Citing damning scientific studies from sources Stanford would deem credible is not deferring to the credibility of these publications but demonstrating that the very sources *they* trust have published evidence that eviscerates their excuses for a mandate.
Just because the academic journals have been corrupted doesn’t mean legitimate rese…
Citing damning scientific studies from sources Stanford would deem credible is not deferring to the credibility of these publications but demonstrating that the very sources *they* trust have published evidence that eviscerates their excuses for a mandate.
Just because the academic journals have been corrupted doesn’t mean legitimate research doesn’t occasionally sneak through, and you have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis just like any source.
I tried at length to discuss what constituted credible research in 2021 with a doctor/scientist who was dispatched to NYC to treat patients and who herself was a first up jab recipient.
She was angry that I called into the question the "names at the top of the study", and the began defaulting to "94% effective! Better than polio!" and lashing out at an uninjected CA schoolteacher who was spreading Covid, even though we well knew that the injected were doing the same.
Stanford is probably near Ground Zero on Indoctrinated Motivated Reasoning.
Right. I’m totally aware that attempting to persuade Stanfordians (and anyone ensconced in the system, really, especially if they’re profiting off of it) is a futile exercise to begin with, but like all of my letters, the content is as much if not more for my readers and the eavesdroppers as it is for the overt recipient.
So if there’s a swing thinker who happens to see this and is open-minded enough to read it, it may nudge them toward awakening if they see a slew of sources they would deem credible, reputable, and legitimate (even if I don’t ;-)
Similarly, my readers can (and have) used this and other articles as part of their own letters requesting exemptions and fighting mandates, so it serves that purpose as well.
Citing damning scientific studies from sources Stanford would deem credible is not deferring to the credibility of these publications but demonstrating that the very sources *they* trust have published evidence that eviscerates their excuses for a mandate.
Just because the academic journals have been corrupted doesn’t mean legitimate research doesn’t occasionally sneak through, and you have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis just like any source.
The second point is more persuasive. Sure.
I tried at length to discuss what constituted credible research in 2021 with a doctor/scientist who was dispatched to NYC to treat patients and who herself was a first up jab recipient.
She was angry that I called into the question the "names at the top of the study", and the began defaulting to "94% effective! Better than polio!" and lashing out at an uninjected CA schoolteacher who was spreading Covid, even though we well knew that the injected were doing the same.
Stanford is probably near Ground Zero on Indoctrinated Motivated Reasoning.
Right. I’m totally aware that attempting to persuade Stanfordians (and anyone ensconced in the system, really, especially if they’re profiting off of it) is a futile exercise to begin with, but like all of my letters, the content is as much if not more for my readers and the eavesdroppers as it is for the overt recipient.
So if there’s a swing thinker who happens to see this and is open-minded enough to read it, it may nudge them toward awakening if they see a slew of sources they would deem credible, reputable, and legitimate (even if I don’t ;-)
Similarly, my readers can (and have) used this and other articles as part of their own letters requesting exemptions and fighting mandates, so it serves that purpose as well.