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!
"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]
The Bill would create a new process for Canadians to report instances of online speech directed at them is discriminatory, with a quasi-judicial tribunal ordering fines up to $50,000, and up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would remain anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment;
The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future;
The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk; &
The mere threat of human rights complaints and fines for Canadians and social media companies will chill large amounts of otherwise protected speech.
This Monday we launched a new campaign that allows visitors to our site to use a form to tell their MP to stop this bill.
Please note that if you're in a riding with a vacancy you might not be able to contact your Member of Parliament. I'd encourage you to reach out to party leaders (including the PM) if you live in one of these ridings.
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.
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!
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... 🤔
If they truly have faith that the injections protect them, why did their fear increase with each dose?
"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]
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
Tell your MP to stop Bill C-63!
The Bill would create a new process for Canadians to report instances of online speech directed at them is discriminatory, with a quasi-judicial tribunal ordering fines up to $50,000, and up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would remain anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment;
The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future;
The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk; &
The mere threat of human rights complaints and fines for Canadians and social media companies will chill large amounts of otherwise protected speech.
This Monday we launched a new campaign that allows visitors to our site to use a form to tell their MP to stop this bill.
You can do so here: theccf.ca/fix-c-63
Please note that if you're in a riding with a vacancy you might not be able to contact your Member of Parliament. I'd encourage you to reach out to party leaders (including the PM) if you live in one of these ridings.
Dumb question. Does that pompous and tedious wannabe 'misinformation expert' actually read your Substack?
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!