I cannot believe MY cognitive dissonance!

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The claim was made that the pharmaceuticals are pushing mandatory vaccines and continual boosters for profit. You claimed that they were not because such a scheme would have to actively involve "10,000s of people," and then that a drug that was ineffective was not profitable to the pharmaceutical making it. You then claimed that if there was any serious money to be made, it was being made by those who opposed the vaccine.

Well no....I agreed they are for profit, but I don't think they need to banned together to make that happen, in fact I would bet each one would wish they were the only dog in the fight. Big Pharma is also not driving the bus here. If Trump was pres we would not see mandates, so yes big Pharma loves the profit, but our government is in it for control.

I didn't claim anything about only money being made one way or another. Big Pharma wants a trillion dollars if they can get it, our Goverment has created massive mistrust, others are feeding on that mistrust with their extreme "vaccines are bad" campaigns, see how that works. People are eating up the bad vaccine narratives mainly because of what the Goverment has been doing, kind of simple.

That is what I responded to. So far you have not made any serious arguments to support your position. I counterclaimed that those "10,000s of people" need not be involved because the CEOs set the agenda for their company and only a select few companies are involved.

Well then we were addressing two different things then. My point was even if big Pharma wants to make huge profits it doesn't also mean the vaccines do not work, or they are dangerous. The 10,000 people would be the creators working their whole lives to make good drugs, and good drugs are good for business too.

So I can give a rats ass if big Pharma wants profits, is that any different than the last 100 years? The change has been the Goverment mandating and controlling our lives while punishing all those who do not comply, THAT IS UNAMERICAN and will bite them in the ass like it typically does in the end.

So in the end the vaccines have been good for the old and high risk while most others really do not need it, and I really do not want anyone under 18 to get it at all. Omicron has also just about made the vaccine obsolete too as it is so infectious and mild we will be well past herd immunity

I have been a CEO and owner of a small C-Corp. No one... and I mean NO ONE... told me what direction my company was going to take. I may have listened to others' opinions, but the decisions were mine and mine alone.

Small companies are not big corporations. And I have no clue to your point here? What direction is big Pharma going you disagree with? They got us the vaccines in minimal time, so what else do you want?

My concern is that the target protein, the spike protein on the virus, seems to be responsible in and of itself for the health issues reported with both the virus and to a lesser extent, the vaccine. That has nothing to do with the mRNA process. The same protein could be included in a standard injection and cause the exact same issues.

And it has been minimal unless you can provide real data otherwise. We both agree that people have had issues, I have listed them many times and the main reason why I feel the old and high risk only need the vaccine, BUT the cases are very few looking at the overall number of shots given. That is the part that the doom porn people are pushing that millions of people are dying from the vaccine, there will be decades of long term illnesses for others, they are injecting you with nanobots, magnets stick to your arm, so on and so forth....lol

There seems to be a problem with the innate immune system developing antibodies to this virus.

Maybe, and could be why some people have adverse reaction to it, but is it really any different from other vaccines that trigger your immune system?

Therefore, such a problem must exist with this virus, since the cytokine storm is one of the major side effects. The next most common is cardiac inflammation, which differs from the after-effect of pneumonia only in location.

But what are the numbers? As I said 4000 people die in America from the 87mg aspirin too. Israel had 275 cases of cardiac inflammation that were all mild and easily treated, that is out of like 8 million people. I have concerns as I have said many times to the point I would like to see the vaccines used for the right reasons with the right people. BTW Monoclonal antibodies can also trigger a cytokine storm, so I guess that is OK...

My Daddy used to say to me: If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult. If you want to be treated like a child, act like a child.

TheRedneck

Am I really acting like a child? That there is a big DICK statement...In other words FO

End of conversation, no need to reply.

a reply to: Xtrozero

*sigh*

This was the post you responded to, located here on page 2:

originally posted by: underpass61


Question:
Which side of the dissonance debate has an enormous financial stake in their narrative, and wouldn't they be extremely interested in influencing you to choose your "best course of action"?

What does the other side have to gain?

You then responded with this post, also on page 2:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Well one side is not just 1 or 2 big pharma, its companies all over the world doing the same thing with mRNA, so unless they are all working together, 10,000s of people working hard to make the vaccines etc etc then the vaccines are not made to get you.

