|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 11, 2021 10:00:25 GMT -6
Is any news source? I mean its a spectrum, but It's pretty hard to find a news source that isn't overtly biased. I think the key, nowadays, is to find news from multiple sources that have opposite biases. Listen to both extremes (and hopefully some voices from the middle) and try to find some semblance of the truth woven through out. The thing is, I bet he didn't even read it. It's an "opinion piece", but it ties all the known facts (like all the links that I've shared about how the natural-source narrative has almost zero basis and that there's tons of info corroborating genomic manipulation) together into a cohesive piece. Objectiveness is complete fallacy. All things are subjective. Even things like court trials, people's lives depend on the interpretation of a jury on the subjectiveness of the witnesses, experts and interpretation of evidence. Often professional experts have conflicting interpretations depending on whether they're on the defense or prosecution. You can pick anything in the world and find the subjectiveness in it, it's just that most people don't have the patience to look at something more than one layer deep when examining something for confirmation bias, much like the "this isn't objective so I'm not going to even look at it" attitude which ironically is rating something subjectively since it's not pre-confirming bias. It's behind a paywall. So I can't. It doesn't change the fact that I'm not going to waste my time reading "news" from a site that doesn't even try to be objective. It's the same reason I don't watch MSNBC either. It's the same reason I'm not going to sit and listen to a QAnon cultist (not saying you are one) try to tell me how the election was stolen or how the vaccine is going to magnetize my blood. I don't have to entertain every hair brained theory out there to know BS when it's staring me in the face. Also, as a general rule, I'm going to take the consensus of scientists and medical professionals trained in epidemiology over a bunch of keyboard warriors. Has science and the medical field on occasion gotten things wrong (not saying they necessarily got it wrong here)? Sure. But the great thing about the scientific method is that it's set up to self correct, even if it takes longer than some keyboard warriors would like. I'll take slow and plodding over rash and un/mis-informed. This whole thread has devolved into a witches brew of paranoia and fantastical claims. Does politics and money influence public health policy? Absolutely. Nothing new there. I don't like it any more than the rest of you. But I think there needs to be multiple deep breaths taken in this thread. The insinuation or outright declaration that there was some vast conspiracy to destroy the economy or otherwise "get people in line" via public health mandates is just bananas. Sometimess in life, shit just happens, and I'm of the belief that we all benefit by working together to solve problems that affect us all. FYI, I think there is at least some credibility to the lab leak hypothesis. I kind of wondered about that myself when this all started. But I'm off the train when the conversation starts diving into claims that we shouldn't have done anything at all because, because, because. The origin story doesn't change the reality of the virus's existence here and now. Like I said, shit happens and we can all benefit by working together or all suffer by retreating to our own little islands. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 11, 2021 12:03:50 GMT -6
I'm sorry, but the Epoch Times is not even close to an objective source of info. Is any news source? I mean its a spectrum, but It's pretty hard to find a news source that isn't overtly biased. I think the key, nowadays, is to find news from multiple sources that have opposite biases. Listen to both extremes (and hopefully some voices from the middle) and try to find some semblance of the truth woven through out. I generally try to do this as well, though I do weed out stuff at the extremes that is obviously not objective. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 11, 2021 14:55:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 11, 2021 15:21:58 GMT -6
