Heidi and Julie will have to team up with John Cook, who has been Nudging us along on climate ("debunking climate deniers" and creating the 97%-of-climate-scientists-agree" meme from his PhD) for many years now, and has recently "diversified" his "cognitive inoculation" portfolio to include all manner of topics, including, of course, "prebunking" "misinformation" about the "vaccines". What a cosy crew THAT would make, eh! Here's Cook and buddies waxing lyrical about the power of their inoculation techniques: https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/344861133/338159045_oa.pdf
From the above document. What a snaky piece of work:
"Accordingly, this is an opportune time to engage in a critical review of inoculation theory research in these areas. The potential value of such work in the current “post‐truth” era where misinformation abounds, scientific facts are increasingly called into question, and trust in science is being eroded is especially salient".
As usual with these "community/public consultations", I do wonder whether they are not just more "research" to help them map the resistance and develop more "efficient" countermeasures/inoculation.
Thanks Rosemary. Is Monash the original publisher of this because none of the authors are from the Melbourne outfit? These souls come cheap. I am fascinated by this social control and horrified by it at the same time. I look forward to reading Cook's work.
There is no "explaining" to "them" how the 97% was worked out. They are too invested in the narrative, literally invested $$$, to be able to hear through their cloth ears. Career and pension suicide to anyone that breaks ranks. Ralph Ellis gave an excellent presentation on the derivation of the 97% at Glastonbury England last year. I included the link in my rebuttal (a right old rant including "you'll have to shoot me on my doorstep") which thankfully went through OK at about 4pm on Friday 23rd and I received confirmation of receipt. Here is the link to Ralph Ellis' presentation, 32 mins
Thanks TeeCee. We need to spread these counter-narratives to the mainstream in the hope they take on. How people accept that the people who try to knock us off with mRNA poison now care so much about the planet really is a mystery.
Excellent job of extrapolating from and amplifying Kate Mason's valuable work.
Yes, "rooted" is the operative word, as in 'We'll all be ... said Hanrahan"!
But allow me to point out a correction needed. In the par. relating to the relationship between Kidney and XDI, I believe you meant to write "It simply infers a conflict of interest between these partners." instead of "...LACK of conflict of interest."
I now see what you mean. But as as you're aware, the term 'conflict of interest' generally refers to the association of one party with another that compromises its objectivity and honesty, owing to the benefit to be gained from the association (we all know, of course, of the conflicts of interests of medical experts owing to their associations with/funding by Big Pharma). It seemed, and still seems, to me that whereas they ought to be independent of one another, that very symbiosis influences how these two present their own and each other's objectives and thereby represents a true conflict of interest: above all a conflict with the public interest!
I get what you're saying but I had very clear reasons for phrasing it the way I did. I am willing to wear confusion. I would go into more detail but probably not here. Would be happy to explain it, the best I can, via email or some other method. What you describe of this symbiosis is perfectly accurate.
Heidi and Julie will have to team up with John Cook, who has been Nudging us along on climate ("debunking climate deniers" and creating the 97%-of-climate-scientists-agree" meme from his PhD) for many years now, and has recently "diversified" his "cognitive inoculation" portfolio to include all manner of topics, including, of course, "prebunking" "misinformation" about the "vaccines". What a cosy crew THAT would make, eh! Here's Cook and buddies waxing lyrical about the power of their inoculation techniques: https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/344861133/338159045_oa.pdf
From the above document. What a snaky piece of work:
"Accordingly, this is an opportune time to engage in a critical review of inoculation theory research in these areas. The potential value of such work in the current “post‐truth” era where misinformation abounds, scientific facts are increasingly called into question, and trust in science is being eroded is especially salient".
Note this:
https://www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/social-media-usage-and-impacts
As usual with these "community/public consultations", I do wonder whether they are not just more "research" to help them map the resistance and develop more "efficient" countermeasures/inoculation.
Thanks Rosemary. Is Monash the original publisher of this because none of the authors are from the Melbourne outfit? These souls come cheap. I am fascinated by this social control and horrified by it at the same time. I look forward to reading Cook's work.
There is no "explaining" to "them" how the 97% was worked out. They are too invested in the narrative, literally invested $$$, to be able to hear through their cloth ears. Career and pension suicide to anyone that breaks ranks. Ralph Ellis gave an excellent presentation on the derivation of the 97% at Glastonbury England last year. I included the link in my rebuttal (a right old rant including "you'll have to shoot me on my doorstep") which thankfully went through OK at about 4pm on Friday 23rd and I received confirmation of receipt. Here is the link to Ralph Ellis' presentation, 32 mins
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/the-great-net-zero-debate-ralph-ellis-energy-and-climate-science-errors
Thanks TeeCee. We need to spread these counter-narratives to the mainstream in the hope they take on. How people accept that the people who try to knock us off with mRNA poison now care so much about the planet really is a mystery.
The Colchester video at the bottom of this article does a good job of explaining the 97%.
https://warrenross.substack.com/p/the-many-moods-of-our-mountain-mayor
I have linked to the exact second where the table is discussed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzVJkmqjls&t=425s
Excellent job of extrapolating from and amplifying Kate Mason's valuable work.
Yes, "rooted" is the operative word, as in 'We'll all be ... said Hanrahan"!
But allow me to point out a correction needed. In the par. relating to the relationship between Kidney and XDI, I believe you meant to write "It simply infers a conflict of interest between these partners." instead of "...LACK of conflict of interest."
Thanks Stephen. No, I meant exactly what I said. I meant it conveys a clear symbiosis between them
I now see what you mean. But as as you're aware, the term 'conflict of interest' generally refers to the association of one party with another that compromises its objectivity and honesty, owing to the benefit to be gained from the association (we all know, of course, of the conflicts of interests of medical experts owing to their associations with/funding by Big Pharma). It seemed, and still seems, to me that whereas they ought to be independent of one another, that very symbiosis influences how these two present their own and each other's objectives and thereby represents a true conflict of interest: above all a conflict with the public interest!
I get what you're saying but I had very clear reasons for phrasing it the way I did. I am willing to wear confusion. I would go into more detail but probably not here. Would be happy to explain it, the best I can, via email or some other method. What you describe of this symbiosis is perfectly accurate.