There's little hesitance. The general public realizing that vaccines do not work, never worked, are a long con/grift, and have caused great harm & death is the obvious, simple reason for 'vaccine rejection'.
No body as in nobody is vaccine hesitant that is just a slur created by big fat obese marketing firms to slander thinking, feeling, real human beings, to dehumanize them by just slamming a 'one worder' on 'em, et voila! Those not wanting to be experimented upon are very serious about not wanting to be experimented upon and no one slogan word of slander is going to change that, they can slander all day long and take all the meds they like to boot. Vladimir Lenin : We will win by using slogans, we will win by using socialized medicine. Medical tyranny is real, slogans have no value other than to mind control the mindless, and make the informed chuckle, cheers!
Yes! Censorship is the tool of tyrants! Name calling, nudging, labeling and divisive rhetoric are propaganda with censorship being the driver and it is happening in lockstep globally We've been called worse by our own prime minister. This is a misinformation disinformation and coercive war by the government and the media against the same public who pay them and who they are supposed to serve.
Food for thought: a story about a workaholic cancer researcher who smoked and late in life did get cancer but beat all the odds as to living with it for many years before dying as most peolple do. She said : smoking does not cause cancer, I never forgot that due to the way she said it, so I could not brush it off as an addict saying that which they are addicted to is not an issue or as addicts like to ssay : I've got it under control. It stuck in my mind. And as it is clear that tobacco plants are part of nature and can be medicinal it becomes clear why tobacco was misused and turned on its head so to speak, adjuvants added for extra addictive spice and the 'benefits' partially neutralized, you have to question in any case why plants are demonized in general, it's a trick of sorcerers it seems, cheers!
"Best informed" = those who have swallowed our propaganda. "Most disinformed" = those who have somehow gained access to truthful data despite our best efforts.
Well spoken Dr. Bridle. You never know how close someone may be to “snapping out of it.” Speaking directly to the one suffering within the mass formation, rather than merely speaking disparagingly about them, is more productive, acknowledging their humanity and inviting them into re-engaging their capacity for critical thinking, which has been completely co-opted by the formation. They don’t see their own unexamined presumptions as unexamined presumptions, but as unassailable truths. Like in China, it is unassailably true (under penalty of reeducation, imprisonment or death) that the CCP is correct and righteous and that those who disagree are suffering from having been misinformed. It would be helpful for us in the “medical freedom movement” to clearly see this parallel. Champions of ideology literally cannot see, hear or feel the truth within those who disagree. Instead, they rely on labeling others as, whatever…”misinformed, heretics, conspiracy theorists”, easily dismissed as unworthy of regard, respect or consideration. Thank you, for your courage and perseverance. If not for people like you, the downward spiral would be swift and total.
"If people really want to follow the science, look for: 1. data that have gone through the scientific er-review process, or 2. transparent raw data for which materials and methods have been clearly delineated and executed by subject matter experts."
Both of those options are archaic. First, the peer review process is, at best, a social activity with its own biases, incentives, etc. This seems particularly so in pharma, where former editors at leading journals have stated that the peer review process is compromised. Do I believe that peer review is useful? Yes, but in disciplines like civil engineering or transportation engineering.
Second, raw data and methods are good, but the trend in a lot of "hard" science and applied science disciplines is to supply a repository of data, methods, and source code that is in runnable form. Jupyter notebooks, Python, R, Matlab (etc). Then the general public can futz around with the actual research content.
A good example of why this is necessary came when a grad student discovered a basic Excel spreadsheet error by two leading economists. Allowing the public to critique a work simply makes it stronger. Unfortunately, researchers in pseudosciences like economics or pharmaceuticals simply don't want to risk exposure.
Wikipedia mentions one of Professor Caulfield's earth shaking findings
'Some of the supposed cures of COVID-19 that Caulfield has debunked are drinking bleach, drinking silver, snorting cocaine, homeopathy, drinking cow urine, garlic soup and hydroxychloroquine.'[16]
Thanks Byram. I just want to say this in general...i have come to believe that the truth cannot defend itself if it is swarmed by 50 hyenas. It needs our help. Thankyou for yours.
"Experts" like Caulfield are given incentives to push and praise vaccines. They demand that we follow the faith that vaccines are perfect and cannot fail and shall not be criticised. They have elevated vaccines beyond what they are capable of and now lie to make up for their failings but they can only get away with this for so long before they will be found out, many are waking up to the lies.
“I could not find the source file for the data in the post. If anyone has it, please provide the link in the comments. If people really want to follow the science, look for: 1. data that have gone through the scientific peer-review process, or 2. transparent raw data for which materials and methods have been clearly delineated and executed by subject matter experts. I clicked on the links to EKOS Research and Voice of Franky but could not find this table, let alone how it was generated, nor how the terms were defined. I went to the website for EKOS Research but could not readily find it there either.”