Are you able to see how many COVID VAERS reports were done so after 8 weeks or are we just assuming a bunch were because the possibility is there to report them after the fact? Is there an instance of a guy driving off a cliff 6 months later or are we just playing hypotheticals here to discredit it? What would be the motive for a significant amount of people to report ridiculous and unrelated deaths to the VAERS system when the covid vaccines are set up in a way that you will not receive any financial compensation for such a claim? Even if 5,000 is considered a low number from the way you’re choosing to look at it…other vaccine campaigns have been suspended for far fewer deaths. In a normal period of time I wouldn’t think twice about it but when we have all the issues with the virus origin…and the therapeutics…then I think it’s natural to look at the vaccine with a critical eye. As far as statistics/peer reviewed studies, etc… what link or paper could I have pulled from over the past year that would have satisfied your standards about the lab leak? Yet the information was all there as early as February of 2020 if you were looking in the right places. Scientific information has been deliberately suppressed for financial and political reasons. Couple things. I keep saying it but it’s 8 days, not weeks (for the flu vaccine we were comparing to). Doesn’t really matter but we may as well get it right. The “guy driving off a cliff” thing wasn’t trying to discredit anything. I’m just pointing out that they’re required to report any death after someone is vaccinated, whether there’s any suspicion of a link to the vaccine or not. So, died of a rare blood clot? Reported to VAERS. Hit by a bus? Reported to VAERS. It’s not that anyone is making an effort to report crazy stuff with no link to the vaccine, it’s that they have to because of the emergency use authorization. And with the ‘suspending’ thing, we’ve been over this already but it’s worth repeating: those suspensions were after there were deaths actually linked to the vaccine. That is an entirely different thing. The deaths you’re talking about from the VAERS database haven’t been linked to the vaccine (yet). They’re just required to keep that record so that they can try to find any links. As for the lab leak thing, there’s either a mix-up with something someone else said or you’re assuming that since I come down one way on vaccine clinical trials and whatnot, I must also have XYZ other views too. I haven’t said a word about the lab leak thing and haven’t ever had any kind of strong position on it (still don’t). 8 weeks was a brainfart/typo on my part, sorry about that! It is important to have the number right so I appreciate you pointing that out. I don't want to run anyone out of here man, especially you... who is someone that I've had way more good interactions with than negative. I think the reason we're going in circles on the vaers stuff is that there were some questions that neither of us were able to fully answer. Dr. Peter McCullough takes a stab at answering some of those questions here. The information about vaers starts at 12:30. One of his key points is that the thousands of covid vaccine deaths reported will take months to properly investigate. I think you'll find it interesting if you have 10 or so minutes to spare. My apologies for not embedding the video directly here but I have no idea how to use rumble 🤣 peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/dr-peter-mccullough-and-the-covid-vaccines/ |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2021 15:50:31 GMT -6
^^^. IMO McCullough is both extremely informed and very balanced.
I'm fairly sure he will be silenced / cancelled / debunked or proven to be a felon / criminal by the mainstream. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 11, 2021 16:11:02 GMT -6
^^^. IMO McCullough is both extremely informed and very balanced. I'm fairly sure he will be silenced / cancelled / debunked or proven to be a felon / criminal by the mainstream. LOL He's doing interviews on Rumble so he's well on his way LOL. He is quite accomplished though so I hope people will hear him out and at least weigh his opinion in with others that they value. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 11, 2021 18:44:30 GMT -6
I enjoyed that, thanks for sharing. Placebo has always been really fascinating to me. Based off of that essay, we have a good century of arguing if not more left on this thread alone 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 11, 2021 18:48:10 GMT -6
That’s why I basically don’t assert much of anything with assurance. ****especially**** single studies unless they have exceptionally large sample sizes or something.
