Mining good info from biased sources

AnnieA

Well-known Member
Location
Down South
Have posted in a lot of places that I distrust most media outlets and try to read from extremist sources with the hope of discerning truth. This article is a good example of how I like to analyze for a kernel of truth.

Link to article: Newswars: mRNA Vaccines Might Prove Catastrophic in a Rushed Coronavirus Response Bombshell primer breaks down the very real risks of this cutting-edge technology

First of all, the sensationalist article title is a big red flag. Publication title, subtitle and category headers make the bias even more clear. But that's not my trigger to skip it; I still take a moment to scan and see if sources are cited for the possibility of a few flakes of gold that can be sluiced from the useless sediment of opinion. If it reads as mostly opinion in my first scan, then I do skip it. If there are mentions or links to other sources, I give it a closer read.

After scanning the article which has biased opinion including the crackpot, tinfoil speculative 'danger' of mRNA vaccines excerpted in indents below, I also found a link to the reason I'm waiting for more data to get the vaccine with my multiple autoimmune diagnosis ...I'll post that after the really! crazy excerpt.

Crazy bit:​
4) How might mRNA vaccines be maliciously weaponized as a depopulation platform to achieve globalist goals of depopulation via forced infertility? If mRNA can encode for the synthesis of any desired protein, it’s a simple matter to use the platform to build hormone-resembling antigens that would “teach” the human body to attack specific hormones necessary for reproduction and gestation. This, in turn, would theoretically result in widespread female infertility, thereby achieving globalist depopulation goals through vaccine-induced “autoimmune infertility.”​
The author--in spite of a wonky bias--does, however, include a link to a 2018 Nature journal article which I already know as a reputable publication verified in this link.. The Nature journal article entitled mRNA Vaccines — A New Era in Vaccinology is a scientific publication, so unless you're trained to read that sort of publication, they can be scanned as well starting with the abstract and skipping to the end portions which are usually titled discussion, conclusion etc. After scanning, then go back and review those sections more carefully. Hard to read sometimes, but worth the effort. The Nature article contains ueful info which validates what I read in other research publications as soon as talk started for the possibility of mRNA tech for Covid-19 vaccines. Towards the end of the Nature article under "Theraputic considerations and challenges," I found corroboration of autoimmune concerns that I'd read months ago about mRNA technology snags in oncology treatment research reported elsewhere:

Potential safety concerns that are likely to be evaluated in future preclinical and clinical studies include local and systemic inflammation, the biodistribution and persistence of expressed immunogen, stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and potential toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms54,166 induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity167,168. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken.​
So in spite of an extremist bias, I found a path to a reputable source. Given our polarized world, there's often no easy way to find reputable information other than sifting a lot of dirt looking for a tiny fragment of gold.

Inspired by @asp3 :)



 

Last edited:
Editorialized titles say ALOT. Remember when newspapers actually had a full fledged news section including about a dozen or so one or two paragraph stories. But they got right to the point giving just the facts. Now everyone want to show everyone how smart they are or simply pushing an bias.
 

Back
Top