Debate over the Vax - which sources are neutral

Someone sent this to me, someone I am debating this plandemic crap with, and it prompted me to seek out as credible as possible type of info. Info from neutral or as neutral as possible sources. This Article from Nature.com has anyone here read through this yet and if so what do you make of it? Also, what sources, no matter which side you are on, do you use for factual data and valid statements or research? As far as I am aware Nature Is rated “center”, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
I do not believe the WHO or CDC can be trusted based on the connections and paper trail for those involved. What methods do y’all use when researching to find conflicts of interest?


While I under normal circumstances believe in my own research capabilities, when it comes to debating such polarizing issues, I don’t dare speaking without having as much info as I can. Valid info, to be specific.

Abraham Lincoln said it best -

It is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open one’s mouth, and remove all doubt

Unknown quote

It’s one thing to be ignorant. You’re not expected to know everything, and that’s ok. However, if you are someone who speaks on your ignorance as if it were fact, that’s a truly special kind of mental deficiency that cannot be untrained or outgrown”

Some really intelligent people here so I wanted to get your thoughts on how you think.

Also, please excuse me for this fairly basic thread as I am on my phone at the moment.

a reply to: NightCall

I'm finding it more and more difficult to find reliable, neutral sources. It reminds me of the Mark Twain quote "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"... I find independent sources most reliable. But vetting the independent sources is hard enough.

The truth is simple either A the vax is good or B the vax is bull #. Now how do YOU decide which one of those truths is reality? Glad you asked The best metric in my opinion is whatever the government says about something that gives them more power and control and wealth, the opposite is true.

a reply to: NightCall

Debating in-particular debating the Pandemic .

Rule #1 . Follow the Money , when a political or governmental move does not make sense just follow the money .

Rule #2 . Do not hang onto political Ideals , be objective be logical . Taking a fact and then spinning it to make it fit Left or Right Ideals will force you into a corner of which there is no way out of .

Rule # 3 . A person is smart , Groups of People are dumb as Sh*t.

Rule # 4 . A person who seeks Power should never be in Power , Power is the only thing more valuable than Money .

Are you the infohunter?
...Hunting down and shutting it down?
A tactless and psychopathic human version of Sillyfedcon Valley's censorship AI?

Don't lie, I will know

a reply to: sine.nomine

It is. The more divided we become, the harder it is and will be to find “neutral”.

a reply to: Brotherman

Interesting take, that leads me to want to look into the history of, and more specifically the pattern of behavior of our Govt and if they have ever done anything where it wasn’t in their own (or lobbyist friends) best interests. Face value actions show us that they would never willingly do anything that didn’t either now, or in the future benefit them or someone they know somehow. Im curious though, how many times, especially before the internet, did they get away with similarly atrocious ulterior motives. Got me think’n.....

a reply to: NightCall

If you can find a modern example of the government doing something not in their best interests to help the peoples interests I’d be curious as to know what that deed was.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Reasonable “guidelines” by any measure. This being said, what source or sources do you find credible? If no sources, where do you, or would you collect the information from to formulate your thoughts?

a reply to: NightCall

Yes an interesting comment, the path of lobbying has to be a good con at first but surely at some stage, all the blood gets sucked out of the host, and then it all goes wrong. It is probably just the way things go in the end.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Have often wondered weather we may be sometimes just feeding the beast, and giving it clues on how to approach and attack, and also giving them targets to drag-down.

You know : like those " What is your greatest fear ? ", type of threads... LoL !!
" What is your worst nightmare ? " ...
" What source is still considered honest, and incorruptible ? " ... LoL !!

Don't know though. Just wonder sometimes.

a reply to: NightCall

If you want just the facts as neutral as you can get. This is probably going to go pretty close.

Swiss Policy Research

a reply to: NightCall
I'd prefer fauci meet his maker for his role in gain of function that created this novel bioweapon before moving onto antiparasitics to end the manufactured crisis the world over.

Gain of function should be taking precedence, but the orchestra threw out the singing fat lady.
🙏❤

originally posted by: NightCall
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Reasonable “guidelines” by any measure. This being said, what source or sources do you find credible? If no sources, where do you, or would you collect the information from to formulate your thoughts?

All the sources are telling the same story just from different points of view , its up to you to sort through and find the facts .

There is Truth in Lies.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: NightCall

If you want just the facts as neutral as you can get. This is probably going to go pretty close.

Swiss Policy Research

From your link - This looks interesting

Media Navigator

a reply to: Nothin

What's your favorite gun?
Wanna join a club?
The right are terrorists!!
To
We're gonna teach your 6 year old about anal sex and spy-no-fly list the rents!!
We're going to inject you with aidsbot poison.
To
Why won't you just fight me!!! Reeeee!!

It's all getting a little stale broski

The only sources that are neutral are the research articles themselves and after they go through peer review, some of the content that is not acceptable to the NIH top guys is filtered out. Peer review often makes the research acceptable to the ones paying the bills or makes it so people will accept the evidence by ommissions of things that certain people or groups do not want to hear.

The only smart stance is to debate against the information war going on.

24/7 fearporn msm vs a suspiciously intentionally controlled internet discussion, peppered with credible (maybe)
doctors opinions of the deathjab.

The truth doesn't need moderated.
Don't even play along and argue...like you are supposed to.
The carpet doesn't match the drapes.
-It's rigged
Debate over WHY you are debating to win.
Be the master-debater
The big MD

a reply to: NightCall

I read it and found that it confirmed what I had already believed. Other than the obvious of preventing hospitalization and death, that would be that the Moderna vaccine is superior to the Pfizer.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The only sources that are neutral are the research articles themselves and after they go through peer review, some of the content that is not acceptable to the NIH top guys is filtered out. Peer review often makes the research acceptable to the ones paying the bills or makes it so people will accept the evidence by ommissions of things that certain people or groups do not want to hear.

Ok so, I used to believe this whole heartedly, until the “peer reviewers” were found to almost always have some sort of political backing or stance.

I am now at a point where I believe the only method of resolving to any semblance of truth, is by taking everything in, and factoring occams. I fear this actually because that begs the question of when exactly did true investigative journalism start failing us. One might say the truth has always been a “perception of confirmation bias”, and if thats the case then you’ve got to start questioning everything you hold dear and true yo your own beliefs(not you literally but as a thinking individual). Looking back at one’s own beliefs, and then questioning your own backbone(your truths you have stood by), is a hard pill to swallow.

On the other hand, if you want to try and identify any of it, to a point where it generally started to fail across the journalistic landscape, it requires an open mind that brings to question the same beliefs you’ve always held. Right back to looking within oneself to be able to filter all the bs.

Reminds me of the old African adage -

If there is no enemy within, then the enemy outside can do you no harm

In regards to the pursuit of truth, the enemy here would be false information. A person would be a victim of their own choices by allowing the enemy inside them. Allowing their choices, affiliations, influences etc.....be dictated off knowingly having either false information or incomplete information at least.

How so.....? Well, because anything less than NOT taking the effort to properly seek out information from any and all sources, vetting those sources, and forming educated beliefs off of that would be willfully harboring the enemy. Willful ignorance. Anyone acting on ignorance is just plain foolish I believe and you can NEVER properly discuss an issue with these types.

I see arguments on social media and here and everywhere really, and its often clear who is intelligent and who isn’t. Emotional knee jerk trolling or responses, preceded by or following a one line confirmation bias statement is the signature move.