** POsting as a member **
I am surprised that someone wouldn't know what I was writing about.
I get my news from PBS, BBC, Deutsche Welle, NY Times, WaPo, some WSJ, some CBC, some Reuters, some Guardian, some Globe and Mail, most Chicago Tribune. I watch CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News only rarely, and I live in Illinois. I travel a couple of times a year to the East Coast.
News is different in different places. I see very few ads from one party, because that party thinks it's a waste of their money to advertise in Northern Illinois (not without reason ). My guess is that you get ads from only one national party, too (I mean 'national' vs. 'state' and 'local'). News is spun one way by the the Times and different ways by, say, the Toronto Globe.
I get very little LA news here ... I guess that means both Louisiana and Los Angeles . My guess is that you get very little Illinois news. Neither of us sees the political ads that the other of us see, and ads reveal a lot about locales, IMO.
On one hand, it's a big loss. OTOH, no one has enough time to get ALL the news that could go into a decision.
I'm not at all surprised that I don't know what you're referring to, because we just don't receive the same communications. We just don't have the same info to go on.
(Incidentally, truthsetmefree, one big impediment to one world government is that we have to communicate in many, many languages. Worse, some concepts just don't translate.)
...my family can't go along with what the mainstream science is saying.
Doesn't mainstream science recommend not to get vaxed if it's contra-indicated? I think a very bad reaction to the first shot is accepted as 'contra-indicated', and I can see that recommended to close relatives.
Some of us are right here, and some of us are (flat out) wrong. I have no doubt that what we know now makes the vaccines universally applicable, except where contra-indicated, but I know we're taking a risk WRT unintended and/or long-term side effects. That's why I say 'some' of us are right - 'some', but I'm not sure which side that refers to. After all, Thalidomide was approved by the FDA because it was so great during testing, IIRC. (Note that testing has gotten a lot better since then.)
But vaccination isn't the only thing we discuss on SI.
We've laid out a lot of facts in this threads, but we have to interpret these facts for ourselves. I remain interested in why some people adopt minority opinions, but so far there have been few answers. But no one is obligated to answer those questions, no matter how interested anyone may be.
Above all, though, let's remember SI's main focus - surviving infidelity and then thriving.
Let's keep our passion, and let's keep our humanity, too. Covid evokes passion, but that doesn't mean it needs to evoke enmity, though I'm sure there's a word that fits much better here.
I will comment on one thing from an anti-vax, anti-mainstream media, conspiracy-theory leaning website.
They express shock and concern that states have the right to enforce quarantines and can even use police to do the work.
When I was 132 or 13 (1956-57), I was diagnosed with scarlet fever. A policemen came to our house and taped (to glass) or tacked up (to wood) quarantine notices on the 3 doors to our house. my parents didn't object, nor did any of our neighbors. Our doc mumbled something about it being unnecessary in light of current science, but he didn't fight it, either.
An yet some writer on the website told readers to be horrified.
My bet is that the writer was told to whip up some fear and anger to increase views so they could charge more for the ads they show and to gain more support in the crusade against government.
If they were truly interested in informing the public, for example, they would have looked into the history of quarantines and interviewed experts about the pros and cons.
When evaluating communications that come in to us, we really need to ask and answer questions like, 'What are they saying? Why are they saying it?'
[This message edited by SI Staff at 6:40 PM, Wednesday, January 12th]