Mind control vaccine?

This article was written on how to combat the Spread of Science Denialism

Schmid and Betsch make a point of emphasizing that science denialism is a universe away from a healthy skepticism. In fact, skepticism of existing results is what drives research to refine and overturn existing paradigms.

I translate this statement to. We were wrong, but now we are right again. I like science, but it has been wrong, they never admit when they were wrong. And it has been used to make a lot of people wealthy. At the expense of a lot of peoples health. And in some cases, out right human experimentation.

Research into “cognitive vaccines” suggests that teaching people how to spot misinformation before it occurs holds a lot of promise, and it’s possible that rebuttals could be more effective in an “inoculated” audience, suggest Schmid and Betsch.

This is the scary part. A vaccine to help you believe what ever they tell you. How great is that?

Here is the article Cognitive vaccine

I done a little digging on these people Ars Technica is who wrote the article. But they are owned by a media company, Condé Nast. Kinda convenient a media company researching a vaccine to help you believe them.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

Looks like another entry into the " if you don't believe me : just ask me " pile.

Will not be asking my doctor if Truthix is right for me ...

I didn't read that they had a literal vaccine, it was about debating tactics and apologetics that refute "misinformation".

Time Released subliminally triggered microscopic pre-programmed brain engrams !!! ☠️⚔️

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

I didn't read that they had a literal vaccine,

Research into “cognitive vaccines”

With the new two year turn around on vaccines, it won't be long. It clearly says they are researching it. But what is it vaccinating you from? Independent thought?

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck
They were obviously using the terms figuratively.

Funny thing is that here we are with someone taking it literally. Which pretty much proves the point the article was trying to make.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Explanation: It is scientifically possible and doable ...

Here is why and how ...

Mail-Order CRISPR Kits Allow Absolutely Anyone to Hack DNA: Experts debate what amateur scientists could accomplish with the powerful DNA editing tool—and whether its ready availability is cause for concern

“We aren’t going to get sick, are we?” my roommate Brett asked me. He cringed as I knelt down and stuffed a plate of E. coli bacteria—which came as part of the DIY CRISPR–Cas9 kit I bought online—into our fridge next to cartons of eggs, strawberry jam, bottles of beer and a block of cheese. “No, we won’t. The label says ‘non-pathogenic,’” I replied, trying to sound assuring. But honestly, I had no clue what I was doing. I nudged all the food up against the fridge wall, and left a two-inch border around the plate of living cells—a no man’s land between the microbes and our dinner. A couple inches probably would not stop the bugs, but I figured it couldn’t hurt. CRISPR–Cas9 (or CRISPR, for short) has given scientists a powerful way to make precise changes to DNA—in microbes, plants, mice, dogs and even in human cells. The technique may help researchers engineer drought-resistance crops, develop better drugs, cure genetic disorders, eradicate infectious diseases and much more. Ask any biologist, and they’ll likely tell you that CRISPR is revolutionary. It’s cheap and effective, and in many cases, it works much better than older methods for making genetic modifications. Biologists will also tell you that CRISPR is very easy to use.

Memory transferred between snails, challenging standard theory of how the brain remembers

Glanzman’s experiments — funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — involved giving mild electrical shocks to the marine snail Aplysia californica. Shocked snails learn to withdraw their delicate siphons and gills for nearly a minute as a defense when they subsequently receive a weak touch; snails that have not been shocked withdraw only briefly. The researchers extracted RNA from the nervous systems of snails that had been shocked and injected the material into unshocked snails. RNA’s primary role is to serve as a messenger inside cells, carrying protein-making instructions from its cousin DNA. But when this RNA was injected, these naive snails withdrew their siphons for extended periods of time after a soft touch. Control snails that received injections of RNA from snails that had not received shocks did not withdraw their siphons for as long. “It’s as if we transferred a memory,” Glanzman said.

[Note: Uses RNA instead of DNA and although this slightly complicates things I don't think or feel that the problem is insurmountable. If you do think that the problem is insurmountable, then please post your reasons why in this thread.]

Personal Disclosure: I can rewrite the brains of the leftist liberal progressive SJW NPC's and make them all totally conservative!!!

I consider the leftist liberal progressive SJW NPC's to be a danger to both me and my species and as such they are totally broken and need fixing ...

