This video makes the case very well for why science requires ongoing debate, between scientists who disagree with each other, have different theories, and come up with new ideas.
The point I want to make though is science is only useful if you have a definition of what it’s being used to accomplish.
What goals are scientists trying to achieve with science, and when do those goals become opinions, or agendas, such as the bottom line of corporations?
It’s quite clear that a corporation such as a vaccine manufacturer has the goal of making money. They have no direct liability for injuries from their products, ever, so they don’t even have that as a risk factor in trying to sell their products.
If a vaccine gets recalled, which rarely happens, it’s only when it kills or injures more people than the disease itself, and they almost always come up with another one to replace it.
Take for example, the HPV vaccine, they came out with Cervarix, it killed and injured people, didn’t barely reduce the incidence of cervical cancer at all, and so they came out with Gardisil, which also didn’t really reduce cervical cancer much, and also killed and injured people.
From what I was told, and what I was just reading on the CDC site, it killed or seriously injured over thirty times more people than it saved from death from cervical cancer, including a boy who had to wear a lung machine on a back pack to breathe, who didn’t have a cervix.
He killed himself after suffering from transverse myelitis, as was seen in the trials of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now not recommended in my country for people under 50, because it killed multiple young people with blood clots and was banned in many countries, and it only works about half the time, they think.
When these people try to call that science, the first thing you would think is, yes that is science if the goal is making money from killing people, but what if the goal wasn’t killing and injuring people for profit with no liability?
Can we show that pharmaceutical companies have specifically set out to kill and sterilize people? Yes.
Bayer or their parent company I.G. Farben funded Hitler’s election campaign, they made zyklon b, they did tests on sterilization methods on prisoners of war, in Nazi death camps, literally.
They patented the word heroin, released it as a cough syrup and said it wasn’t addictive and also made the methamphetamine Hitler was injected with daily by his doctor.
Pfizer made the sterilization drug that Melinda Gates talked about at a conference on population control (Corbett Report’s YouTube account is now terminated but you can search for that video in his Bill Gates series on Bitchute) to give to the third world women so they wouldn’t have to walk fifteen miles to be sterilized.
They also have the largest criminal fine for fraud for a pain killer that they recommended be used for things it wasn’t meant for, and it wasn’t meant for anything at all, it was taken off the shelves.
They have a long history of killing people, and covering up the fact that they knew that their products killed people, to make money, or possibly to kill people on purpose.
Thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Propulsid, various addictive and deadly opiates, some of these things are still being used today, made by companies who knew that they killed people, and they sold them anyway.
In the case of pain killers, one of the pharmaceutical company’s most lucrative products, the goal of “science” is not health, but making somebody “feel” better, which is almost entirely subjective.
So if that was the goal of science, would they be making people feel better with lockdowns, censorship, totalitarian dictates like vaccine passports, and starting a war on “antiscience” people who had a different opinion to them?
No, they wouldn’t, they would be causing more suffering by my reckoning. Barbaric arrests and restrictions, the financial stress of millions of lost jobs and small businesses, the millions who starved to death due to lock downs, which were never proven to work at all.
What is immediately apparent here is that there are two schools of thought, one is freedom, the right to live the way you want to live, doing what you want to do, with a potential risk of dying, just slightly higher than that of dying of the flu and every other potential threat we always had like getting struck by lightning.
You have to include the threat of getting struck by lightning, and dying in a car accident, falling over and hitting your head, if you want to weigh up the risks of going outside, because if you don’t, it would not be a fair comparison of the risks of going outside with one extra threat.
This would also bring up all sorts of philosophical arguments about whether you want to live fast and die young, (if the virus even kills healthy young people ever), but we’re talking about a slightly enhanced flu, which they made in the lab, and banned the cure for.
You might say that’s “antiscience” to suggest that they did the gain of function on coronaviruses from bats and they said they did, and they said they were going to release it, and said they overdosed the patients in the hydroxychloroquine study to kill them on purpose to sell the vaccine.
However, given the numerous cases of these people killing people on purpose, or covering up the deaths caused by their products to make money, it would be a reasonable assumption to make, that they were either trying to kill you, or didn’t care if they did, at least some of the time.
That being the case, when they claim that people who deny their science are terrorists, and they have to fight a war on them, I say I’m perfectly willing to fight that war, and die if I have to, in the name of science, and freedom.
However if you fought a war, maybe you’d kill more people, and maybe you’d die, so how does the science work in that scenario you sick bastards?