That article makes me laugh nervously every time I read it. 😂😕
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2021 18:50:48 GMT -6
Couple things. I keep saying it but it’s 8 days, not weeks (for the flu vaccine we were comparing to). Doesn’t really matter but we may as well get it right. The “guy driving off a cliff” thing wasn’t trying to discredit anything. I’m just pointing out that they’re required to report any death after someone is vaccinated, whether there’s any suspicion of a link to the vaccine or not. So, died of a rare blood clot? Reported to VAERS. Hit by a bus? Reported to VAERS. It’s not that anyone is making an effort to report crazy stuff with no link to the vaccine, it’s that they have to because of the emergency use authorization. And with the ‘suspending’ thing, we’ve been over this already but it’s worth repeating: those suspensions were after there were deaths actually linked to the vaccine. That is an entirely different thing. The deaths you’re talking about from the VAERS database haven’t been linked to the vaccine (yet). They’re just required to keep that record so that they can try to find any links. As for the lab leak thing, there’s either a mix-up with something someone else said or you’re assuming that since I come down one way on vaccine clinical trials and whatnot, I must also have XYZ other views too. I haven’t said a word about the lab leak thing and haven’t ever had any kind of strong position on it (still don’t). 8 weeks was a brainfart/typo on my part, sorry about that! It is important to have the number right so I appreciate you pointing that out. I don't want to run anyone out of here man, especially you... who is someone that I've had way more good interactions with than negative. I think the reason we're going in circles on the vaers stuff is that there were some questions that neither of us were able to fully answer. Dr. Peter McCullough takes a stab at answering some of those questions here. The information about vaers starts at 12:30. One of his key points is that the thousands of covid vaccine deaths reported will take months to properly investigate. I think you'll find it interesting if you have 10 or so minutes to spare. My apologies for not embedding the video directly here but I have no idea how to use rumble 🤣 peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/dr-peter-mccullough-and-the-covid-vaccines/Oh, no Josh, you're not 'running me out' or anything like that. And I don't know about you, but I haven't been thinking of these as, like, 'bad' interactions at all. I'm totally comfortable with direct, frank dialogue. So much that I forget sometimes that not everyone is comfortable with that. Anyway, I just meant that the same stuff keeps cycling around and around so I'm gonna let it be. Sometimes the vibe of a given hangout is more suited to just kinda shooting the shit with your buddies and enjoying being on the same page (more or less). And trying to get the discussion to be something it's not is a waste of time for everyone involved. Nothin' wrong with just hangin' with buddies! |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 11, 2021 22:38:39 GMT -6
8 weeks was a brainfart/typo on my part, sorry about that! It is important to have the number right so I appreciate you pointing that out. I don't want to run anyone out of here man, especially you... who is someone that I've had way more good interactions with than negative. I think the reason we're going in circles on the vaers stuff is that there were some questions that neither of us were able to fully answer. Dr. Peter McCullough takes a stab at answering some of those questions here. The information about vaers starts at 12:30. One of his key points is that the thousands of covid vaccine deaths reported will take months to properly investigate. I think you'll find it interesting if you have 10 or so minutes to spare. My apologies for not embedding the video directly here but I have no idea how to use rumble 🤣 peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/dr-peter-mccullough-and-the-covid-vaccines/Oh, no Josh, you're not 'running me out' or anything like that. And I don't know about you, but I haven't been thinking of these as, like, 'bad' interactions at all. I'm totally comfortable with direct, frank dialogue. So much that I forget sometimes that not everyone is comfortable with that. Anyway, I just meant that the same stuff keeps cycling around and around so I'm gonna let it be. Sometimes the vibe of a given hangout is more suited to just kinda shooting the shit with your buddies and enjoying being on the same page (more or less). And trying to get the discussion to be something it's not is a waste of time for everyone involved. Nothin' wrong with just hangin' with buddies! Right on man, I too prefer to speak very direct and I know I can come in a little too hot at times. It's something I'm aware of and actively try to work on. It's a passionate topic and I'm sure we're all working through varying levels of PTSD from the past year. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 12, 2021 9:28:03 GMT -6
Is any news source? I mean its a spectrum, but It's pretty hard to find a news source that isn't overtly biased. I think the key, nowadays, is to find news from multiple sources that have opposite biases. Listen to both extremes (and hopefully some voices from the middle) and try to find some semblance of the truth woven through out. The thing is, I bet he didn't even read it. It's an "opinion piece", but it ties all the known facts (like all the links that I've shared about how the natural-source narrative has almost zero basis and that there's tons of info corroborating genomic manipulation) together into a cohesive piece. Objectiveness is complete fallacy. All things are subjective. Even things like court trials, people's lives depend on the interpretation of a jury on the subjectiveness of the witnesses, experts and interpretation of evidence. Often professional experts have conflicting interpretations depending on whether they're on the defense or prosecution. You can pick anything in the world and find the subjectiveness in it, it's just that most people don't have the patience to look at something more than one layer deep when examining something for confirmation bias, much like the "this isn't objective so I'm not going to even look at it" attitude which ironically is rating something subjectively since it's not pre-confirming bias. Dude, like how dare you challenge 'he who knows it all'? John's inbox will be on-fire. Perspective is so much better than bias. And some people here are so completely over-indoctrinated in their bias that they fell compelled to attack you on every angle as soon as you dare believe anything different. See, I don't have 360º vision, so I welcome all other perspectives to help me gain more insight into the complete picture.
