| HN Mirror

You're in an information silo - and you even prove it by claiming I'm chasing to look for "experts" who are counter the narrative you've been indoctrinated with.

And it's even more obvious that you're indoctrinated because you're still spouting the blatant lie that "MRNA vaccines are highly safe and effective" - when even Pfizer's data that they had to release says otherwise.

Surely you've heard of information and filter bubbles before? Or is that disinformation too? You can do a Google search to find a lot of articles on the subject, here's a random one I'll cite since you're probably too lazy to look into it yourself: "How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know" - https://fs.blog/filter-bubbles/

Or you'll reactively believe that you're immune to bubble filters, and therefore not in one? Yet, interestingly.

The filter bubble you're in is arguably more sophisticated and refined by other intellectual ideologues or those wanting to carefully control the narrative and manipulate you than perhaps the more shallow narratives needed to capture and lead along general ideologues (who have lower intelligence) - but you're still clearly in an information bubble, and intellectually dishonest because you're simply automatically dismissing me and "5 hours of 'expert' video testimony" who have the opposite position and understanding than you do.

I'm guessing with how you quickly/instantly dismiss the opposition with a shallow reaction, avoiding actually citing research and data, or willing to look at the information the opposition has - you keep yourself blind, and ignorantly blissful - righteous even.

So, I decided I will link the video for you - so how about you watch this 38 minute summary of the 5+ hours: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-...

Here's the full 5+ hours, for anyone else curious: https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html

Hopefully you’ll go expert by expert, statement by statement, and respond to them - and not only pick one or two to react to, so that you're easily cherrypicking potentially low hanging fruit that probably requires more than the 30 minutes summary to reenforce or understand what they're referring to; “but who has time for that - finding the truth and seeing if I’ve only been exposed to biased information isn’t important enough! And then I get to keep just yelling that you’re wrong, an idiot, and a danger to society for spreading [mis]information I don’t believe is true nor will research adequately to see if I’m right!”

There's been a concerted effort to suppress scientific process, but you're not someone to care about that - you probably actually applaud it, being so arrogant as to think you couldn't be wrong and mislead by propaganda, and you're even now being a good puppet-soldier for those who manipulated you by performing the social-peer pressure necessary to attempt to suppress conversations like these.

But I predicted this is exactly how this conversation would go because your language already exposed you, and so I've stopped bothering searching for a large amount of citations I could present to you.

You're clearly not up-to-date on the research/data either, but that's not surprising. I wonder if you're aware of the contents of the Pfizer data that they were forced to publish 75 years before they wanted to?

Here's another video you should watch where Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying are discussing analysis of Pfizer's data but looking at all-cause mortality for the COVID mRNA shots, etc: https://youtu.be/Fc0SEdPresU?t=1095 - starts around 18:15 so I linked to that timestamp, from the video description:

“New research suggests that adenovirus-vectored vaccines (e.g. J&J, AstraZeneca) reduce all-cause mortality, but that mRNA vaccines (e.g. Pfizer, Moderna) do not. What are the implications of this? What kinds of vaccines are recommended and effective, and how can someone not trained in thinking about these things know? We also discuss the role of vitamin D in Covid outcomes, as well as NIR (Near Infrared Radiation), which we primarily get from being outside. Since before the Industrial Revolution, our exposure to NIR has declined dramatically—we spend less time outdoors, and now even our lightbulbs and the glass in our windows limits how much NIR we receive, but it turns out that we need it. What else do we need that we don’t yet know about?”

If you respond to anything I'm curious how you react to the numbers in that all-cause mortality analysis? The data is from Pfizer, and all the study is doing is adding up death totals between treatment and placebo/control group - hopefully you'll comment on why there were 31 deaths in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine group vs. 30 in the placebo group, and actually only 15 deaths in the non-mRNA vaccine group that it's also compared to? It looks like the non-mRNA vaccine is 2x as effective as Pfizer, but the mRNA treatment has roughly equal benefit as the no treatment that the control/placebo got.

Or will you not even watch the video, read the all-cause mortality study for yourself, and instantly dismiss it - perhaps in part because you'll see Bret Weinstein's name and you'll have read somewhere in a smear campaign that he's a quack?

Please do let me know where you stop fighting for truth though, where the resistance of your anger blocks you from moving forward into the discomfort that challenges what you currently seem to deeply believe - causing you such painful cognitive dissonance that you will instead of sit with that pain while digesting the information you're seeing, instead you'll quell that emotion by writing out long shallow sentences to try to discredit or demean me or those I am citing in order to have filler to make it look like you argued a point - when there's no support to your statements at all?

I do hope you watch the two ~30 minute videos above though - and if only one of them, the all-cause mortality one - as then that will focus the conversation specifically on concrete data that we can see how the results either confirm or deny your conclusion that the mRNA treatment is "highly safe and effective" as you so boldly claim; there's so much more to argue though but it's a waste of time with someone who's so deeply indoctrinated and close minded that they're intellectually dishonest and unable to take in new information to critically think through - for example, the clinical trial designs were wholly inadequate and even criminally unethical in design by designing them to manufacturing a narrow conclusion; there is evidence of this as well, and a thought exercise I could guide you through, to see first if you're even willing to admit it'd be a problem and unethical even before pointing you out to the proof for the specific mRNA clinical trials.

P.S. It's a common tactic for ideologues like yourself to attack the person rather than attacking the data, and conveniently you don't even cite your sources to backup your own claims - along with your general, short, and shallow statements; and by not citing specific research to backup your claims you don't allow the opportunity for someone to potentially debunk them - or point you to a source that has debunked them if there's flawed/questionable science/analysis in your source(s). Instead you see a name and your anger, emotion, makes you reactively avoid them - keeping you away from them; which is why the solution to the intellectual-ideological crisis we have in society today is to develop self-awareness and emotional regulation - so please start a regular yoga practice if you haven't yet, along with other practices that will start to open up your mind and heart. People who haven't developed emotional regulation then are prime candidates for being sucked into what's coined as mass formation psychosis - latching onto a susceptible person's free floating anxiety, giving them a place to quell their anxieties into cult-like behaviours.

"Intelligent ideologues are the most dangerous because they've really convinced themselves they're right" - Jordan Peterson