I tried to find the source file too, and failed. However, I did find a fair amount of additional information. One thing that was helpful was to do a Google search on “ekos politics openness by disinformation” then clicked on images. This led to a variety of images with links worth further exploration. Two such links are as follows:
Under this link there is an answer to the question about how the terms were defined. The description of the disinformation index is this:
“For this research, we tested seven separate indicators of disinformation and we have constructed a disinformation index, a 12-point scale that measures how strongly respondents believe these four pieces of disinformation:
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is being exaggerated;
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility; and
COVID-19 vaccines can alter a patient’s DNA.
The index is constructed as follows:
A respondent receives three points for every statement they rate as completely true.
A respondent receives two points for every statement they rate as mostly true.
A respondent receives one point for every statement they skip (in other words, for every statement they are unable to correctly categorize as false)."
Huh? Seven separate indicators? Are there three not mentioned?
This link gave a different description of the disinformation index:
“For this research, we tested five separate indicators of disinformation and we have constructed a disinformation index, a 15-point scale that measures how strongly respondents have bought into four pieces of disinformation and how strongly they reject one piece of correct information:
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility;
COVID-19 vaccines can alter a patient’s DNA;
Inflation is much higher in Canada than in the United States; and
Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The index is constructed as follows:
A respondent receives three points for every statement they rate as completely true (or completely false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change);
A respondent receives two points for every statement they rate as mostly true (or mostly false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change); and
A respondents receives one point for every statement they skip (in other words, every statement they are unable to correctly categorize as true or false); respondents do not receive a point for skipping the statement on inflation.”
There are two common indicators in these descriptions:
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility;
I find it particularly remarkable that the first of these common indicators is so blithely regarded as disinformation. Even if Ekos were assessing the evidence, which apparently they are not, how could they possibly know that vaccine-related deaths are not being concealed? That’s like someone prior to 1959 saying that there are no craters on the far side of the moon. (Only one side of the moon ever faces the earth and prior to the launch of Luna 3 in 1959 there were no pictures of the far side.)
There's little hesitance. The general public realizing that vaccines do not work, never worked, are a long con/grift, and have caused great harm & death is the obvious, simple reason for 'vaccine rejection'.
Not "vaccine hesitant" but "vaccine resistant"!
No body as in nobody is vaccine hesitant that is just a slur created by big fat obese marketing firms to slander thinking, feeling, real human beings, to dehumanize them by just slamming a 'one worder' on 'em, et voila! Those not wanting to be experimented upon are very serious about not wanting to be experimented upon and no one slogan word of slander is going to change that, they can slander all day long and take all the meds they like to boot. Vladimir Lenin : We will win by using slogans, we will win by using socialized medicine. Medical tyranny is real, slogans have no value other than to mind control the mindless, and make the informed chuckle, cheers!
Yes! Censorship is the tool of tyrants! Name calling, nudging, labeling and divisive rhetoric are propaganda with censorship being the driver and it is happening in lockstep globally We've been called worse by our own prime minister. This is a misinformation disinformation and coercive war by the government and the media against the same public who pay them and who they are supposed to serve.
Tyrants hate ridicule, so use it wisely as a healing modality, cheers!
If today's crowd was around in the 60's
Re smoking
Smoking denialism
Conspiracy theorists say smoking is bad
You have smoking hesitancy.
Good marketing though. If insane.
Food for thought: a story about a workaholic cancer researcher who smoked and late in life did get cancer but beat all the odds as to living with it for many years before dying as most peolple do. She said : smoking does not cause cancer, I never forgot that due to the way she said it, so I could not brush it off as an addict saying that which they are addicted to is not an issue or as addicts like to ssay : I've got it under control. It stuck in my mind. And as it is clear that tobacco plants are part of nature and can be medicinal it becomes clear why tobacco was misused and turned on its head so to speak, adjuvants added for extra addictive spice and the 'benefits' partially neutralized, you have to question in any case why plants are demonized in general, it's a trick of sorcerers it seems, cheers!
Caulfield has received a small fortune from the Turdeau foundation.
Those responsible for the covid catastrophe are defending their actions as though their lives depend upon it... 🤔
"Best informed" = those who have swallowed our propaganda. "Most disinformed" = those who have somehow gained access to truthful data despite our best efforts.
If they truly have faith that the injections protect them, why did their fear increase with each dose?
Well spoken Dr. Bridle. You never know how close someone may be to “snapping out of it.” Speaking directly to the one suffering within the mass formation, rather than merely speaking disparagingly about them, is more productive, acknowledging their humanity and inviting them into re-engaging their capacity for critical thinking, which has been completely co-opted by the formation. They don’t see their own unexamined presumptions as unexamined presumptions, but as unassailable truths. Like in China, it is unassailably true (under penalty of reeducation, imprisonment or death) that the CCP is correct and righteous and that those who disagree are suffering from having been misinformed. It would be helpful for us in the “medical freedom movement” to clearly see this parallel. Champions of ideology literally cannot see, hear or feel the truth within those who disagree. Instead, they rely on labeling others as, whatever…”misinformed, heretics, conspiracy theorists”, easily dismissed as unworthy of regard, respect or consideration. Thank you, for your courage and perseverance. If not for people like you, the downward spiral would be swift and total.
