I agree but do you admit that you were wrong, or that you were too quick in your statements, NO
what i did, just read me.
that's kind of what I'm blaming you for, all your rhetoric about "true" or "false" science is blah blah, admit your mistakes you will have already taken a big step, and you will start a new approach
It is not rhetoric, but facts verifiable in the scientific literature, uncensored, which shows that there is another face to the piece placed on the table and that it also exists.
the "real" scientist always doubts, so when he says something it means that he has removed the doubt, that's why as soon as you said that the other 2 were vaccinated,
let go of me with these details,
get to the point who is:
Where is the evidence that BP provides on the supposed effectiveness of vaccines? Why vaccines escape safety rules? However, all provaxx literature dominates the media and ordinary citizens believe them without having or being able to analyze them and even less contest them. It is important not the fact of 2 or 3 isolated cases.
I immediately doubted, because nothing in the text affirmed it, I asked you to prove it, you were unable to do so and another intervener proved the opposite of what you said.
you doubt 2 or 3, but you do not doubt the thousands of victims to be sacrificed on the altar of the refusal to doubt.
But even under the ideal conditions, described by the minister, 90/95% would make between 3 and 7 million unvaccinated therefore as many supposed contaminants and, although it is many more unvaccinated that make it reality, it there are no deadly epidemics for benign pathologies,
according to their own words and writings. However 3 out of 67.000.000 individuals is ridiculous (statistically) when he dies each year between 500 and 700 victims of tuberculosis and the minister
not included in the mandatory, but for some rare cases, (and there
only one case presented as if it were a fatal threat to populations) there it is all a mess, a sleight of hand to divert attention elsewhere than on reality [*]
So indeed you are not a "real" scientist because you have no doubts, you only record here and there information, even the official statistics do not mean anything if you do not analyze them in a rigorous or scientific way, either you could be wrong, or you could be deceived by manipulating the numbers,
And you call that a scientific approach? The official statistical figures in question can be consulted
by everyone including you, not via “antivaxx” sites, what more could you ask for? So first essential step:
did you do it ?
on the other hand if you had a scientific spirit you would start by doubting and you would go further, by trying to cross your information with other sources and your retreat, or your scientific skills would allow you to see more clearly
What do you think Being a true scientist, I started there and those who followed the same approach scientifically reach the same conclusion. Do you also believe, that the victims of the vaccines were not provaxx otherwise they, they, would not have been vaccinated, so these victims did not doubt,
they, trusting
blindly to the reassuring speeches of the lobbies which influenced the decision-makers and it is because they did not doubt that they became victims or died of them.
And if they, they doubt, the provaxx, the media rush on them like scavengers.
So whether or not to doubt ? Or should doubt only go in one direction?
not to take raw figures (even official) or interpreted by a single source,
For the moment it is interpreted
by a single source, the provaxx, by truncating the part which does not prove them right, considering this first part as unimportant, but highlighting, the only part which credits them. Is that honest? Scientist?
we can make you believe anything, when you tell us it's a doctor in this what are you to question his claims, well simply someone who does not stop at a single sound of bell, someone who doubts,
You can make anyone believe anything, scientist or not.
but if there is someone who does not doubt, then you are the proof! Now it is not a question of believing any doctor rather than another, but an International scientific literature which
she is not antivaxx, but which is not mentioned in our self-censored provaxx media.
And the media, which doubt and ask real questions, find themselves taxed with antivaxx, because there is no doubt about pasteurian dogma as it was forbidden to doubt Catholic dogmas, which gave rise to the Inquisition or Mendele.
because I am a scientist and not a literary man because in literature you don't need to prove, you can write everything, even a historical novel remains a novel and some successful writers manage with History, and if we their reproach, the easy answer is: "it's a novel ..."
Very well: So follow a real scientific approach by consulting, comparing, analyzing the whole subject on a scientific level only, then prove and we will see what it ends up with, if you are honest with reality.
[*] Could you explain scientifically how, in the event of an "epidemic" of measles, being vaccinated against rubella or mumps plays a fundamental role against this disease?
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
