Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The chair of the Lancet commission on COVID-19 says - "So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue."

You more than most repeatedly ask questions along the lines of "Is there any evidence of a cover up? It is just twitter grifters who are claiming this. Show me an expert who thinks scientists are covering up."

When you are presented with evidence of an expert claiming a cover up you say "Why discuss it here? Why not ask this question in a science or medical forum?"

The expert is claiming a conspiracy. This absolutely is the right forum for this.

As chair of the Lancet commission on COVID-19 I think it can be assumed he's an expert the subject matter in hand - i.e COVID-19.

Do you agree he is talking about scientists deliberately creating a narrative in order to deflect from another issue?

I haven't misrepresented anything he said - I quoted him verbatim and then posed the question in the post:

So which is it? A well placed individual speaking out against what he says is a political narrative rather than any scientific fact.

Or an enemy of the people spreading dangerous misinformation?

For blindingly obvious reasons I think that's potentially an interesting discussion to have on a thread about vaccine safety on a conspiracy theory discussion forum. But once again, we can't have the discussion because you are hell bent on derailing and deflecting from it before it even gets going with accusations of misrepresentation and irrelevance.

That's why people ignore you. Not because they are unable to answer your hard questions or refute your insights.

But you did misrepresent things. You claimed he said something he didn't.

No I didn't.

After the initial post in response to the claims of misrepresentation and queries about why this is relevant in a conspiracy theory forum, I said he was claiming a conspiracy.

It is blindingly obvious that in my opinion this is the answer to the original question in the post I put: So which is it? A well placed individual speaking out against what he says is a political narrative rather than any scientific fact.

He is alleging scientists are deliberately avoiding plausible hypotheses for political reasons. This fits with in with the idea of a conspiracy theory.

I have quoted him repeatedly saying scientists are lying, creating a narrative and hiding documents.

In my opinion the above is tantamount to claiming a conspiracy. If my opinion is wrong why not tell me what you think he is claiming, as per the original question I posed?

Instead you say that because he did not specifically say "There is a conspiracy" that I am misrepresenting him. That's ridiculous.

If this really was a misrepresentation you would be able to comment on what you think the meaning of his words actually is, if not a conspiracy. But yet again you are unable to do so. And you rely on this sort of stuff to discredit and deflect on all posts you are unable to contradict. It's tedious.

As per the post:

Well we know for a fact that in his opinion scientists are creating a narrative and not acting like scientists. And lying. And hiding documents.

Whether that is tantamount to a conspiracy or not is what you're taking issue with.

I think it is because he clearly states that scientists are acting together - i.e conspiring.

In your opinion it is not. But hey, that's just your opinion, not evidence of me misrepresenting the expert.