Who do you trust? Who should we trust? Do people in positions of authority automatically warrant trust?
Trust is a hard thing to come by. Gotta earn trust from others, and others have to earn trust from you.
So if you have to earn trust, how do you go about doing that? How do you know that you can trust someone? I'd say you need a reliable track record even warrant some trust.
But it's a slippery slope. You can trust to a certain extent, but when you simply start accepting what others say is being true, that's one trust becomes more like an injury then a viable tool for life.
It's an injury because you're going to injure yourself by simply trusting what other people say without any verification. And that's where trust leaves and you have to be more diligent yourself. You can trust the source to provide you with information, but you always have to go look into it.
If it is going to trust someone and accept a simple phrase of what they say as if it were true, then you most likely being deceived is you've chosen to deceive yourself through lack of critical thinking and further investigation into a claim being made.
This brings us to our fact checker reality that we live in. The emergence of fact checkers makes people think that they can believe and trust what they say because after all, they are obviously presenting you with facts. Why would you bother questioning or doubting what they say. It's right in the name, they are fact checkers so they are obviously giving you facts.
Therefore whatever they say they contradict something else, then you can automatically conclude that what they say is true because it's a fact, and the thing that there fact checking in allegedly disproving, is automatically false.
And all you need to do is read the headline from the fact checker to conclude that. This fact checker said it was false, therefore it's false. And that's all you need to do and all you need to know the rest comfortably in your certainty.
That's not true. These people have ideological leanings and they misrepresent information and twist the information to present false facts of their own in order to attempt to discredit a claim being made.
Here's another case in point
https://twitter.com/reutersfacts/status/1459282748640800769
- reutersfacts
According to them, Pfizer didn't add tromethamine to the child version of the injection in order to counter heart related side effects with the injection.
What's their reason or proof to deny that this was added to counter the heart damaging risk from their injection which disproportionately affects the youth?
Simply put, this allows the mRNA to resist being degraded for a longer period of time before administration - meaning the pediatric vaccine can be stored for 2-8°C in commonly available refrigerators for up to 10 weeks,” a Pfizer spokeswoman said.
So Pfizer said they didn't add it for that reason, but merely changed the stabilizing ingredient from what they were using to this. And it just so happens to also be used to for heart inflammation.
What a coincidence. They do admit that it is used for heart issues:
While it is true to say tromethamine can be used to treat metabolic acidosis, a condition linked in some cases to heart bypass surgery (go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB03754), it is also a common stabilising ingredient, known as a tris buffer, in vaccines, medications and other non-medical products (here).
But that's fake news if you claim Pfizer put it in for that reason. Because Pfizer is honest and told them why they did it: as a stabilising ingredient. That's all. No other reason. It wasn't used in the previous version for adults, but now is for children,
Case closed, nothing to see here folks. Trust Pfizer, with a great track record of paying billions in finse over the years for criminals activity.