Vaccine propagandists infiltrated vaccine skeptics group, found that the skeptics are MORE scientific and rigorous in their thinking compared to obedient, dumbed-down mask wearers

A team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) infiltrated a Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “skeptics” group recently and discovered that those questioning the official story are more scientific than those accepting it hook, line and sinker.

Unlike the Branch Covidians who believe everything Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates tell them, even though none of it makes an ounce of sense, Chinese Virus skeptics tend to look empirically at the scientific data and come to their own rational conclusions.

“Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution,” the team revealed about the findings of their investigation.

“Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective.'”

This is powerful coming from experts at MIT, one of the world’s most respected scientific institutions of higher education.

In a study published about the subject, the researchers further revealed that anti-maskers “value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over ‘expert’ interpretations.”

“Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand.”

Anti-maskers recognize that official “science” is biased

The difference between anti-maskers and those who believe everything the government tells them is that the former tends toward critical thinking as opposed to blind allegiance and obedience.

Just because Fauci says that Chinese Virus injections are “healthy” and “safe” does not automatically mean that this is true. To Branch Covidians, though, anything Fauci says is true because Fauci is a “doctor” and a “scientist” who gets a lot of airtime on television.

“[Anti-maskers] are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites,” the MIT experts found about those in the skeptics group.

“Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data.”

One of the users wrote in the group that coding data is “a big deal,” and that such definitions “should be offered transparently by every state.”

“Without a national guideline – we are left with this mess,” this same user added.

Others questioned the lack of government transparency concerning data collection systems, many of which lack honesty and thus erode trust from both government institutions and the datasets they release.

“In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states,” the MIT researchers learned about the group.

The MIT study clearly states that anti-mask people are “grounded in more scientific rigor” than the Branch Covidians, “not less.”

“These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph,” they further explain.

In other words, collective analysis that involves many brains is preferable to anti-maskers than simply accepting what one or two deep state “doctors” or “experts” on television claim to be true about the plandemic.

You can read more about the MIT study and its conclusions at this link.

More of the latest news about Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) skepticism can also be found at Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

ThreadReaderApp.com

NaturalNews.com