On the other hand you have individuals out to make money with their videos, so where is the incentive to make money? Then you just have government trying to use the pandemic as a control tool and so why should people trust the vaccine if they can't trust the Goverment?

I get it; you've debated yourself into a corner, and now you're trying to twist your way out of that corner. I have been debating your post referenced above; everything I have said was in regard to that post, or occasionally another point you made while defending it. Your responses to me appear to be in reference to whatever you can come up with to change the subject.

Do I really need to re-post your previous statement at the beginning of every post? Are you incapable of remembering what you said?

This is where the ire comes in. This, the blatant refusal to debate honestly, is why you have so much trouble with other posters. You cannot defend your own statements, so you try to change the subject. No. Not this time. There are your words at the top of this post. Not my words; your words. You typed those with your fingers. You hit the "post" button with your cursor. Now stick to what you said or admit you were wrong.

It does not require "10,000s of people" to establish an industry conspiracy.

An agenda need not be known to every worker to be successful.

There is no guaranteed relationship between a drug's efficacy or safety and profit from sales of that drug.

Individuals making home-made videos documenting vaccine problems are not getting rich by making them.

How about you address those points for a change?

I agreed they are for profit, but I don't think they need to banned together to make that happen

More disingenuity. Where have I ever said the vaccines need to be banned? Don't waste your time looking at my posts; I haven't. I have only said that the vaccines do not need to be mandated, and that they also do not need to be falsely labelled to try and cover up any problems. If they are effective and safe, honest reporting will show them effective and safe. If they are ineffective and/or dangerous, honest reporting will show them as ineffective and/or dangerous. Dishonest reporting, on the other hand, means no one knows what the real answers are.

Well then we were addressing two different things then.

That is becoming blatantly apparent.

My point was even if big Pharma wants to make huge profits it doesn't also mean the vaccines do not work, or they are dangerous.

Agreed. Neither does it mean they are safe and/or effective. All that matters is public perception.

The 10,000 people would be the creators working their whole lives to make good drugs, and good drugs are good for business too.

They do not run the company. These scientists are working off internal data within the company; all data within the company is subject to corporate political skewing.

Good drugs are good for business as long as the public believes they are good drugs.

So I can give a rats ass if big Pharma wants profits, is that any different than the last 100 years? The change has been the Goverment mandating and controlling our lives while punishing all those who do not comply, THAT IS UNAMERICAN and will bite them in the ass like it typically does in the end.

No, not a bit different, and no, not a problem for me in and of itself. However, when politicians begin to make laws that isolate any industry from their civic duties, it is usually a sure bet that there is a kickback somewhere. So my response to this query:

They got us the vaccines in minimal time, so what else do you want?

I want the pharmaceuticals to stop using government/media to assist them in making money off pushing drugs people may not need.

And yes, I also blame the government. But as I stated earlier, there is enough blame to go around. I do not have to choose a single scapegoat for every issue.

And it has been minimal unless you can provide real data otherwise.

No one can provide information otherwise. Not only is the data all corrupted, but no one can disagree with the official narrative outside of a few places like ATS, unless they want to be banned for doing so. That does not prove anything, except that there is likely something untoward happening.

Am I really acting like a child?

Do you think you are? I find it interesting that you took a phrase that means "one is usually treated however they act" and yourself twisted it to insinuate I called you a child. There's that goalpost moving happening again. You asked why I was treating you like you were a liberal... I responded with that saying. Then you decide to get all het up over me supposedly calling you a child. Why didn't you insinuate I called you an adult? I used that word as much as I did "child."

I will now call you what you just proved yourself to be: Karen. You can take your faked offense and do whatever you want with it... I don't need your attitude.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I will now call you what you just proved yourself to be: Karen. You can take your faked offense and do whatever you want with it... I don't need your attitude.

TheRedneck

What? You do a random quote from your dad to me and you were not implying it to me...lol OK whatever. I'm older than you, been around the world more than you, most likely seen more than you, not nice to imply I'm a child just because we do not agree on some minor points. I don't say things like "you must be drinking" implying I'm a child etc... That sounds more like a Karen... Any other BS liberal labeling you want to use, why play their game?

