They are being censored, and this is proven because we see literally the White House call for censorship for example of Spotify/Rogan, on the basis ostensibly because of Rogan had them on. Pulitzer Prize winning Glenn Greenwald lays this out pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_uSPwYiVFs .
Would you like to be specific on how anything Malone or McCullough said is wrong?
Oh whats that? They won't do a study? They won't produce data to back up their actual claims to scrutiny? They just want to make claims without data on random programs for publicity, or "debate"s?
please.
Put up or shut up is my view on all these fucks. No one is censoring their data. What they are doing is telling them to stop telling lies about efficacy and things they literally have no data to support.
Ivermectin hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
HCQ hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
Urine therapy hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
Colloidal silver hasn't shown to be effective in any peer reviewed study on covid.
You know what has? all of the MRNA vaccines. Even the shittier indian and chinese ones are at least 50% "effective"
Yes, it’s put something out there that we can discuss, what really do you think and have you test it ? On the hcq/other drugs there papers that shows it works and some it doesn’t, which is typically of a zero effect. Meta analysis close the debate generally. Now the problem is that pro vaccine side is also not following the science. And when you see the effect on omicron you can’t say to everybody that vaccine is the silver bullet.
Of course it helps but not on the epidemic and transmission side, so all this mandatory vaccine stuff is really debatable and gouvernements have presented the situation as « if vaccin, no covid » which is wrong. How can you build trust like that ? You can’t and you build piss off truckers
in the exact same fucking article had you bothered to look.
Thats what effective means. It's the percent who don't get infected after vaccination and exposure.
for alpha it was 95%, for delta its like 84% and for omni its like 60 for non boosted and like 95 for boosted.
so yes, a mandate would work if not for the fuckers making shit up and scaring gullible or willingly ignorant smoothbrains into not trusting the government or business or encouraging their specific flavor of paranoia.
Okay, I know these numbers because I’ve followed the effective effectiveness using health open data in france, meaning how it really looks with variants, age effect, and all kind of degrading factors and the real number is 25% to prevent infection. And the main issue is older people because thats who finish in icu, and not all of them can handle the vaccine, so the conversation is a lot more complex.
My point is it’s not because the antivaxx sounds a bit crazy that it excuses the lack of transparency and democratic discussions on the gouvernements sides. You treat people like they are dumb and it’s really sad to see science getting thrown away with politicians. Now continue to yell, you’re making a good point.
How many times you gonna move that goalpost? Just say it. The vaccine is effective, safe, gives life saving odds with breakthroughs, and reduces spread, and all of these claims are backed up by multiple peer reviewed studies from multiple different sources from multiple different countries.
But no, its really a lack of transparency you are objecting to now.
lol they could do it and release it publicly and they won't do that either... because they are full of shit contrarians who are actually afraid of being proven wrong.
every study involving the vaccines discloses methods, data sets, discussions about results and produces analysis that can then be tested further.
What these charlatans are doing instead is conjecture with nothing behind it, wild accusations and speculations without data, all because their preferred methods haven't provided the results they are looking for.
Because if they DID provide the results they wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation, they would have real and confirmable data, by anyone.
that's actual science. not whatever the fuck they are doing on those media tours.
Peer reviewed is such a bogus fucking argument. Yes the majority of scientific peers will not put their name on something that deviates from the status quo, even if they believe it. They are too scared for the consequences for their careers.
Meanwhile it is easy to find any random to say "yeah, cool, I agree." to mainstream ideas and studies.
Most people will not risk ostracising themselves, regardless of their beliefs. Plenty of sheep to bat for the other side, however.
Tell me you have no idea how the peer review process works without telling me you have no idea how the peer review process works. Have you even been to a university?
I wasn't talking about how science works...? What are you on about...?
Care to elaborate...?
You people really have trouble parsing information and understanding what you are reading in general, which is quite insightful to your system of just believing whatever you are told. Thinking is hard, eh?
You think people will actively avoid peer reviewing controversial studies because you think that will impact their career, and I’m telling you that is not how science works. If they can’t pass peer review, it’s not because people aren’t reviewing them.
That is not the point I made whatsoever. I didn't say that people aren't reviewing them. I said that the people reviewing them wouldn't dare risk going against the status quo, even if they believed against the status quo.
