’ve got to help those who lost their jobs due to lockdowns.” “Sure, it seems silly to wear masks in restaurants until food arrives and then take them off for an hour. But every little bit helps.” “Kids should be in school because they’re not at risk. But maybe they should close the schools for three months, because some kids might infect some teachers.” “I know I’m not at risk and I don’t know what’s in these shots. But I’m willing to take them because I want to ‘stop the spread.’ “It’s obvious that on-line school doesn’t work and that kids desperately need social time. But I guess it’s OK if they close the schools for another year, just to be safe. And kids are resilient.” “I think it’s morally wrong and unconstitutional to make people take shots by threatening to fire them. But if it means we can ‘get back to normal,’ it’s worth it.” And so on. It was all so equivocal and senseless. But most people went along, largely because they feared others’ disapproval. And they thought that the majority was right, because, well, it was the majority. The Japanese say that “The nail that sticks up will be hammered down.” The unwillingness to question the many absurd, destructive mitigation measures reflected a fear of being ostracized or labeled “an extremist.” Spineless people were far too willing to placate the histrionic extremists who supported locking down a country, closing schools and testing, masking and vaxxing everyone. Many governments refuse to bargain with terrorists. But Americans let their media and government terrorize them. And once Mitigation Mania began, people reacted as if they were negotiating with their captor/government. They told themselves that, “If I only make the next concession, they’ll make this whole nightmare end.” They didn’t understand that their Dear Leaders weren’t playing that game and weren’t bound by either truth or good faith. For decades, many have insisted that Americans were morally obligated to vote because young men shed their blood fighting for our rights. But from mid-March, 2020 to the present, when governments took away many basic rights, e.g.: to assemble, to travel, to worship, to express themselves in public forums without censorship, and to reject unwanted medical treatments—plus the government’s dilution of voting rights by authorizing fraud-facilitating vote-by-mail—people forgot about all those 20 year-olds who came home in boxes. By paying lip service to the harm caused by the ludicrous and destructive mitigation measures, but nonetheless going along with these measures, people could see themselves, and have others see them, as thoughtful centrists. Heaven forbid that they take, and hold, an independent, reasoned stance that might bother some people. By degrees, and in order to avoid social disapproval, most people gave away their, and other peoples,’ rights. Direct observation and studies have shown that this forfeiture was all pain and no gain. Predictably, none of the widely-supported mitigation measures yielded public health benefits. All caused deep, lasting harm.