We are 99% in agreement, but you can't deal with the 1% Ok no problem. I really do not care.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are 99% in agreement

I have to point out the title of this thread:

"I cannot believe MY cognitive dissonance!"

No, sir, we are not in "99% agreement." I.m sure you want us to be in "99% agreement" because that would justify your narrative. You have been making wild allegations this entire thread, and when called on them, you change the subject so you can be offended.

Good day, sir.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero

We are 99% in agreement

I have to point out the title of this thread:

"I cannot believe MY cognitive dissonance!"

No, sir, we are not in "99% agreement." I.m sure you want us to be in "99% agreement" because that would justify your narrative. You have been making wild allegations this entire thread, and when called on them, you change the subject so you can be offended.

Good day, sir.

TheRedneck

If you read the OP he is talking about trusting the Government and the vaccine and after he got it he had reactions to it that he blames the Goverment for basically screwing him over and once he did "his" research he has come to a very negative view of the vaccine and Government.

His point is basically the vaccines are bad for you and everyone is trying to hide that fact as they force it on everyone. I'm just saying that big Pharma is going to try and provide the best vaccine they can, and make as much money as they can in the process, you know that whole capitalism thing. There is no need for these companies to get united in any way. They are united with a F up government that is willing to throw down 100s of billions.

Getting the vaccine so quickly was a good thing for the old and high risk... end of story...

Story No.2 starts...

And that has everything to do with control, mainly control of the right... Whether masks, insolation, mandates it is all about control. So in the end you can have both a vaccine that is actually good in the right areas and a very bad Government that is abusing everything about the pandemic including the vaccine, both do not need to be bad, and big Pharma will be big Pharma whether the Government is good or bad.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Thank you; I believe we are again talking about the same issue.

[The OP's] point is basically the vaccines are bad for you and everyone is trying to hide that fact as they force it on everyone. I'm just saying that big Pharma is going to try and provide the best vaccine they can, and make as much money as they can in the process, you know that whole capitalism thing. There is no need for these companies to get united in any way. They are united with a F up government that is willing to throw down 100s of billions.

In this statement, my only disagreement is that while the pharmaceuticals may be trying to make the best vaccine they can, their primary focus is on selling as many doses of their vaccine as they can. I will agree that the government actions (waiving normal red tape, pre-purchasing large quantities of the vaccines even before final testing, and public pressure to get the vaccine) are the reason the pharmaceuticals are able to sell so much, but I also believe the pharmaceuticals are providing illegal kickbacks. Politicians, in my experience, do not work for free.

So yes, I place some of the blame on the pharmaceuticals. This situation was not simply dropped into their lap; it was orchestrated at their behest.

I will also admit that many, most even, of the workers at these pharmaceuticals are indeed trying to produce the best vaccine they can. Their actions, however, are limited by the corporate structure. Even if they have the desire and ability to produce a better vaccine, corporate decides which vaccine will be produced. And as it stands now, if a different vaccine were rolled out to replace one that is then admitted to not be as safe/effective as it was stated to be, that would be a PR nightmare. No pharmaceutical is going to do that; corporate would not allow it.

You claim that no collusion between companies is needed; that may be true, but it does not then follow that no such collusion exists.

Getting the vaccine so quickly was a good thing for the old and high risk... end of story...

I would have a hard time disagreeing with that. However, things change. We have some pretty effective treatment options today which I consider much safer than the vaccines. Options, however, are always a good thing; if someone wishes the vaccine, they should be able to get it. They should also be able to get monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or any other treatment they decide on with their physician's approval.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
In this statement, my only disagreement is that while the pharmaceuticals may be trying to make the best vaccine they can, their primary focus is on selling as many doses of their vaccine as they can. I will agree that the government actions (waiving normal red tape, pre-purchasing large quantities of the vaccines even before final testing, and public pressure to get the vaccine) are the reason the pharmaceuticals are able to sell so much, but I also believe the pharmaceuticals are providing illegal kickbacks. Politicians, in my experience, do not work for free.

No, I agree. It is still the Government driving the bus, so it is like 90/10 the Governments fault. If the Government came to my company with 100 billion I would suspect my company would take it...lol

You claim that no collusion between companies is needed; that may be true, but it does not then follow that no such collusion exists.

