you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

"Today we discuss a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs are a registered nurse who refuses to take a basic precaution to protect her vulnerable patients..."

The black-and-white, good v. evil construction of this the very first sentence of the piece says it all.

"A basic precaution to protect her vulnerable patients". This is stated as FACT. The vaccines are safe, they are efficacious, and they are proven.

The problem is that none of the above conditions (safety, efficacy, and proof) are actually yet met. The promoters of the vaccines are working with the simple axiom "We say it; therefore it's true." This is beyond dangerous. THE fundamental key to science is being ignored: time. Without the variable time involved, science immediately reverts to quackery. It takes time to discover if new technologies, techniques, and medicines are beneficial or harmful. It is abundantly clear that this simple foundation of what science IS has been tossed to the side in the interests of those at the top of the for-profit medical/biopharm pyramid. They don't want patient work to determine the profile of the new vaccines they have created. They want adulation, they want it now, and they are willing to force what is basically still a brand-new therapy on to people to prove their point.

Simple-mindedness wedded to hubris and partisanship. We are witnessing in real time exactly what can go wrong with the combination of these three ingredients.

[–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Simple-mindedness wedded to hubris and partisanship. We are witnessing in real time exactly what can go wrong with the combination of these three ingredients.

I think it is much worse than that. They are not simple minded they are purely evil. This was all preplanned.

[–]Brewdabier[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The problem is that none of the above conditions (safety, efficacy, and proof) are actually yet met.

WTF, it was proven 100 years ago. Your comment tells me you lack integrity and need to re-examine yourself and where you are in your life and society.

In a land of the witless, you sure would be king.

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In the spirit of conversation, please explain to me how the safety, efficacy, and proof for a therapy that was deployed for the first time in December, 2020 to respond to a virus that emerged sometime between October and December, 2019 using a technology that was first conceived in the late 1980s was provided 100 years ago? Ad hominem against me doesn't count, so save your breath if that is your response.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are asking a lot from a person that does not think.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the land of evil, you would be a bottom.