> Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration There are also conflicts with Fauci has his

> Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration There are also conflicts with Fauci has his strong connections to the Gavi health alliance and many big pharma companies. Some of them might have conflicts, but all of them? And even if they do, what about the arguments themselves? Science is not a consensus. > There is no censorship in the media regarding medical research of COVID-19. There is fact checking You have got to be fucking kidding me?! The Hunter Biden story, published by one of the largest newspapers in the United States (the NY Post) was censored on every major platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and was it was later found that he was under active investigation by the FBI. We are in one of the absolutely worst eras of censorship of our times. It has grown ti 1984 levels of insanity by Big Tech and Big Media. You cannot possible be saying there is no big media censorship and it's all "Fact Checking". That's total fucking bullshit. We have cases where the news media contradicts their own headlines within their own articles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA) and literally fact checks opinions and hyperbolas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM) > The platform is an indirect indication: if the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit. You are essentially saying "The Media is the Message." It's a massive logical error. Remember at one time, the major scientific publications said black people were inferior to whites due to their skull size. It was provable science at that time. Science is not about majority rule, it's about examination and facts that can be reproduced by others. > it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit That's assuming the result based on the medium. You realize a bunch of researches got totally baseless papers published in respected grievance study journals, right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/gri... furthermore, there have been many cases where the medium has been banned throughout history, by the academic and scientific communities, for things that are commonly accepted as fact today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA I feel like your arguments are very similar to those that advocate creationism. It's religion in the guise of science.