It becomes difficult when you start to deal with foreign companies.

I would have a hard time disagreeing with that. However, things change. We have some pretty effective treatment options today which I consider much safer than the vaccines. Options, however, are always a good thing; if someone wishes the vaccine, they should be able to get it. They should also be able to get monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or any other treatment they decide on with their physician's approval.

I think the basic vaccine we saw in the beginning will become obsolete, if not already.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It becomes difficult when you start to deal with foreign companies.

Most of the pharmaceuticals we are talking about are multinational companies already. Pfizer, for example, has headquarters in 52 different countries (assuming I counted correctly). They have four different manufacturing facilities in China alone.

I don't think Pfizer has any problem dealing with a "foreign company."

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm going to break in a bit here.

I think Pfizer saw an opportunity. They saw a situation where governments were taking unprecedented amounts of control and using it freely and people were allowing. Moderna is likely in the same camp. If you can become the de-facto go-to product a government uses in the scenario, then you make gobs of money. In a post-free market world, this is what we're looking at - public/private partnership basically. Or you might say we're looking at something like the corporatacracy of the Alien universe where the governments ostensibly have control, but the corps move more power behind the scenes and across borders. The business is the state; the state is the business.

China is the same but the inverse. There the state has the power, not the corp.

Why do you think you can see countries backing away from mandating vaccines and boosters, etc., but the US stays dug in? Part of it is that our government has less grip on control than others. Part of it is entrenched money interests.

You can't claim that the vaccines are really all that useful to people in all demographics across the board. They just aren't. For many, relying on our bodies is enough and actually safer than taking the vaccines which do have some stiff side effects. Like it or not, the risk of cardio-vascular side effects does outweigh the risk of serious illness once you get below a certain age, especially for men. If we can help it, our young son *will not* be vaccinated for a good long time despite the fact that both of us have been.

And when they are cutting the time between boosters more and more: yearly, every six months, whoops - 5 months ... And now telling you that the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting sick, just makes you less sick, but it still can give you serious cardiac complications (nevermind that; you won't go the hospital with pneumonia), why would you keep rolling up your sleeve for it?

It isn't any good anymore, but they all keep pressing it. In Canada, they are robbing people of every avenue of livelihood in some places for refusing a clearly bad deal.

originally posted by: ketsuko

I think Pfizer saw an opportunity. They saw a situation where governments were taking unprecedented amounts of control and using it freely and people were allowing. Moderna is likely in the same camp. If you can become the de-facto go-to product a government uses in the scenario, then you make gobs of money. In a post-free market world, this is what we're looking at - public/private partnership basically. Or you might say we're looking at something like the corporatacracy of the Alien universe where the governments ostensibly have control, but the corps move more power behind the scenes and across borders. The business is the state; the state is the business.

We see it more with social media that are assuming a political stance and the side they want to support are letting them do it since it benefits them greatly. Lots of control here in many different directions. First it was news outlets that stopped being new outlets, then it was the major social media outlets that did everything they could/can to squash anything that isn't a liberal or woke mindset, then they wanted to erase our past and call America racist while all whites not woke liberals are racist, then they went from our university where they preached their wokeness down into our k through 12 to get kids even at a earlier age, then we get to the pandemic when the left finally got control of the wheel where they could launch unprecedented control, and lastly was the recent failed voter bills and removal of the filibuster that was their final move to lock it all down for them to maintain that control and do whatever they wanted.

Why do you think you can see countries backing away from mandating vaccines and boosters, etc., but the US stays dug in? Part of it is that our government has less grip on control than others. Part of it is entrenched money interests.

Because the left has turned it into a weapon. The problem for them is that they have gone so far left that even life long moderate liberals are now seen as far right, and so we start to see a very large percentage of the population from both sides rebelling over what a sane person sees as very wrong.

You can't claim that the vaccines are really all that useful to people in all demographics across the board. They just aren't. For many, relying on our bodies is enough and actually safer than taking the vaccines which do have some stiff side effects. Like it or not, the risk of cardio-vascular side effects does outweigh the risk of serious illness once you get below a certain age, especially for men. If we can help it, our young son *will not* be vaccinated for a good long time despite the fact that both of us have been.

