1539 replies to this topic

[Hip]

I am just reminded of Google's 2018 "medic update" to it search algorithm, where it banished non-authoritative and untrustworthy alternative medical and health websites from its top search results.

 

As you can see from the list of banished health websites in this article, Longecity was considered non-authoritative and untrustworthy, and so was banished. Longecity suffered a 95% drop in traffic as a result of Google's banishment. At the time I thought that was sad, but now seeing all the dubious stuff that gets posted about coronavirus on this site, I realize Google made a good decision in labelling Longecity a medically non-authoritative and untrustworthy. The tech giants need to take more action like this to combat fake news and misinformation. 

 

Nowadays if a medical or health website wants to appear in the top Google search results, it needs to demonstrate what Google calls EAT — expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness. If your website is a hotbed of conspiracy theorists and scientifically uniformed opinionists, it's not going to do well in Google

 

If Longecity wants to get back into the top search results of Google, it need to purge its scientifically uniformed members, and dispatch them all to Madagascar.

Edited by Hip, 02 February 2021 - 04:48 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

It shouldn't be Google's job to act as a nanny that identifies poseurs and ultracrepidarians (in their opinion) and then hide them from view. LongeCity, as far as I can tell, merely acts as a clearinghouse, if you will, of facts, ideas, and opinions, etc. Each person reading LongeCity content is free to assess the veracity of the facts and the implications, both logically and in practicality of implementation, if applicable, of the proffered ideas that they may encounter. Typically, posted "facts" that are unreferenced will earn a "references needed" tag, among others. In this way, "non-authoritative and untrustworthy" content is self-policed by the LongeCity readers, without the need of outside interference--as it should be. In other words, I suspect that we, on LongeCity are fully capable of ratiocination and of making our own assessments as to what we consider to be untrustworthy or not.

 

il processo a Galileo Galilei

[Dorian Grey]

I am just reminded of Google's 2018 "medic update" to it search algorithm, where it banished non-authoritative and untrustworthy alternative medical and health websites from its top search results.

 

As you can see from the list of banished health websites in this article, Longecity was considered non-authoritative and untrustworthy, and so was banished. Longecity suffered a 95% drop in traffic as a result of Google's banishment. At the time I thought that was sad, but now seeing all the dubious stuff that gets posted about coronavirus on this site, I realize Google made a good decision in labelling Longecity a medically non-authoritative and untrustworthy. The tech giants need to take more action like this to combat fake news and misinformation. 

 

Nowadays if a medical or health website wants to appear in the top Google search results, it needs to demonstrate what Google calls EAT — expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness. If your website is a hotbed of conspiracy theorists and scientifically uniformed opinionists, it's not going to do well in Google

 

If Longecity wants to get back into the top search results of Google, it need to purge its scientifically uniformed members, and dispatch them all to Madagascar.

 

In the film My Fair Lady, I recall Henry Higgin's mother advised Eliza, on her debut at Ascot, to stick to the weather & her health regarding topics of conversation in polite society.  

 

Currently 58 & cloudy in San Diego.  Had a bit of a pain in my back this morning, but it's much better now, after a couple of gin & ton's.  

 

Is this really what we've evolved to in 21st Century cyberspace?  (hope I didn't offend anyone!)

Edited by Dorian Grey, 02 February 2021 - 07:23 AM.

[albedo]

Here is a guide to novel versions of the COVID-causing virus—and genetic changes that can make them more contagious and evasive in the body

 

https://www.scientif...jA2MDExMDkyMAS2

[Mind]

I am just reminded of Google's 2018 "medic update" to it search algorithm, where it banished non-authoritative and untrustworthy alternative medical and health websites from its top search results.

 

As you can see from the list of banished health websites in this article, Longecity was considered non-authoritative and untrustworthy, and so was banished. Longecity suffered a 95% drop in traffic as a result of Google's banishment. At the time I thought that was sad, but now seeing all the dubious stuff that gets posted about coronavirus on this site, I realize Google made a good decision in labelling Longecity a medically non-authoritative and untrustworthy. The tech giants need to take more action like this to combat fake news and misinformation. 

 

Nowadays if a medical or health website wants to appear in the top Google search results, it needs to demonstrate what Google calls EAT — expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness. If your website is a hotbed of conspiracy theorists and scientifically uniformed opinionists, it's not going to do well in Google

 

If Longecity wants to get back into the top search results of Google, it need to purge its scientifically uniformed members, and dispatch them all to Madagascar.

 

Are you rejecting decades of peer reviewed science?

 

Stress lower immune response: https://journals.plo...al.pone.0188108 (I could post a few hundred more studies in short order)

 

Depression significantly affects health: https://www.psycholo...e-immune-system (I could post hundreds more peer reviewed studies)

[Mind]

Since COVID is much more contagious than the flu, you could fit a gigantic cow through that needle's eye.

 

And since the latest COVID variants are more contagious than the older ones and respirator production should have ramped up by now (right?), reusable respirators should be used rather than simple masks. Once most people have access to respirators, there wouldn't be any need for lockdowns or mask mandates (as long as there's enough compliance to avoid overwhelming hospitals).

