|
| It doesn’t matter what you stated, it is exactly what is going on. We are all very aware that the attack on dissenting views by calling it disinformation and misinformation is an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints. It is those labels that are used as reasons for firing and revoking licenses of medical professionals and other researchers. Now there is a new label that is being promoted, malinformation. Its definition is information that is essentially true but it is harmful to the governments agenda. It is a sign of incremental creep. Now they are attempting to get the public to accept censoring the truth if it is harmful to the governments stance.
No, I do not believe that the majority of researchers are all trying to hide the truth collectively. I believe that very few of the researchers don’t actually see through the narrative that they have to support. What they do believe to be true is that it is career suicide to oppose the given narrative and they know that the funding of their research depends upon searching for and supporting the results that those who pay for their funding want.
I believe that if the majority of the scientists that appear to be supporting the “consensus” would be allowed to openly answer, without penalty, what they truly think of the narrative it would be discovered that even they see the faults in the narrative that they have to support. You would find that the consensus of the majority is not on the side of the agenda. The apparent “consensus” is highly biased due to the system.
Yes I do have a better system. All funding needs to be detached from a desired outcome. Anyone that believes in the scientific methodology will agree that is what has to be done to remove bias. The current system of achieving “peer reviewed” is one where politics is introduced and only the appearance of consensus is achieved, not actual scientific consensus.
Do you agree with what I just said?
Edited by havin’funfarming 4/8/2024 10:48
| |
|
|
Tariffs part deuce