I for one from day one have said limited use.

And when they are cutting the time between boosters more and more: yearly, every six months, whoops - 5 months ... And now telling you that the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting sick, just makes you less sick, but it still can give you serious cardiac complications (nevermind that; you won't go the hospital with pneumonia), why would you keep rolling up your sleeve for it?

Need to understand who "they" are. "They" is the Goverment driving the bus... Boosters ae not the issue here, the RNA virus mutates very quickly and the very old and those of high risk most likely need the boosters, just like with the flu show, but not really anyone else, and especially not the 5+ age groups they are pushing.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I don't think Pfizer has any problem dealing with a "foreign company."

TheRedneck

OK, not to go back and forth on this if even so it really doesn't matter as a main point. They are not driving the bus...

a reply to: ketsuko

Why do you think you can see countries backing away from mandating vaccines and boosters, etc., but the US stays dug in? Part of it is that our government has less grip on control than others. Part of it is entrenched money interests.

A great deal of it is entrenched money issues.

Take one instance: Nancy Pelosi. As a US representative, she makes $174,000 per year salary. As Speaker of the House, that increases to $223,500 per year. But her net worth as of last indication was over $114,000,000 ($114 million). If she put 100% of her salary back, it would take 510 years to accumulate that much wealth. Now, I will admit Pelosi has been a US Representative for a long time, but not for 510 years... more like 35 years to be exact, and not all that time as Speaker of the House.

So where did all that money come from?

It's simple: it came from lobbyists. As Speaker, Pelosi can vote on many issues that directly affect businesses. These businesses are quite happy to spend a few million dollars to pad a politician's pocket if doing so will make them ten times, twenty times, even a hundred times or more as much.

It works like this: Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc., all lobby Congress. Their lobbyists know each other; sometimes the exact same lobbyist is used by different companies. A lobbyist's purpose is to facilitate the best legal climate for their clients... and that includes making sure that politicians who have the ability to push through or deny bills will do so. So maybe Pelosi wants $10 million for her help in assuring a bill will actually pass into law... bribery is illegal, right? Only if one gets caught. So, Speaker Pelosi, would a $10 million estate in Beverly Hills interest you? Maybe. So the lobbyists arrange for Pelosi to buy a $10 million estate for $100,000. Real estate transactions are legal. Then the lobbyists simply arrange for one of Pelosi's banks who are beholden to her to give her a low-interest loan for $10 million to buy the $100,000 estate and payments are made through Pelosi's charity. All legal and above board, but now Nancy Pelosi has $9,900,000 in cash and an estate worth $10 million. She pushes through the bill and the lobbyists' employers (who paid all that to Pelosi) profit an extra $500 million over the next year.

It's called "money laundering."

Why else would a potential politician spend a million dollars or more to win a seat that pays $174,000 a year? That would be like spending $100,000 to get a job making $17,300 a year... a new house just to have a poverty level job? That's ludicrous! But politicians do it all the time because that poverty level job comes with some serious upper level perks. The result is that big companies make out like bandits, politicians make out like bandits, lobbyists make damn good coin, and the rest of us are just struggling to get by.

As I have said, there's plenty of blame to go around.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

Pfizer may not be driving the bus, but they are certainly telling the driver where the bus needs to go.

This is not a US issue alone. This is a global issue, spanning hundreds of governments and power organizations like the UN. That's a lot of buses all going to the same terminal. Coincidence?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Pfizer may not be driving the bus, but they are certainly telling the driver where the bus needs to go.

This is not a US issue alone. This is a global issue, spanning hundreds of governments and power organizations like the UN. That's a lot of buses all going to the same terminal. Coincidence?

TheRedneck

That is mainly due to a lemmings mentality that we have seen with the Pandemic. No one wanted to start first and once one started everyone followed over the cliff. Then no one wanted to be first to stop, but once one stops the rest will go over that cliff again.

We saw that with the states too. At first they fought Trump, called him a racist to even think about shutting anything down. Remember Pelosi, come to China town enjoy the food and all as the virus started to spread like wildfire. Then CA shut down and the lemmings went over the cliff except for a few. Now we are at the cliff edge again in when do we stop it all as it seems England is promoting.