Every day I learn something new, and I'm grateful to all of you guys for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 12, 2021 12:43:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2021 13:23:11 GMT -6
Call it however you personally see it or prefer to define it - but the VAERS reports don't appear to be smoothing out. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 12, 2021 13:45:41 GMT -6
Call it however you personally see it or prefer to define it - but the VAERS reports don't appear to be smoothing out. IF those numbers ultimately end up reflecting actual fatalities directly linked to the vaccine, I'll probably be right there with you. But as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, nobody actually knows at this point what we're looking at there. And as has also been discussed in this thread, it's a worthwhile cost/benefit discussion to consider for comparison the number of deaths that could have happened to the unvaccinated (but willing) population in a no-vaccine scenario versus those that may ultimately be attributed to side effects of the vaccine. Until each of those reported cases has been investigated and confirmed to be linked to the vaccine, and not attributed to someone who just happened to die of some other cause after having received the vaccine, this all just seems highly speculative. Has there in fact been any verification yet linking any of these reported deaths to the actual vaccine? I'm not aware of such, but would be genuinely interested to know. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 12, 2021 14:26:39 GMT -6
When I noticed that article was from 2014 I wondered if he had any different thoughts post 2020. Turns out he does here: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/the-experts-had-a-rough-year-we-still-have-to-trust-them/618344/He's still singing the same tune for the most part but admits it has been a struggle after the past year we've had. I may have missed a post here or there but I think everyone here has made a decent effort to provide quality information. When the article talks about trusting the system that produces the experts, you have to keep in mind that links shared here about controversial things like the lab leak, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and concerns about the vaers numbers are all backed up by scientists and doctors. So, the same system that produced Dr. Fauci, etc... also produced guys like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory. I think those of us that have an opposing view to what has been the main stream narrative here genuinely just want the truth. We want the scientific process to play out as well, we are just wondering why some of the experts aren't being allowed to speak. It seems like the process cannot properly play out when that's the case. For instance I'd love to share with you the talk that Bret Weinstein(evolutionary biologist) and Dr. Pierre Kory just had about ivermectin but it's already been taken down. Think about that, someone at YouTube has decided a scientist and a doctor cannot have a conversation about covid. I get it, no one should be taking medical advice from someone like me(which is why I stick to gear reviews on YouTube haha) but I would like to be able to hear from all the experts, not just the chosen few. So, I don't think we should confuse the conversations we're having here with things like Q Anon, etc... believe me I have friends that send me that stuff and I'm not a fan either. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 12, 2021 14:59:41 GMT -6
When I noticed that article was from 2014 I wondered if he had any different thoughts post 2020. Turns out he does here: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/the-experts-had-a-rough-year-we-still-have-to-trust-them/618344/He's still singing the same tune for the most part but admits it has been a struggle after the past year we've had. I may have missed a post here or there but I think everyone here has made a decent effort to provide quality information. When the article talks about trusting the system that produces the experts, you have to keep in mind that links shared here about controversial things like the lab leak, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and concerns about the vaers numbers are all backed up by scientists and doctors. So, the same system that produced Dr. Fauci, etc... also produced guys like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory. I think those of us that have an opposing view to what has been the main stream narrative here genuinely just want the truth. We want the scientific process to play out as well, we are just wondering why some of the experts aren't being allowed to speak. It seems like the process cannot properly play out when that's the case. For instance I'd love to share with you the talk that Bret Weinstein(evolutionary biologist) and Dr. Pierre Kory just had about ivermectin but it's already been taken down. Think about that, someone at YouTube has decided a scientist and a doctor cannot have a conversation about covid. I get it, no one should be taking medical advice from someone like me(which is why I stick to gear reviews on YouTube haha) but I would like to be able to hear from all the experts, not just the chosen