To: TobagoJack who wrote (173542 ) 6/22/2021 7:58:22 PM From: sense 1 RecommendationRecommended By pak73
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218030 ...to discover the truth by triangulation, as opposed to told the ‘truths’ by interested agents . In an ideal world, one would have reason to trust that others have a shared interest in "truth"... and that the value of that resulting shared effort in seeking truth would be obvious enough to forestall other interests dominating the truth... or obstructing the effort in seeking it. Alas, ours is not an ideal world... so the method of discovering truth must not only account for the intrinsic difficulties in finding truths in an already confusing enough world... but also for the deliberate obfuscation of truths by those with agenda that depend on ensuring others mostly fail to discover it... or fail to recognize it if and when they do... Beyond the simple element in "if someone seeks to prevent you speaking about a thing... its probably true" ? Fraudulent elections... ? Every element of the argument against... reinforces the opposite view. But, particularly, the argument that we have to not ever question the integrity of elections... in order to ensure that people are fully confident in the results of them... ? LOL !!! Yeah. That argument, alone, proves the clear purpose is in fostering an ability to sustain fraud... by preventing the results of frauds being questioned. I will have more confidence in elections... when I see proof of effort made to prevent fraud and ensure they are accurate... rather than proof of effort to ensure they can be fraudulent... and the results manipulated ? When you KNOW you can't trust others to be truthful... it doesn't mean you can trust them to NOT be with absolute certainty in every instance... but it sure makes it a safer bet in a place to start... with skepticism being made more rational by the known in persistent efforts to deceive you ? And, then... exercising care beyond what is "recommended"... is made necessary... because of uncertainty paired with awareness of a need to NOT trust others ? So, first do no harm... requires reluctance to do anything that is not obvious as a benefit... and not a harm ? Knowing you cannot / should not trust others without reason... extends to awareness that there are many others who won't understand that choice... which also requires that you not trust them, either, for their lack of appropriate skepticism... and potentially delusional blind faith in liars. I will wait until there is a vaccine I have good reason to believe will NOT impose harms... now or in the future... one that has backing with transparent enough science showing how it addresses targets that are rational... making it very unlikely to generate future susceptibilities to derivative risks. None of the current generation of vaccines can deliver that... with the recently released protein based versions unfortunately including spike proteins in the mix of protein targets... making them just as much a problem as the others. The spike proteins are the source of "some" of the problems... but, the immune response induced in the resistance to the spike proteins also contains exploitable risks that are best avoided... IMO. A better target... in common if inert genome sequences... should deliver broader resistance to a wide range of Coronavirus variants... without inducing risks of immune response in one instance suppressing immune responses in another... and without the specified proteins or RNA segments themselves inducing health risks or problems.