Hacker News Reader

Comment by airza | Hacker News Reader

This article really seems like a hot mess. I am looking for the thread of a coherent argument through it and it just looks like someone was trying to simply pull together as many authoritative-looking diagrams and paper abstracts as possible to make their point.

View on HN

When I read comments like this I have to go back and ask myself, is there even any amount of proof that would actually compel a single person to change their mind anymore?

We have reached a level of outright cultural denial that, were Fauci to give a speech on every television on the planet admitting to this, still not a single person that took the shots would believe it was true.

How anyone even had the slightest level of respect for a man who did what Fauci did during the 80's is beyond me, and I can't understand how any gay man today could possibly believe a word coming out of their mouth.

In any case, who cares, the bed is made, we have to lay in it. None of us have the energy left to try and convince people when the majority of the planet's people have been weaponised against us. We are insane, schizo, fake news peddlers that just want to convince people to kill themselves by injecting horse paste into their lungs.

Are you fucking kidding me. Fuck this world.

Fauci is just a figurehead and the vaccines were developed privately. Don't confuse celebrity politicians and bureaucrats being involved with the actual issue at hand.

We have to add one more important characteristic to the problematic psychological properties of mass formation: radical intolerance of other opinions and a strong tendency toward authoritarianism. To the masses, dissident voices appear 1) antisocial and devoid of solidarity, because they refuse to participate in the solidarity that the mass formation creates; 2) completely unfounded, as critical arguments are not assigned any cognitive or emotional weight within the narrow circle of attention of the masses; 3) extremely aversive because they threaten to break the intoxication, and in this way confront the masses again with the negative situation they preceded the mass formation (lack of social bond and meaning, indefinable fear and unease); 4) extremely frustrating because they threaten to remove the venting of latent aggression.

This radical intolerance ensures that the masses are convinced of their superior ethical and moral intentions and of the reprehensibility of everything and everyone who resists them: whoever does not participate is a traitor of the collective.

It's a classic Gish-gallop. Throw as many diagrams and vaguely plausible sounding arguments at the reader as possible and maybe one of them will stick.

In the meantime it takes far more time to convincingly debunk than it does to generate because of the sheer volume of disparate arguments that need to be countered.

And yet "debunked" it shall be, by taking the weakest argument and showing it is wrong with such condescension that good citizens will be afraid to believe any of it.

Seemed coherent to me but I already knew most of it because I follow JikkyLeaks. That anonymous mouse has named every #___gate related to the shots in the last 2 years.

The former US Surgeon General even mentioned him today:

https://twitter.com/JeromeAdamsMD/status/1715053047229940222

Maybe if RFK JR is elected we can get Jikky as the new Surgeon General?

Bit misleading to put it like that when the former surgeon general mentioned him merely to someone for listening to him

I didn't think the writing was that bad. The author's thrust is:

* It was repeatedly claimed that the vaccine is not gene therapy, because it only contains RNA (which is short-lived) vs DNA (which could alter you and your offspring permanently)

* The vaccine has a bunch of DNA in it.

I just realized. This is Gen-Z's 911. Now let's go to the middle east! Don't ask about 7.

I found the argument similarly easy to follow. I’m surprised the GP had such a hard time with it.

1. not your offspring unless it infects the germline.

2. citation needed. and dredging through that dumpster fire of an article OP posted, I see nothing besides some claims made by some biotechie who seems to angrily tweet about vaccine conspiracies. no journal articles, no PubMed links, not even a BioRxiv preprint. no evidence whatsoever that the vaccines actually contain plasmids, just someone saying so on Twitter.

put up or shut up.

I agree. It posits a lot of mechanisms for the vaccine's supposedly present plasmid DNA to integrate itself into the genome of human cells, but I remain rather unconvinced until it could be empirically tested.

For instance, I think with HIV you can use immunohistochemistry to generate images showing the viral DNA embedded into the human genetic material in the nucleus. [0]

[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Montaner/publicati...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com