few. So, I don't think we should confuse the conversations we're having here with things like Q Anon, etc... believe me I have friends that send me that stuff and I'm not a fan either. I've not read his book by the same title, but I know he released that sometime in the last few years. I'll check out the link you posted. I wasn't aware of his recent writing. As for the expertise thing, my background is in science and it's very frustrating to see people disparage science and then turn around and posit whatever kooky theory they've read on the internet. Now to be fair, I'm not saying that every single theory being posted in this thread is kooky. But I'm gonna need more than one or two guys (credentials or not) to post credible results before I pay it more attention. That's the nature of scientific concensus. When I was a kid we used to use Ivermectin to treat our cows for parasites. It is similarly used for humans in the same way. So if Covid was parasitic in nature, I'd say sure, that sounds plausible. But Covid is a virus, so I'm going to be just a little skeptical until more hard evidence comes out. As for the VAERS thing, that I just don't get. Unless someone can point me to where those deaths have been verified to be linked to the vaccine, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical. If legitimate alternative views by credible doctors on some of this stuff are being silenced, I wouldn't agree with that. But that's also why I mentioned consensus earlier. If other independent scientists and doctors can verify this stuff, it will rise to the top. Sure it may take a while, but that's still a preferable alternative to just jumping at anything and everything that can be used to justify someone's preconceived conspiratorial bent. I'm not saying that to you specifically, but I do think some of that IS going on in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 12, 2021 15:33:49 GMT -6
Bells Palsy for example happens to 40,000 people in the US a year. If we have vaccinated half of the country, after a year you’d expect something like 20,000 people who have received vaccines to have Bell’s palsy anyway. So when 1800 have been reported, that’s not something that jumps out as alarming.
This is a signal : noise exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2021 16:06:37 GMT -6
As for the VAERS thing, that I just don't get. Unless someone can point me to where those deaths have been verified to be linked to the vaccine, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical. That's totally logical and 100% OK with me - but the whole concept of VAERS links them directly to the vaccine by their medical professional. That does not mean they should not be further investigated. Why are the CDC, FDA, Doctors, Researchers, etc. not trying to either verify or debunk those 5000+ deaths attributed (at least in reporting) to the Vaccine one way or the other - ASA-fing-P?? Or maybe at least verify a couple dozen one way or the other? Not important? We'll just sweep it under the rug? Or?? With the Swine flu vaccine, they only let the number get to 25-27 or so before pulling the vaccine from market. Why wait to investigate till the number is over 5000? IMO, where there's smoke, there's fire.... The ignoring of those deaths and calling it due to other causes does not make a shred of sense to me, and only points one direction - money over health. Dr, McCullugh in the video josh linked earlier talks quite a bit about the deaths and the research the has/should be done to confirm what is/was going on. The CDC has the details and contact info....WTH are they doing about it? Too many straw man arguments going on justifying both sides - but mostly the pro vaccine side... |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 12, 2021 16:30:01 GMT -6
As for the VAERS thing, that I just don't get. Unless someone can point me to where those deaths have been verified to be linked to the vaccine, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical. That's totally logical and 100% OK with me - but the whole concept of VAERS links them directly to the vaccine by their medical professional. That does not mean they should not be further investigated. Why are the CDC, FDA, Doctors, Researchers, etc. not trying to either verify or debunk those 5000+ deaths attributed (at least in reporting) to the Vaccine one way or the other - ASA-fing-P?? Or maybe at least verify a couple dozen one way or the other? Not important? We'll just sweep it under the rug? Or?? With the Swine flu vaccine, they only let the number get to 25-27 or so before pulling the vaccine from market. Why wait to investigate till the number is over 5000? IMO, where there's smoke, there's fire.... The ignoring of those deaths and calling it due to other causes does not make a shred of sense to me, and only points one direction - money over health. Dr, McCullugh in the video josh linked earlier talks quite a bit about the deaths and the research the has/should be done to confirm what is/was going on. The CDC has the details and contact info....WTH are they doing about it? Too many straw man arguments going on justifying both sides - but mostly the pro vaccine side... They only let it get to 25 VERIFIED deaths before pulling the swine flu vaccine. How many deaths have