Re: [OT] Professor inflitrates pro-Palestinian encampment; union leader calls for consequences

On 5/14/2024 1:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1ujlq$3uc8o$1@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 5/13/2024 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1u6e3$3o2h8$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/13/2024 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1u2bf$3n232$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/13/2024 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1tp0v$3krav$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/13/2024 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1tb17$3hi6h$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/12/2024 10:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1rtuq$37l07$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/12/2024 7:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 12, 2024 at 3:54:42 PM PDT, "moviePig"
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/12/2024 6:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1lpp9$1gnv5$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
       

On 5/10/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

       

And now the Scarf Lady, Dr. Deborah Birx, says that thousands
of Americans could be injured from the mRNA Wuhan Flu shot
and that some groups should not have been forced to get
the jab.
>
Weird how she wasn't saying that when Biden's decree was
"take the shot or you're fired" in the federal government.
Back then, she and your vaunted 'fact checkers' would only
repeat the mantra that it's 'safe and effective'.

>
You mean it *shouldn't* have been called safe and
effective?...

        Ask the people who were injured from the jab whether they think
the government should have told them it was safe.

>
I'm asking what a responsible public health official ought to
have said.

>
How about the truth?

>
The truth is that every medical procedure *including NO
procedure* carries some risk.

>
And an ethical medical professional explains the type and
extent of that risk, as well as its frequency of occurrence in
the population.
>
They don't ignore the risk and just tell you "it's safe and
effective". (And don't forget the denigration and censorship of
anyone who suggested otherwise, who have yet again turned out
to be right in the end.)

>
People who know there's always a small risk don't need to be told.
And people who *don't* know it will grossly overreact when they
*are* told.

>
So once again, it's okay for the government to lie to us for our own
good.
     

So, the public at large heard "safe and effective", which, in
context, the vaccine very much was. Meanwhile, one needn't support
censorship to strongly disapprove of sensationalist life-threatening
disinformation.

>
Once again, real-world decisions appear simplest to those who don't
have to make them. But happily, in this instance, the vaccine *was*
safe.

>
Except for the people who were injured by it.

>
This just in:  Don't risk getting out of bed tomorrow...

>
This just in: People have a right to know all the risks of drugs they're
not just being asked to take, but ordered to take under threat of loss
of their livelihood.

>
I'll bet that *all* the risks of *any* vaccine will run to thousands of
words

>
The government has the bandwidth.

>
But the issue is that the public doesn't.

 Ah, yet more infantalization and condescension from the government.
 And, of course, not only does the government lie to us for own good, it
has to also make sure that we don't tell each other the truth, so it
labels truthful statements 'disinformation' and coerces online platforms
to censor it.
 Can't have citizens undermining carefully crafted government lies (for
our own good!), can we?

The vaccine's safety and efficacy was not a lie, but a headline ...aimed at an audience who, on the whole, needed one.  What deeper data do you think was kept from the public, unavailable to a Google search?