Social Media's War on Popular Skepticism
I did a video speaking about the possibility of the vaccine being used to deliver hazardous content, and that checks have to be put in place to ensure this can never be. After all, it was for this reason that a scientific commission was set up by the UN to study the possibility of its misuse in 2017, with many scientists calling for a moratorium on this technology. Why weren't they censored for 'medical misinformation' then?
It appears that Big Tech can't stop the scientific community from talking about it, but want to ensure that people don't talk about it. That way, they can possibly take time to silence those in the scientific community whom don't agree with their agenda, and then finally present the findings of those scientists whom are towing the line as the only scientists that ought to be considered. Through that, they can dictate popular thought on the matter. After all, isn't that what they did with the vaccine, adverse reactions, home remedies, etc?
If their scientists and findings are so reliable, why on earth is there a need for censoring contradiction?
Following on from the uncertainty of a sector of the scientific community, NGOs, etc, i too stated that it could be used to perform culls of populations, interfere with evolution, etc, and asked what checks can be put in place to ensure this didn't happen. THIS was deemed to be 'medical misinformation'?
I disputed with this in what they called an appeal, with the following -
"I made it clear that what i was saying was pure speculation. There was no misinformation of any sort. Stating that the vaccine could be a means to deliver something hazardous is a possibility. My point was that checks have to be put in place to ensure that that can never happen.
Are you implying that official bodies are saints and can never do wrong, and that checks don't have to be put in place to ensure that things are done right? No body can claim infallibility. Are you saying some can? Aren't checks the only protection against abuse? Are you implying that questioning motives and considering possibilities is a crime now?
Your approach is a claim to infallibility. Your approach is like that taken by the Inquisition and opposition to science by your church in the early days."
Welcome to the 'modern' inquisition. Big Tech is now determining what is heresy and blasphemy against what they deem to be right and cannot be questioned.
If they can brazenly control the evolution of thought through censorship of all doubt, why would we not think they can do likewise through a vaccine and eradicate our very ability to doubt.
The point, at the end of the day, is not if mRna vaccines can alter our DNA. All this talk about how that is 'misinformation' distracts us from the issue that technology has come to a point where something can be injected into us to do so. And this current global coercive 'vaccination' exercise, if achieving anything, gives passports to them to have free and unhindered access to our bodies to do so if they so desired in perpetuity.
edX
CONSIDER
Comments
Post a Comment