Select to expand quote
remery said..Hence the first post in this thread about science being self correcting. Conspiracy theories are not.peacenlove said..
In truth, if you'd in fact read the article, brother, you'd find that the council's decision was based on the work of genomics scientist Kevin McKernan and the opinion of oncology Professor Angus Dalgleish, but let's not spoil the fun with the truth hey? Science should be fertile ground for many opinions and ideas that lead to knowledge, hopefully some wisdom and ultimately enlightenment, not a place for absolutes and dogmatic opinions.
Brother, science when done properly is self correcting but when we ignore or dismiss outright new evidence because it disagrees with a belief in what an authority figure is telling us - as you are doing right now - that's the exact opposite of science - it's wilful neglect and dogma.
True scientific inquiry is a continuous exploration of ideas that are tested and re-tested. Yesterdays hypotheses are today's myths. You Remery, don't get to define what is true and not - hence this discussion.
If only it was that simple - allege something is a conspiracy theory to avoid new evidence. What alleged conspiracy theory are you alluding to? Perhaps this conspiracy is the US Congress finding that vaccine mandates, six foot distancing, masking etc. were not based on science?
Kevin McKernan simply measured the DNA fragment content of many vaccine vials and reported that it was far higher than the legal safe limit and Professor Dalgleish reported on the highly unusual increase in aggressive cancers since the CV-19 vaxx rollout. These experiments have been repeated numerous times and the data is robustly supported.
Do you accept as truth that a safe limit for DNA fragments in vaccines has been set by the public health authorities?