They told us the COVID vaccine was “safe and effective” ad nauseam, even after they told us a COVID vaccine wouldn’t be safe or tested appropriately while Trump was still in office.
Your bullshit alarm should’ve been going bonkers. Mine was. Whenever media, government, and your Liberal friends start barking the same phrase - something’s up. Prominent Democrats and experts were on TV urging you to get vaccinated. Reasons? It would make you immune to COVID and it’d stop the spread. It did neither.
But it’s “safe and effective”!
If they are safe, does that mean not one person had a poor outcome from these vaccines?
And what did effective mean? Did effective mean that you’ll never get COVID if you’re vaccinated and up to date on boosters? Or does it mean your case or COVID will be less severe?
We now know the answers to these questions - despite information suppression and mass propaganda -because enough time has passed.
But these were all questions that they were able to ignore by using the phrase.
”Safe and effective” was not an accident. It was designed to induce vaccine adherence and persuade while discrediting dissent.
“Safe and effective” was designed to replace their arguments.
It was designed to be a deceptive rhetorical technique to create an illusion of substance or to persuade others without providing meaningful evidence or reasoning. Instead of presenting specific evidence, facts, or logical reasoning to support their claims, they resorted to using this vague, general phrase that lacks depth and precision.
“Safe and effective” is an absolute.
Not only was this phrase used in place of reasons, but it”s an absolute. There are no absolutes in big pharma products. Read the fine print. Even Tylenol has potential side effects. Everything comes with a cost.
Your BS alarm should go bonkers when media and experts use absolutes. Speaking in absolutes doesn’t leave room for nuance and there’s always nuance in big pharma products, especially vaccines.
There are hundreds of millions people in the United States. There’s no such thing as one size fits all risk management.
Speaking in absolutes is designed to hinder meaningful communication and understanding. Absolutes fail to acknowledge the complexities and nuances that often underlie various topics. By dismissing the shades of gray and ignoring alternative viewpoints, they created a polarized and binary view of the world.
Repeating such phrases ad nauseam, without offering substantive evidence or addressing counterarguments, is a characteristic of a flawed argument.
When someone repeatedly resorts to using the same phrases without providing substantive content, it suggests that they are relying on rhetoric rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion or debate. They want neither.
Repeated use of broad phrases without supporting evidence or logical reasoning can be a sign that the person making the argument is attempting to manipulate or deceive others by relying on emotional appeals or a superficial understanding of the topic. It is a red flag for critical thinkers because it demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to engage in a substantive, evidence-based discussion.
Beware of the establishment’s phrase used as an absolute and in place of an argument!
Dr. Peter Hotez was on the public radio show "Here and Now" today - https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/06/28/peter-hotez-vaccine-debate
Peter Hotez around the 9:20 mark: “Anti-science, anti-vaccine activism is a lethal, deadly force, it needs to be treated as that”
Host: “OK”
He also said on this show that science is not debatable, unlike philosophy,...or other subjects. He is basically equating "science" to "absolute truth" so if people bring up concerns about evidence or methodology or peer reviews or conflicts of interest in the field of scientific discovery,...he can basically squash these concerns by saying "you are debating with the truth, and I represent the truth." This is sad and dangerous.