I follow the account of the shared screenshot (the one that says to remove all childhood vaccinations) in large part because it contains ideas I haven't been heavily exposed to in the past. I was one who assumed vaccinations as a rule were safe, and it's interesting to see another perspective. Thanks to the corona vaccine, I realize now I should have been willing to question received ideas more.
Exactly!! I followed the immunization schedule for both children without question because that’s what my mother did. I never considered another perspective.
That’s exactly the point. Pharma controls the media, politicians, and the conversation and they do not want you to question. They want to shut you down with pejoratives like anti vaxxer or just outright censor any “dangerous” questions.
I never questioned vaccines until the COVID-19 vaccines came out and I had to do research to prepare my religious exemption request. As a result of that research I found myself questioning whether the immunization schedule for children is indeed necessary and if it could be the cause of my now-20-year-old son having Aspergers (diagnosed at age 5) and my now-18-year old daughter having an adrenal tumor removed when she was 18 months old (and as a consequence of that surgery now has Addison’s Disease). SO - I resent people like Marco trying to shut down the conversation. The science most certainly is NOT settled on this yet and his call for censorship is myopic to his personal beliefs
My hubby follows a lot of smart free thinkers on YouTube, and one of nuggets of wisdom that’s been hammered home into him is that Science is not a noun, it’s a verb. It indicates Action. Change. Evolving as new information comes in or is discovered via testing and questioning the “settled” assumption.
“Settled” Science the noun is static. It is dead and holds nothing and can offer nothing.
I’m wired to be more a person of faith than of science, but even I can see the wisdom of that viewpoint.
Our allowing Hate speech to exists within law was the stepping stone for eventual censorship. Had we said not to first attempts tp try and make it acceptable that hate speech could be punished by law it was just a matter of time until actual hate speech would be expanded to include speech some dislike. Hate speech was possible only because we bought into the lies of Hate crimes, allowing for special punitive measures if harm done to someone during a crime was motivated by ethnicity. All stepping stones to move the line, the Overton window.
Nice piece. I agree, purging false ideas from the public sphere is centralised censorship and it is incredibly naive to think that the censors will not use their power to protect a lazy intellectual and moral orthodoxy. Censors are human beings with interests, prejudices, cognitive limitations, etc just like the rest of us. They are not infallible super-knowers.
“ Nearly all historical academic articles are eventually found out to be false, many or most with potentially dangerous consequences, because any false idea, when applied, can be dangerous. Should they be expunged? No. We climb our way to the truth via the rungs of false ideas.”
Brilliantly put! I hope those words fall upon some ears ready to receive freedom from tyranny.
I recall seeing a video of Christopher Hitchens discussing hate speech legislation. He asked the audience if they could name someone who they’d trust to enforce such laws fairly. Unsurprisingly, he got no response.
This debate is as old as the solar system. Recall that before there was Twitter, Google, Facebook, Apple, NYT, WaPo, TV news, and Fact Check sites, The Church was the centralized fact checker, and they treated heretics very badly. Some guy named Galileo did serious time for observing that the earth rotated around the sun instead of vice versa.
I follow the account of the shared screenshot (the one that says to remove all childhood vaccinations) in large part because it contains ideas I haven't been heavily exposed to in the past. I was one who assumed vaccinations as a rule were safe, and it's interesting to see another perspective. Thanks to the corona vaccine, I realize now I should have been willing to question received ideas more.
Exactly!! I followed the immunization schedule for both children without question because that’s what my mother did. I never considered another perspective.
Thanks I’ll look for that. I mean it’s too late to do anything for my kids but maybe I can help with theirs. 
That’s exactly the point. Pharma controls the media, politicians, and the conversation and they do not want you to question. They want to shut you down with pejoratives like anti vaxxer or just outright censor any “dangerous” questions.
I never questioned vaccines until the COVID-19 vaccines came out and I had to do research to prepare my religious exemption request. As a result of that research I found myself questioning whether the immunization schedule for children is indeed necessary and if it could be the cause of my now-20-year-old son having Aspergers (diagnosed at age 5) and my now-18-year old daughter having an adrenal tumor removed when she was 18 months old (and as a consequence of that surgery now has Addison’s Disease). SO - I resent people like Marco trying to shut down the conversation. The science most certainly is NOT settled on this yet and his call for censorship is myopic to his personal beliefs
My hubby follows a lot of smart free thinkers on YouTube, and one of nuggets of wisdom that’s been hammered home into him is that Science is not a noun, it’s a verb. It indicates Action. Change. Evolving as new information comes in or is discovered via testing and questioning the “settled” assumption.
“Settled” Science the noun is static. It is dead and holds nothing and can offer nothing.
I’m wired to be more a person of faith than of science, but even I can see the wisdom of that viewpoint.
Our allowing Hate speech to exists within law was the stepping stone for eventual censorship. Had we said not to first attempts tp try and make it acceptable that hate speech could be punished by law it was just a matter of time until actual hate speech would be expanded to include speech some dislike. Hate speech was possible only because we bought into the lies of Hate crimes, allowing for special punitive measures if harm done to someone during a crime was motivated by ethnicity. All stepping stones to move the line, the Overton window.
Nice piece. I agree, purging false ideas from the public sphere is centralised censorship and it is incredibly naive to think that the censors will not use their power to protect a lazy intellectual and moral orthodoxy. Censors are human beings with interests, prejudices, cognitive limitations, etc just like the rest of us. They are not infallible super-knowers.
“ Nearly all historical academic articles are eventually found out to be false, many or most with potentially dangerous consequences, because any false idea, when applied, can be dangerous. Should they be expunged? No. We climb our way to the truth via the rungs of false ideas.”
Brilliantly put! I hope those words fall upon some ears ready to receive freedom from tyranny.
Thank you for your eloquence.
I recall seeing a video of Christopher Hitchens discussing hate speech legislation. He asked the audience if they could name someone who they’d trust to enforce such laws fairly. Unsurprisingly, he got no response.
Where can I find epigenetic whisperer now?
This debate is as old as the solar system. Recall that before there was Twitter, Google, Facebook, Apple, NYT, WaPo, TV news, and Fact Check sites, The Church was the centralized fact checker, and they treated heretics very badly. Some guy named Galileo did serious time for observing that the earth rotated around the sun instead of vice versa.