Its like the $6 Million Man except for the cost of a CRISPR Kit instead, ... and we can rebuild them, mentally and genetically speaking, instead of cybernetics ...



Now before anybody starts screeching about 'indiscriminate bioweapons' ... I counter with the fact that I can specifically target ...

Sexes [X/Y chromosomes]

Races [HOXBOX Haplogroups ]

Mindsets [Brain regions such as the Frontal Cortex and or the Amygdala etc.]

And so CRISPR can be very targeted and can be programmed to engage a specific individual if need be.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck
They were obviously using the terms figuratively.

Funny thing is that here we are with someone taking it literally. Which pretty much proves the point the article was trying to make.

You're pretty funny. It clearly states research into cognitive vaccines. So you are saying they don't mean that research into cognitive vaccines is going on? Just that research into cognitive vaccines looks promising, even though they are not doing it.

a reply to: OmegaLogos
That is good and all but it isn't what the article is about.

Schmid and Betsch focused on strategies to counter misinformation as it is being delivered during a debate, focusing on two possible approaches: correcting misinformation and laying bare the rhetorical techniques that are being used to obfuscate the truth.

a reply to: Unknownparadox
What you quoted

Research into “cognitive vaccines” suggests that teaching people how to spot misinformation before it occurs holds a lot of promise, and it’s possible that rebuttals could be more effective in an “inoculated” audience, suggest Schmid and Betsch.

Notice the use of commas?

See that bolded part? They are not talking about actual vaccines. The whole context of the article revolves around debate tactics.

a reply to: daskakik

Explanation: I know and you know that ...

But it doesnt change the facts ... Peoples brains can be rewritten using technology current in todays day and age!

Personal Disclosure: Good luck sleeping tonight eh? LOL!!!

a reply to: daskakik

That is good and all but it isn't what the article is about.

It's about changing peoples minds. Even if they have to give them a shot to do it. Even though they are not researching cognitive vaccines, according to TheMichiganSwampBuck, but they show promise, even though they are not researching. But since I am not vaccinated against independent thought yet. How can they possibly know cognitive vaccines hold promise, since they aren't researching it?

That's like this statement. Research into inter-dimensional travel holds promise.

Never in history has the ones who tell you not to be skeptical been on the side of good

But don't worry it's different this time ... Yea not buying that one

a reply to: daskakik

I see that. It doesn't change the fact they claim those vaccines hold promise. Now how do they know they hold promise? If they are not researching it? These are supposed to be people of the almighty science, spouting off possibilities they have no data on. Since they haven't researched it. Do you see the problem with that? No?

a reply to: OmegaLogos
But that doesn't change the fact that this isn't what the OP is about.

a reply to: Unknownparadox
For starters, they got you to knee-jerk just like they wanted to. You think they used those words because they are working on an actual vaccine.

That is the point, even though that isn't really what they are talking about, here we are.

a reply to: daskakik

Explanation: Youre confusing the OP for the article ok!

Personal Disclosure: They are not the same!

a reply to: Unknownparadox
You didn't read the whole article did you?

But when the results of all six experiments were combined to create a larger, more-powerful data set, the overall picture was that both topic and technique rebuttals worked equivalently well. The researchers also discovered that the combined rebuttals had no additional benefit.

It is about debating techniques.

a reply to: OmegaLogos
But the OP is citing and is based on the article.

Not confusing them, one is a product of the other.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Unknownparadox
You didn't read the whole article did you?

But when the results of all six experiments were combined to create a larger, more-powerful data set, the overall picture was that both topic and technique rebuttals worked equivalently well. The researchers also discovered that the combined rebuttals had no additional benefit.

It is about debating techniques.

Explain to me this.

Research into “cognitive vaccines” suggests that teaching people how to spot misinformation before it occurs holds a lot of promise,

In order to know if something holds promise. I need some data do I not? And how do you get data? Research? If I make a statement, such as covid vaccines cause clots. But I haven't researched it, and found some data to support that claim. I would be spreading misinformation, correct?

But if they make the statement.

Research into “cognitive vaccines” suggests that teaching people how to spot misinformation before it occurs holds a lot of promise, and it’s possible that rebuttals could be more effective in an “inoculated” audience, suggest Schmid and Betsch.

That isn't misinformation. Even though they have no data to make that claim, because they are not researching it.