You said in your other post that the vaccine was gene therapy and that cheap treatments were effective. I'm presuming you either mean Hydroxychloroquine or horse paste. None of those statements are true and because of them countless people died. The statements are worthy of head shaking now. During the pandemic they constituted shouting fire in a crowded theater. They are fundamentally unworthy of protection.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections.

It was first used against a man in 1917 for giving an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio. It was later popularized to charge people handing out anti-war flyers opposing the WWI draft with sedition.

It was later overturned in 1969, in which the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The fact that people still cite this analogy to argue for the abridgment of free speech 100 years later is truly disturbing.

I had no clue about this at ALL, and I went to multiple top schools all the way from kindergarten !

Whoa

I'm not ignorant of the history I merely disagree.

I think promoting what every educated person knows are provable falsehoods liable to cause the death of thousands during a public emergency ought to fall outside of free speech. There isn't some controversy about whether covid vaccines change your DNA or whether horse paste is an effective treatment that obviates the need to vaccinate. These are lies and every promoter of such lies has heard them denounced as such a hundred times thus it is willfully promoting what they reasonably ought to know are lies that they reasonably ought to know will lead to deaths. If they were promoting it during the pandemic they were doing so during a public health emergency.

That said the government isn't trying to prosecute they are trying to advise social media companies to stop boosting lies and hosting it. Let the dissenters get a mastodon if they want to share such.

You are repeating a narrative from mass media, hook line and sinker.

What you consider evidence of "provable falsehoods" could potentially be the result of a captured medical research establishment with ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It's not hard to imagine such aberrations in the data if you understand the sources of funding for research and the sometimes vindictive bureaucracy present in the medical journals. There are numerous studies (intentionally buried in search results) that claim otherwise.

Your statement - "None of these statements are true" is perhaps not as true as you think. It takes a brave and intelligent person to consider that the general narrative or your pre-existing beliefs may be flawed. A sign of true intelligence is the willingness to be wrong. Our world is awash in disinformation, but based on your comments, you will have to let go of almost your entire worldview to see the truth. So we arrive at the moment of truth - blue pill or red pill? We need more intelligent people to wake up. You can choose to mock this post or me or anything else- it doesn't bother me. I am asking you and others who advocate for top-down restriction of dissenting opinions to reconsider and accept that perhaps the mainstream narrative is an instrument of control of thought.

https://www.biznews.com/health/2023/01/23/ivermectin-efficac...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32673060/

The fact that some understandings change, are clarified, or are in doubt doesn't imply there aren't provable lies. Statements can be said to be on a spectrum of provable truth to provable lie say from 2+2=4 to 2+2=17 and on a spectrum from neutral to harmful.

If I say ziptechnologies is Michael Jackson living in hiding with the mom of one of the neverland kids I'm provably lying. There is no legitimate doubt as to his death and no reason to believe that is your actual identity. If I say you are a drug dealer and invite the police to raid your home I have crossed over from neutral to harmful.

The fact that many statements can't be evaluated so simply doesn't mean there aren't obvious lines that many statements clearly cross articulable objective standards.

Both of those statements are actually true.

Vaccines aren't gene therapy because MRNA involves chucking components at your cell for it to post process into stuff not permanently writing changes to the blueprints of the cells themselves. It neither makes any change to the cells themselves nor persists beyond the material being processed out of your system.

Gene therapy involves making modifications to cells. Presenting MRNA as gene therapy makes people afraid to use it because they erroneously believe it will permanently alter their DNA.

The balance of evidence is that horse paste is between useless and harmful depending on dosage. The average patient will discover their doctor/pharmacist wont provide it and getting it yourself from the internet is even more harmful than clinical administration because of a users inability to obtain or administer a less than disastrous dose.

A high risk patient who has say a 3% chance of mortality without a vaccine will likely die or experience painful and harmful consequences if they avoid a vaccine extremely unlikely to do them harm in favor of a "cure" that doesn't work.

I know you have heard all this. Years later if you are still spreading this then you are willfully spreading lies and its not OK.