 

This statement could use some references on the transmission rates of past flu variants.

 

In a meta review, the CDC found that mask wearing, hygeine, and other non-pharmaceutical methods of pandemic response, were in effective in preventing the spread of laboratory confirmed influenza. Strange that it never worked in the past (in multiple clinical trials) and then it works perfectly this year. https://wwwnc.cdc.go...19-0994_article

[Hip]

It shouldn't be Google's job to act as a nanny that identifies poseurs and ultracrepidarians (in their opinion) and then hide them from view. LongeCity, as far as I can tell, merely acts as a clearinghouse, if you will, of facts, ideas, and opinions, etc.

That's a useful word "ultracrepidarian". I don't think I've come across that one before. It is certainly applicable here.
 
But to address your points: I suspect Google may have self-interest at heart when it tries to filter out fake news and misinformation: Google potentially could be sued for serving up information which leads to harm, like fake cancer cures. And also pressure from governments is forcing the tech giants to filter out the misinformation.

The issue is that the tech giants like Google and Facebook probably make as much money from publishing sensationalized material and attention-grabbing bullshit stories than they do from publishing the sober truth.

As long as Google and Facebook can grab your attention — whether by outrageous conspiracy theories, fake news, misinformation or so-called alternative facts — these tech giants make money from advertising. The tech giants profit as much from publishing falsity as much as they do from truth. That is intrinsically a bad thing.

Truth is sometimes a bit boring, but sensationalized conspiracy theories and fake news are never dull (for a certain cretinous section of society). So the business model of the tech giants tends to get skewed towards sensationalization rather than truth.

That's why the tech giants themselves have been reluctant to filter out the bullshit, and it's only the pressure from governments, and possibly fear of lawsuits, that is slowly bringing them the tech giants in line.

Kudos to the Australian government for introducing new laws forcing Google to pay for publishing news stories Google obtain from regular media outlets like newspapers and TV stations. That will bring these tech giants down a peg or two. Although this government is strongly influenced by Murdock, who is likely behind this law.

 
 

Each person reading LongeCity content is free to assess the veracity of the facts and the implications, both logically and in practicality of implementation, if applicable, of the proffered ideas that they may encounter.

Many people on LongeCity are experimental risk takers: they will often ingest untested drugs and compounds which have not been properly checked for safety. They get compounds which have not gone through clinical trials custom synthesized, and then ingest them, acting as guinea pigs. And that's fine, people should be free to do this. But LongeCity members are an unusual bunch.

The problem comes when ordinary people go online to find medical information, and the search engines tell them that a diet of fruit and vegetables will cure cancer. That's how Steve Jobs died, as he believed fruit not chemotherapy was the answer to his pancreatic cancer.

That's why a degree of bullshit filtering is a good thing.

Having said that, I sometimes use the less filtered duckduckgo.com search engine when looking for non-standard health or medical info, because I know Google tends to only serve up conventional medicine. As I read alternative medical stuff, I feel that I am capable of sifting the truth from the bullshit. But not everyone is, especially those who are not technically or scientifically minded.

 

[Hip]

Are you rejecting decades of peer reviewed science?

 

Stress lower immune response: https://journals.plo...al.pone.0188108 (I could post a few hundred more studies in short order)

 

Depression significantly affects health: https://www.psycholo...e-immune-system (I could post hundreds more peer reviewed studies)

 

There's no peer reviewed science that indicates reducing face to face human contact (but not telephone or Internet contact) causes a massive wave of death.

[Florin]

This statement could use some references on the transmission rates of past flu variants.

A person with COVID can more easily spread it asymptomatically and remains contagious for a longer period of time.

https://www.cdc.gov/...-vs-covid19.htm
 

In a meta review, the CDC found that mask wearing, hygeine, and other non-pharmaceutical methods of pandemic response, were in effective in preventing the spread of laboratory confirmed influenza. Strange that it never worked in the past (in multiple clinical trials) and then it works perfectly this year. https://wwwnc.cdc.go...19-0994_article

That review is actually inconclusive, and the studies that were considered had a lot of problems. The so-called RCTs weren't properly blinded; they didn't use sham masks. And from the paper itself: "Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group."

But lets ignore these problems and look at the first two studies.

Study 1:
 

Based on developing syndromic ILI, less contacts became symptomatic in the ‘mask’ tents compared to the ‘control’ tents (31% versus 53%, p= 0.04). However, laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups.

 

Study 2:
 

Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively.

 

But:
 

We demonstrated a protective effect of the intervention even with relatively moderate use of face masks throughout the day. We believe that during an influenza pandemic, compliance with interventions will be higher than what we found in this study, particularly if rates of serious complications are high or well publicized. If our findings also apply to laboratory-confirmed influenza infections, the effect on influenza transmission could be substantial, particularly early in a pandemic when vaccine supply will almost certainly be limited, as with the current nH1N1 pandemic [26]. Our results indicate that interventions to reduce the transmission of ILI during a winter season may have substantial effects among individuals who share crowded living conditions.

