I am not reacting very positive if I am told that I "should" do something, without the person I am speaking with, knows me very well. And even then, I tend to disagree even though I may find that I "should". When I decide by myself what I should, it's fine.
You see, I am coming from totally different premises and it would take a long time to reveal those premises to you. I could suggest you read my last ten or twelve postings to realize from which direction I come. I would not ask you to do that. It's your free choice.
When you talk to me in the way you do here in the above comment, I see no inspiration or need to follow what you suggest or have found out yourself. I hope, you are not offended by my honesty.
I stand by what I wrote because it is based in science.
Now, have I in any way wanted to convince you otherwise?
My point is that science is a good foundation for any logical individual. Why would anybody not want to look at the science of something?
Do you talk to me personally? Is your question towards me, if I have looked at scientific sources?
Yes, of course. I have already given you the science. I wasn't really asking if you were looking at other scientific sources as I already given you info meaning I already know the answer to such a question.
For this particular matter I don't trust the scientific sources very much (since I have read numerous ones). Neither the ones which promote deaths through virus nor the ones promote deaths through injections. I also do not consult very much English sources, the reason is that I much better understand my native language. I was reading scientific papers with high interest before the event happened. You could find all kind of interesting sources before 2020.
I feel, everything is cooked up very hot and for me, I handle it like I handled it in my past (where one catastrophe every ten or so years appears on the radar): I sit it out and watch the numbers set into relation to the actual and factual death cases on the whole. As perceptions and statistics as well are either distorted or falsely presented, I will stay undecided as long as I can. Except, live will teach me otherwise. But then it'll be soon enough, or, if you prefer see it otherwise, too late.
Right now, I choose not to read the source you provided me with. Maybe later I will, or I will not.
I agree with you regarding being undecided. It is better to be undecided than to be overly or obsessively bias towards looking at the world from limited perspectives. Also, I agree with you because jumping to conclusions too quickly, aggressively, is dangerous. So, I do agree with how you do things and why you do things. Not every person is like you. The world would be a better place if more people adopted the way you do things.