Our biggest dangers is these Governments, including our liberal side, of turning the world into a Corporatocracy with a twist. The twist is it would be corporate socialism with everyone being told what to do, say, eat, live etc.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem is that not all lobbying is bad. I am admittedly married to a lobbyist. What does he do? He argues against bureaucrats who have no idea what the realities of the industry are that they regulate, and when I say that, I am not talking money although that is part of it, but I am also talking very real safety concerns.

You know with medicine that more is very definitely not always better and in fact is often dangerous to deadly? Yeah, it works that way with vaccines, but since the government regulatory apparatus has a vested interest in both hiring people who have no real practical knowledge of the things they regulate (downright ignorant in many cases) and vested interest in promoting those who can get their names on rules changes, they make stupid, dangerous decisions.

There have been regulators who see that the efficacy of vaccine X is hovering in the 80% range which is darn good, but they think it ought to be 90 or even close to 100%. The problem with that isn't that you can't provoke an immune response to do that, but that the strength of the immune response required to get that level of efficacy very often starts killing at high rates. So the cure ends up being worse than the disease.

It ends up being my husband's job as a subject matter expert to go in and sit across the table from bureaucrats like this, lay out the data, and explain their idiocy to them in gentle, polite words, so that farmers don't end up killing their livestock in an effort to prevent deadly disease in them.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is mainly due to a lemmings mentality that we have seen with the Pandemic.

On that, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I do strongly suggest you read my post to ketsuko above. That does happen, quite frequently, believe it or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

I completely understand what you are talking about here. It's not just politicians who are ignorant about so many matters they have to be involved in; judges are the same way, as are lawyers and police. That's why judges typically allow, or even demand at times, "expert" witnesses who may have no connection to the case, but who can advise the judge/jury on the technical aspects of the claims. Let's face it: no one knows everything, and these professions call for decisions to be made on a massive variety of subjects.

It's when the money becomes so great as to override the morality of those involved that a problem occurs.

Those with a criminal morality also tend to seek out positions where they can make more money with less risk. If a lobbyist with a questionable moral center is offered the chance to make enough money with minimal risk in an illegal fashion, they will take it... and others with similar questionable morals will see that and follow suit. That's why lobbyists must be held to such a high standard. Certainly not all of them are evil maniacs looking to profit any way they can, legal or no, but some are. The same thing happens with all of the other positions I mentioned.

It is a question of morality, not a question of money. Money is a tool.

It also happens with corporate officials, quite frequently because the money is so good and the expectations are so high. Should one break a few laws and make $10 million this year in a secure position, or should one stay legal and be satisfied with $500,000 and be concerned about being replaced? Stockholders are notorious for not caring about how the profits are made, and the bonuses based on corporate profit are often the vast bulk of compensation.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Why else would a potential politician spend a million dollars or more to win a seat that pays $174,000 a year? That would be like spending $100,000 to get a job making $17,300 a year... a new house just to have a poverty level job? That's ludicrous! But politicians do it all the time because that poverty level job comes with some serious upper level perks. The result is that big companies make out like bandits, politicians make out like bandits, lobbyists make damn good coin, and the rest of us are just struggling to get by.

As I have said, there's plenty of blame to go around.

TheRedneck

The Clintons broke the code too, so instead of getting cash where they almost got caught they just give 15 min speeches and get paid 250k per or more, not to mention the whole charity thing that ends up being pay to play for even foreign Governments.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The Clintons broke the code too, so instead of getting cash where they almost got caught they just give 15 min speeches and get paid 250k per or more, not to mention the whole charity thing that ends up being pay to play for even foreign Governments.

Yes, they did, and yes, speeches are another way to launder bribe money.

Now consider this: someone had to actually pay for these speeches. I wonder who that was? Would you not say they were as guilty of scamming the system as the Clintons?

It takes two to tango.

TheRedneck

The hypnosis is very strong. I've had some friends that watched all the conspiracy theories, agreed with everything that was being said and went up and took it anyway.

When asked why?

They replied, "I don't know, it just kinda happened." Kinda like what the OP was saying in his situation.

Anyways the marketing campaign is very powerful, it's best we guard our minds to it.