I wonder what else this sentiment could be applied to

Something we learned in GWOT may become a lesson for the nation.

Killing a leader, a spokesman, or a figurehead inevitably results in someone more radical in their beliefs taking that position.

You killed a dude who used words.

He's absolutely become a martyr.

He needs to be EXECUTED for his very obvious and on video MURDER of an innocent young girl that is just the latest in a rap sheet that's a mile long.

This is an open an shut case. He's a repeat offender and this was an unprovoked assault.

Anyone defending this monster is out of their damn mind.

Absolutely not an excuse, but we have to recognize that demographics in a fandom aren't always what we think they are. If we never recognize that we're in an echo chamber, we can't ever address real issues. Blanket stereotyping will only get us so far. Everyone has their own motivations.

I think it's important to recognize that when artists run the show in a fandom, it will appear to skew left because they rely on popularity and viewers for commissions and income. Centrists/right wing will keep their mouths shut to avoid callout/blacklists to interact with their favorite media.

This is a very charged statement but in general if you honestly believe this then you don't know who makes up the majority of the manufacturing, infrastructure, logistics, public safety, and defense arms of our society.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpbG...

Why would you do this D:

The Defund the Police movements make sense then.

Intent was to give two examples out of multiple implied options.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to be concerned about conflict of interest when the studies you are citing were funded by organizations who's owners heavily invested in vaccine development for profit.

I never made any claims about any one specific drug. You brought up ivermectin. My original post said that Big Pharma prioritized research that would make them more money, ie, the vaccines over other potentially low cost solutions. The after action report confirms that such suppression took place.

Together trial's methodology wasn't fully transparent. Dosages were for parasitic infections. Not adjusted for viral infection. The treatment timing was also questionable. No subgroup analysis for cormorbidities, etc. Being funded by the Gates foundation who also invested heavily in vaccines sus.

Selective interpretation isn't the only issue. Selective research direction also exists. "Hey we want you conduct studies in this particular area but not these other areas."

Then the optics favor the area with the most studies, regardless of the outcome. Research into alternatives WAS suppressed.

The context is from the After Action Report on COVID-19

Peer-reviewed science isn't exactly the silver bullet of impartiality you think it is. Someone or some entity paid to have that study done. Just because you shine a flashlight on one spot in a room of solutions doesn't mean it's the only one.