No, its not that I believe everything is a lie. Its that now, I demand strong proof.
Vaccines do work
That's the problem. We always assumed that without digging into it. Scientific methods & Statistical analysis from early 1900s were not good at all compared to today. Even studies from 70s upto 90s are highly suspect.
Good example is "Masks work against viruses". Its not just the US that believes it now. Asians have been following this mantra for decades.
As part of my Materials Science degree, I had to visit manufacturers of Clean Room tech, and they showed us how particulates simply cannot be eliminated, even by wearing headgear, gloves, shoes and the plastic overalls. Their measurements showed they still squeeze out of every small opening.
If you see the pictures of virologists working at WIV (Wuhan Inst. Virology), they wear pseudo spacesuits. That's what it takes to contain particulates. Unless you go that far you cannot reduce particulates in any meaningful way. Mask do not reduce particulates AT ALL. There are measurement methodologies for this, and there is no significant proof from before 2019 to back it up. After 2019, I do not trust the bias of the "scientists" who collaborated to kick Trump out by self censorship.
We need to not take things for granted, and assume govt paid scientists did their job properly.
Critical thinking >> blind faith
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Reliable sources needed.
When ever anyone looks at these sort of claims with any scrutiny they usually end up over blown or just plain wrong. You don't see the Amish over run with measles.
The fact that I had chicken pox around 93 (and remember it) and kids at the same age around 2001 did not seems to be some proof those type of vaccines work. At-least in my mind. but I seriously question any source that told you Crystal ladies in California were getting measles outbreaks.
These sort of data points are really hard to interpret. For example, you might say that wealthy women have a much higher mental illness rate but that might be because they have a much higher chance of getting a diagnosis because they actually see doctors.
sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 2 years ago
Not sure you can really call these reliable any more, but California, Washington state, and New York
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6817e1.htm
And later on in the same year:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6840e2.htm
The areas that got hit hardest aren't far right areas for sure.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
CDC is mostly trash these days. They are looking for provaccine content.
That is all they said. So they start with a goal. Prove the vaccines work. Then they go hunt data to support their claim. They look in places like California where un vaccinated people might be more likely to get measles due to being more social, having more young people together. Point to the lower 11% vaccinated infected rate as the reason for the outbreak. What I see is 11% is still substantial and just makes me suspicious of the whole data sample.
They are going to intentionally ignore the Amish and other communities that do fine without the vaccine because it won't support their data.
I'm not saying that the vaccines for sure don't work. I'm saying the CDC's goal it to show that it does and so they won't look at the data in a wholesome way.