"If people really want to follow the science, look for: 1. data that have gone through the scientific er-review process, or 2. transparent raw data for which materials and methods have been clearly delineated and executed by subject matter experts."
Both of those options are archaic. First, the peer review process is, at best, a social activity with its own biases, incentives, etc. This seems particularly so in pharma, where former editors at leading journals have stated that the peer review process is compromised. Do I believe that peer review is useful? Yes, but in disciplines like civil engineering or transportation engineering.
Second, raw data and methods are good, but the trend in a lot of "hard" science and applied science disciplines is to supply a repository of data, methods, and source code that is in runnable form. Jupyter notebooks, Python, R, Matlab (etc). Then the general public can futz around with the actual research content.
A good example of why this is necessary came when a grad student discovered a basic Excel spreadsheet error by two leading economists. Allowing the public to critique a work simply makes it stronger. Unfortunately, researchers in pseudosciences like economics or pharmaceuticals simply don't want to risk exposure.
Yes but id rather bad data than the whole its safe because I say so. That everyone has heard thousands of times.
Wikipedia mentions one of Professor Caulfield's earth shaking findings
'Some of the supposed cures of COVID-19 that Caulfield has debunked are drinking bleach, drinking silver, snorting cocaine, homeopathy, drinking cow urine, garlic soup and hydroxychloroquine.'[16]
🤣 Thank you this!
Hi Dr. Byram, another paid moron by big pharma. The only misinformation is his name--tells you everything you need to know. All the best, David
Dumb question. Does that pompous and tedious wannabe 'misinformation expert' actually read your Substack?
Maybe you are he,
:-)
Thanks Byram. I just want to say this in general...i have come to believe that the truth cannot defend itself if it is swarmed by 50 hyenas. It needs our help. Thankyou for yours.
"Experts" like Caulfield are given incentives to push and praise vaccines. They demand that we follow the faith that vaccines are perfect and cannot fail and shall not be criticised. They have elevated vaccines beyond what they are capable of and now lie to make up for their failings but they can only get away with this for so long before they will be found out, many are waking up to the lies.
I have no problem with Caulfield influencing his 100,000 Twitt followers. In fact, I hope they're in line for Booster #10.
Yeah, baby! I love a surgical literary lambasting!
Byram, you say:
“I could not find the source file for the data in the post. If anyone has it, please provide the link in the comments. If people really want to follow the science, look for: 1. data that have gone through the scientific peer-review process, or 2. transparent raw data for which materials and methods have been clearly delineated and executed by subject matter experts. I clicked on the links to EKOS Research and Voice of Franky but could not find this table, let alone how it was generated, nor how the terms were defined. I went to the website for EKOS Research but could not readily find it there either.”
I tried to find the source file too, and failed. However, I did find a fair amount of additional information. One thing that was helpful was to do a Google search on “ekos politics openness by disinformation” then clicked on images. This led to a variety of images with links worth further exploration. Two such links are as follows:
First: https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2022/09/public-attitudes-to-the-freedom-movement/.
Under this link there is an answer to the question about how the terms were defined. The description of the disinformation index is this:
“For this research, we tested seven separate indicators of disinformation and we have constructed a disinformation index, a 12-point scale that measures how strongly respondents believe these four pieces of disinformation:
The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is being exaggerated;
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility; and
COVID-19 vaccines can alter a patient’s DNA.
The index is constructed as follows:
A respondent receives three points for every statement they rate as completely true.
A respondent receives two points for every statement they rate as mostly true.
A respondent receives one point for every statement they skip (in other words, for every statement they are unable to correctly categorize as false)."
Huh? Seven separate indicators? Are there three not mentioned?
Second: https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2023/05/ucp-headed-for-victory-in-close-race-in-alberta/.
This link gave a different description of the disinformation index:
“For this research, we tested five separate indicators of disinformation and we have constructed a disinformation index, a 15-point scale that measures how strongly respondents have bought into four pieces of disinformation and how strongly they reject one piece of correct information:
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility;
COVID-19 vaccines can alter a patient’s DNA;
Inflation is much higher in Canada than in the United States; and
Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The index is constructed as follows:
A respondent receives three points for every statement they rate as completely true (or completely false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change);
A respondent receives two points for every statement they rate as mostly true (or mostly false in the case of greenhouse gases causing climate change); and
A respondents receives one point for every statement they skip (in other words, every statement they are unable to correctly categorize as true or false); respondents do not receive a point for skipping the statement on inflation.”
There are two common indicators in these descriptions:
Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility;
I find it particularly remarkable that the first of these common indicators is so blithely regarded as disinformation. Even if Ekos were assessing the evidence, which apparently they are not, how could they possibly know that vaccine-related deaths are not being concealed? That’s like someone prior to 1959 saying that there are no craters on the far side of the moon. (Only one side of the moon ever faces the earth and prior to the launch of Luna 3 in 1959 there were no pictures of the far side.)