been verified to be attributed to the Covid vaccine? It's also worth considering that maybe they are in the process of investigating these deaths and simply haven't had any (or very few) deaths so far that they've been able to actually attribute to the vaccine and subsequently publicize. I'm in agreement with you that profit motives certainly do or can be responsible for nefarious acts. And it angers me very much when it happens. If it comes to pass that there are in fact deaths being covered up, I'll probably be right there with you. Being a recipient of the vaccine myself, I wouldn't be happy about it. I just don't think that's something that can be said at this point. If, as I understand it, ALL deaths, regardless of cause, are required to be reported for any vaccine recipient, doesn't it stand to reason that a lot, if not nearly all of them would in fact be due to other causes by virtue of the fact that people just die all the time from any manner of different things? Why must they all be due to the vaccine? |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 12, 2021 16:55:01 GMT -6
I think there has been some confusion around how things were handled in 1976. This article should clear some of that up: www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976The key takeaway is that at the time that vaccine campaign was suspended, the suspected deaths and even the guillain-barre cases were not confirmed. VAERS didn’t come around until 1990 so I’m not exactly sure of the system that was in place, but it has been stated a few times as fact here that the 1976 deaths were verified and that does not seem to be the case. That is the point Dr. McCullough raises, they were seemingly much more cautious then than now for whatever reason. He also says that the thousands of deaths that have been reported from covid vaccines will take months to properly investigate so we’re not going to have an answer for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 12, 2021 17:41:36 GMT -6
I think there has been some confusion around how things were handled in 1976. This article should clear some of that up: www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976The key takeaway is that at the time that vaccine campaign was suspended, the suspected deaths and even the guillain-barre cases were not confirmed. VAERS didn’t come around until 1990 so I’m not exactly sure of the system that was in place, but it has been stated a few times as fact here that the 1976 deaths were verified and that does not seem to be the case. That is the point Dr. McCullough raises, they were seemingly much more cautious then than now for whatever reason. He also says that the thousands of deaths that have been reported from covid vaccines will take months to properly investigate so we’re not going to have an answer for a while. That's good to know about the verification thing for swine flu. The way it was discussed earlier in this thread, it made it sound as if those deaths were verified at the time that the vaccine was pulled. From what I've read, there were 25 deaths eventually confirmed, just maybe not at that time. Thanks for the correction. Regardless, I agree that it's going to take time to sort through all of these reported deaths for Covid before we have any idea what we're actually looking at. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 12, 2021 18:03:07 GMT -6
I think there has been some confusion around how things were handled in 1976. This article should clear some of that up: www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976The key takeaway is that at the time that vaccine campaign was suspended, the suspected deaths and even the guillain-barre cases were not confirmed. VAERS didn’t come around until 1990 so I’m not exactly sure of the system that was in place, but it has been stated a few times as fact here that the 1976 deaths were verified and that does not seem to be the case. That is the point Dr. McCullough raises, they were seemingly much more cautious then than now for whatever reason. He also says that the thousands of deaths that have been reported from covid vaccines will take months to properly investigate so we’re not going to have an answer for a while. That's good to know about the verification thing for swine flu. The way it was discussed earlier in this thread, it made it sound as if those deaths were verified. I assume they eventually were, but maybe not. Regardless, I agree that it's going to take time to sort through all of these reported deaths for Covid before we have any idea what we're actually looking at. It has been a lot to sort through and I think both sides of the debate have been filling in some of the blanks with assumptions...it happens! |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 12, 2021 18:25:19 GMT -6