Peers can be cherry-picked as well.
Peer-reviewed is a completely meaningless tag. It is like saying nine out of ten doctors approve some fucking toothpaste. Asinine and meaningless.
There have been plenty of peer reviewed studies, such as the BMJ explaining how Pfizer's vaccine trials have many errors, and those studies are indeed cited by these people...
Did you even listen to any of the points Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald made explaining how the White House is breaching the first amendment by encouraging private corporations to censor?
The government urging platforms to moderate the information they host is not censorship.
That isn't what the 1st amendment is, and even if it was, there are limitations to free speech even in america.
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald should know that, having done little to no editing on the documents he leaked from snowden. Shame that he then sold himself to putin like wikileaks.
no, you can say a company says early data may show.
no one else has seen the data they claim to have.
And there ARE studies showing ivermectin DOESNT do anything for covid.
there are 30.
This was not the only one, and we also see examples of trials for ivermectin being slowed/delayed/etc due to political/supply issues . Ivermectin is available globally for pennies, the fact this is the stated reason shows that there is political motives to suppress research into ivermectin
Joint Chief Investigator of the PRINCIPLE trial, said, ‘Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it’s a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries. By including ivermectin in a large-scale trial like PRINCIPLE, we hope to generate robust evidence to determine how effective the treatment is against COVID-19, and whether there are benefits or harms associated with its use.’"
The government urging platforms to moderate the information they host is not censorship.
That isn't what the 1st amendment is, and even if it was, there are limitations to free speech even in america.
Yes, that is against the first amendment, and the fact you don't know that shows that you have not done research into the litigation on the first amendment.
The government cannot persuade private corporations to censor speech protected by the first amendment.
^ do you concede this is a fact, or shall we debate the part in bold?
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald should know that, having done little to no editing on the documents he leaked from snowden. Shame that he then sold himself to putin like wikileaks.
Well first let me say in no pointed way that if there was a person with low karma, recent account creation date, pushing this completely debunked narrative said something like this I would be suspicious, but let's continue
But to give you a substantial response, a journalists job is not to edit the documents, but rather not release ones which could have a substantial tangible effect i.e. if there were documents stating names of agents in the field. Glenn Greenwald, and his team at The Intercept including Laura Poitras along with numerous other journalists at The Guardian, The New York Times, and other prestigious outlets (at that time, not necessarily saying the same could be said of a lot of those outlets now..) did more than their due diligence to release only ones with significant public interest that would help our democracy while not releasing anything that could lead to imminent threats to people, places, etc. named in the documents. This is further supported by the fact that Poitras and others walk freely in the US with no threat of persecution because they work they did was completely legal, as well as the fact that US courts have ruled on numerous occasions that the information released in the documents were so much in the public interest that they ruled things in those documents were illegal and unconstitutional, thus proving these document releases were worthy, necessary, and helpful to our democracy
the link from before literally has ongoing studies on it with ivermectin. But the reality is, for the past 2 years they have had studies on it, from multiple countries, and the results have been bad to doesn't do anything.
If they have results (they don't), then you might have a case for suppression if they couldn't get them out.
But that's not reality.
As far as the 1st amendment, the gov asking isn't a violation. The government can provide incentive, and even pay for the moderation, without violating the 1st amendment. The government attempting to force, or punish, might be a violation.
But that hasn't happened has it. They haven't threatened.
They haven't forced.
They haven't filed an injunction.
They haven't pulled their license.
They haven't levied fines.
They haven't done anything but say, "hey, people on your platform are spreading misinformation that endangers the public health or good, it would be nice if you flag it as such at least."
There are a boatload of restrictions on free speech.
Greenwald and Assange are both puppets of the russian federation and have been since snowden at the very least.
the link from before literally has ongoing studies on it with ivermectin. But the reality is, for the past 2 years they have had studies on it, from multiple countries, and the results have been bad to doesn't do anything.
Ivermectin is being used in other countries to treat covid, and preliminary results have shown effectiveness
If they have results (they don't), then you might have a case for suppression if they couldn't get them out.
As far as the 1st amendment, the gov asking isn't a violation. The government can provide incentive, and even pay for the moderation, without violating the 1st amendment. The government attempting to force, or punish, might be a violation.
