you asked a direct question
it was rhetorical.
where did you see "different standards for one of the control groups"?
there was news all over of how the cycle count was reduced for the vaccinated. Gallati's tweet was only one of several.
fully possible all them and myself are just scientifically-illiterate dumbfucks who took something out of context.
The only thing I can think of is maybe you (or maybe a person whose statement you blindly repeated without checking) are referring to the CDC document about vaccine breakthrough case investigation
yes, that's the one linked to in his tweet, which could be the originating point of much of the 'gossip.'
despite a a stubborn defensive arising out of my own cognitive biases, I (begrudingly, lol) appreciate your counterperspectives to shine light on the weak link in the piece.
it's certainly feedback that can help guide for stronger presentations from hereon. (and did inspire a revision & edit to weed out the potential misinformation and focus on the point).
🍻
Thanks for your response! I am sorry if my English (second language) came off as more aggressive or defensive than intended. It's just that I don't really like the extremes: the hardcore "scientists" dismissing everything and everybody else (yes I know they do exist), AND on the other side of the spectrum, the hardcore "Big Pharma is 100% totally pure evil" (for sure some are - think Sackler family, but not all of them) crowd. In general, I like to sit in the middle, gathering info from all sides, and trying to make sense of it all. And that's why when I see any kind of misinformation (from any sides), I might sometimes respond more passionately than I should.
Anyways, cheers and have a good week end!
Maybe look at it from a different perspective? There are the hardliners and hardcore extremists on the pharmaceutical and corporate side, who in turn have the wherewithal to set in motion a very large propaganda machine. Where the most extreme statements are to be found: what do you want to oppose them with? It is a game of forces and the moral arguments that are thrown into the arena on one side must, in order for them to hit the very people who accept morality as an argument and are not impressed by any other information than moral exaggerations. What would happen if this opposite pole did not exist? What if those who do not want to go along with the dictates of the present regimes behaved inconspicuously, reasonably, quietly and thoroughly logically? (which nevertheless many do exactly). Do you think they would be heard?
The fact is that we are subjected to a gigantic PR that needs adversaries who speak out at least as loudly. Personally, I think nothing of either, but where fire burns hot and bright, you can't do much with a little splash of water.
One can take this particular phenomenon "the loud and the moralists" as one part of the many events and see all the other actors as side players, nevertheless in the same way important. Through many efforts peoples minds get influenced.
What do you think?
P.S.
To give an example: the exaggeration in the beginning of the phenomenon was "massive numbers of people will die!" "Those, wo do not follow the rules are "murderers"!"
Since the vaccinations took place the other side screams: "the vaccinations will kill a massive amount of people!" and "all who produce them and inject them are murderers!"
I don't know, but to me it seems that both poles were not correct or will not be correct in absolute terms. Though I clearly tend to support the anti corona regime movement. Because I make a difference between becoming sick by destiny or becoming sick through treatment.