When I noticed that article was from 2014 I wondered if he had any different thoughts post 2020. Turns out he does here: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/the-experts-had-a-rough-year-we-still-have-to-trust-them/618344/He's still singing the same tune for the most part but admits it has been a struggle after the past year we've had. I may have missed a post here or there but I think everyone here has made a decent effort to provide quality information. When the article talks about trusting the system that produces the experts, you have to keep in mind that links shared here about controversial things like the lab leak, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and concerns about the vaers numbers are all backed up by scientists and doctors. So, the same system that produced Dr. Fauci, etc... also produced guys like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory. I think those of us that have an opposing view to what has been the main stream narrative here genuinely just want the truth. We want the scientific process to play out as well, we are just wondering why some of the experts aren't being allowed to speak. It seems like the process cannot properly play out when that's the case. For instance I'd love to share with you the talk that Bret Weinstein(evolutionary biologist) and Dr. Pierre Kory just had about ivermectin but it's already been taken down. Think about that, someone at YouTube has decided a scientist and a doctor cannot have a conversation about covid. I get it, no one should be taking medical advice from someone like me(which is why I stick to gear reviews on YouTube haha) but I would like to be able to hear from all the experts, not just the chosen few. So, I don't think we should confuse the conversations we're having here with things like Q Anon, etc... believe me I have friends that send me that stuff and I'm not a fan either. I've not read his book by the same title, but I know he released that sometime in the last few years. I'll check out the link you posted. I wasn't aware of his recent writing. As for the expertise thing, my background is in science and it's very frustrating to see people disparage science and then turn around and posit whatever kooky theory they've read on the internet. Now to be fair, I'm not saying that every single theory being posted in this thread is kooky. But I'm gonna need more than one or two guys (credentials or not) to post credible results before I pay it more attention. That's the nature of scientific concensus. When I was a kid we used to use Ivermectin to treat our cows for parasites. It is similarly used for humans in the same way. So if Covid was parasitic in nature, I'd say sure, that sounds plausible. But Covid is a virus, so I'm going to be just a little skeptical until more hard evidence comes out. As for the VAERS thing, that I just don't get. Unless someone can point me to where those deaths have been verified to be linked to the vaccine, I'm going to continue to be very skeptical. If legitimate alternative views by credible doctors on some of this stuff are being silenced, I wouldn't agree with that. But that's also why I mentioned consensus earlier. If other independent scientists and doctors can verify this stuff, it will rise to the top. Sure it may take a while, but that's still a preferable alternative to just jumping at anything and everything that can be used to justify someone's preconceived conspiratorial bent. I'm not saying that to you specifically, but I do think some of that IS going on in this thread. I appreciate you sharing some of your background. I always appreciate that in these kinds of discussions, I think it helps. I can imagine with your background it would be particularly frustrating to watch a lot of this unfold. It has definitely been ugly at times but I'm hopeful good science will win out in the end. Here is Dr. Kory's senate testimony about ivermectin, it's about 10 minutes if you're interested in hearing his perspective on it: www.c-span.org/video/?c4930160/user-clip-dr-pierre-kory-senate-hearing-ivermectin-100-cure-covid-19 |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2021 19:02:11 GMT -6
Now to be fair, I'm not saying that every single theory being posted in this thread is kooky. But I'm gonna need more than one or two guys (credentials or not) to post credible results before I pay it more attention. That's the nature of scientific concensus. When I was a kid we used to use Ivermectin to treat our cows for parasites. . I highly suggest you check out Dr. Kory's testimony before the US Senate above - IN DECEMBER. And forwarded to the NIH. Kory and his group are all about re-purposing existing drugs to treat C19. Check out his credentials, his research, his treatment protocols, the organizations he belongs to, his conclusions. I'll bullet point it for you, and I quote him : "Ivermectin basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it you will not get sick." "Any deaths after today (December) will be needless deaths." "Ivermectin must be implemented, and implemented now." He's coming from - his words - and immense amount of research, lots of doctors and situations around the globe. IMO, worth the 10 minutes.... Where is the NIH in this? Then again, maybe he's a felon or a charlatan or gasp - a politician....  Whatever he is, he's pretty pissed at the NIH and the US powers that be in regards to C19... |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 12, 2021 20:08:42 GMT -6
I don’t get it.
Is pointing out that when you’re presenting a source, the reliability of that source matters?
If he’s a felon, with a history of fraud, I’d probably be less inclined to hear him out. You think that’s unreasonable? If not, why do you keep bringing it up?
|
|