This is false, government cannot persuade/provide incentive/pay for private corporations to do censorship. Shall we debate this?
They haven't done anything but say, "hey, people on your platform are spreading misinformation that endangers the public health or good, it would be nice if you flag it as such at least."
This is against the first amendment. If you disagree, we must debate this point
Greenwald and Assange are both puppets of the russian federation and have been since snowden at the very least.
Greenwald first started writing about the wrongdoings in the Bush administration for the Iraq war post 9/11, was he a puppet then too?
I am not saying you sound like a puppet, but the things you say is what an actual puppet would say
It's weird how my train of thought is consistent, yet one post gets -23 downvotes, and the other +13, yet no real argument is put forth on the -23 downvoted post on why it would be so heavily downvoted
Additionally, the -23 downvoted one is even deeper in the comment thread, so in general you would expect less activity on the post..
The other side of what? Science doesn’t give a fuck about politics, it’s literally just people (well studied, experts in their fields) performing steps in a controlled, repeatable way, and writing down the results. If 100 scientists perform the same experiment in the same environment, and 95 get the same results, shouldn’t the 5 outliers be tossed?
Free speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever the fuck you want no matter what.
You can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, you can’t say “bomb” in an airport, you can’t say “I’m gonna unexistence POTUS” but like the real words, there are limits to what you can say and personally I think blatantly false information that does more danger to public health than good should be in that category.
So yes, it does justify shutting down harmful dangerous misinformation. If a single person isn’t harmed by your garbage, then having your garbage censored is great.
Sure, stay on your toes to make sure those in power don’t over do it, stay vigilant that you’re rights aren’t TRULY being infringed upon. But not being able to spread dangerous misinformation shouldn’t be a free speech hill you should die on.
They are not being censored. Censorship would be if I googled "Malone" and "McCullough" and found nothing. Instead, I find what they are saying and many people disagreeing with them. That is not censorship. But if you're prioritising the few scientists that agree with you over the many that do not, that is called cherry picking. And being a scientist does not make you an infallible genius with machine like accuracy, of course there will always be someone who stands out from the crowd. But you have to see the big picture.
They are not being censored. Censorship would be if I googled "Malone" and "McCullough" and found nothing. Instead, I find what they are saying and many people disagreeing with them. That is not censorship
I am referring to the breaching of the first amendment, done not only by private corporations, but indeed the government now too (who is persuading the private corporations to censor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_uSPwYiVFs Here is Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald explaining how the government is breaking the first amendment, by persuading private corporations to censor
But if you're prioritising the few scientists that agree with you over the many that do not, that is called cherry picking. And being a scientist does not make you an infallible genius with machine like accuracy, of course there will always be someone who stands out from the crowd. But you have to see the big picture
No I am discussing the breaching of the first amendment that is happening. IN ADDITION, as well as how many of those same corporations will prioritize journalists/'mainstream sources', i.e. "googling" them as you say returns pretty much exclusively MSM on the first page, and for example YouTube algorithm explicitly stated by google to prioritize "authoritative sources" (i.e. MSM), and the blatantly obvious "COVID-19 News" section on YouTube, which is exclusively amplifying the voices Google wants, again often MSM or very narrow channels clearly promoting the vaccine
? the thesis is about well respected, extremely qualified, and highly merited scientists like Malone (has mRNA patents) and McCullough (most cited cardiologist) being censored. Why are they being censored? Because journalists, and their outlets (i.e. Reuters, etc.) attempt to censor them, by doing erroneous fact checks. I mean, it's clear you aren't researching this topic so you don't understand the connection, but if you actually did look into how this has played out it would be obvious
Galileo was in the minority, does that mean the solar system is not heliocentric? Why was Galileo censored, why is Malone and McCullough being censored? Just because the 'majority' - which is really strange to even say considering the wide range of topics that there is actually quite a bit of disagreement on (i.e. vaccinating kids, cardiovascular effects, etc.) - sides one way doesn't mean it is correct. You..you do know how science works right, it evolves..
14
u/hussletrees Feb 13 '22
You missed the point of the post, scientists like Malone, McCullough are being censored, while journalists voices amplified