 

Maybe masks work after all, but since there are lots of issues with these "RCTs," we can't be sure. So, just wear your mask, or better yet, your respirator.

Edited by Florin, 02 February 2021 - 09:18 PM.

[Florin]

All your assumptions seem to point in one direction, don't you think?

 

In aggregate, assumptions/weight of the evidence/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will always point in one direction, either yea or nay.

[Dorian Grey]

Just finished watching PBS FRONTLINE "China's COVID Secrets".  Looks like it will be rebroadcast Wednesday night, & may be available online after the broadcast. 

 

Gave me flashbacks to the early days, as we watched the infancy of the pandemic, and how the world hesitated at containment due to "lack of proof" of human to human transmission.  

 

Most interesting thing I gleaned from this, was that it was the reluctance to disclose information without "conclusive proof" that caused the outbreak to spread worldwide.  The frontline doctors knew exactly what was going on, but politicians insisted nothing be disclosed until "conclusive proof" of a problem was elucidated.  

 

Censorship caused this pandemic, and censorship is what is increasingly used to combat it.  Politicians are so afraid of misinformation, they are restricting legitimate communication of cutting edge information from front line doctors, actually treating patients in the field.  

 

Made me think of the battle to get outpatient therapeutics recognized and adopted to attempt to reduce morbidity.  "No Proof" early/outpatient hydroxychloroquine might help.  "No Proof" early/eoutpatient ivermectin might be wise.  Here we are, just over a year now and still no outpatient therapeutic in America, UK or EU.  A fine mess!  

[pamojja]

Now in Europe, the UK currently has one of the highest per capita coronavirus deaths — but there is no sign of herd immunity slowing down the pandemic in the UK.

3 days ago reading your words I took a closer look: https://ourworldinda...pickerSort=desc

What I saw there was unbelieveable, therefore waited with posting (could have been a confounder I'm not aware of?): The biggest decline in covid19-positive tested in Europe and North-America ever!

The highest was reached on January 11th, and 21 days later by Feb. 1st North-America is already by 39%, Europe by 28% down.

Could that already be the final turning point of the Gompertz curve due to seasonality?

Today I was taught better, not from the censored media, but from certified Google-censored Josef Mercola:

Why COVID-19 Cases Will Instantly Drop (https://articles.mer...&rid=1074482415)

Story at-a-glance

One hour after Joe Biden’s inauguration, the World Health Organization lowered the recommended PCR cycle threshold (CT), which automatically guarantees that the number of “cases,” i.e., positive PCR test results, will plummet in the days and weeks to come.

Tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 CTs, yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless, as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives

So no, all just as directed. With the resulting decline of that much false positives, of course also a large part of the death-count can't be attributed to covid19 anymore, and therefore must fall short after. Which to a lesser extent it already did.

[Hip]

Censorship caused this pandemic, and censorship is what is increasingly used to combat it.  Politicians are so afraid of misinformation, they are restricting legitimate communication of cutting edge information from front line doctors, actually treating patients in the field.  

 

Censorship is bad thing, but it is being forced upon us because of the fact the world's fools, as well as those with mental health problems which reduce their ability to judge rationally, have taken to the Internet in their droves.

 

This is unprecedented. In no previous time was the media ever given over to the foolish people amongst us. Media were always controlled by the smart people who ran them. With the old media of printing, books, newspapers, radio and television, there was always someone in charge, and a random foolish people off the street could not just publish their thoughts. 

 

But with the advent of the Internet, this gives any clown a global soap box. This is very important to appreciate, because nature of the medium affects the society we become.

 

 

 

Have any of you guys read Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian philosopher who back in the 1950s very presciently analyzed each medium, and was particularly interested in the way that the nature of the medium would affect society. So when television was widely introduced, it had a massive impact on society, and actually shaped and molded the world.

 

Marshall McLuhan once made the enigmatic comment: "the medium IS the message". That comment is hard to understand on first reading, because normally we think of a medium as something that carries the message, we do not think the medium is the message.

 

For example, the medium of a newspaper carries and delivers information (the message) to people as printed text and pictures, but we don't think of a physical newspaper operation itself being a message. The operation is just paper and printing presses.

 

But McLuhan is saying no, the medium itself, by its own nature, is the main message. What he means is that when you introduce a new medium into the world, that new medium has a dramatic effect on humanity. The new medium rewires society, and reorganizes the world. We have seen this many times when each new medium was introduced, eg, the invention of the printing press had a profound affect on society. In that sense, each new medium delivers its own new message to the world.

 

 

Each of us should make efforts to become aware of the effects of the Internet on the world: its effects on children growing up, its effects of the way we conduct politics, it effects on how we make friends, and in particular its effects on the conveyance of reliable information.

 

In particular we have to question whether we want to give an Internet soapbox to foolish people. 

Edited by Hip, 03 February 2021 - 03:08 PM.

[Florin]

The real villains of this pandemic aren't the internet cranks or even the politicians: they're the public health officials and other so-called health experts that didn't have the foresight to recommend the stockpiling and use of reusable respirators in the event of a pandemic. Just as they failed to recommend mask wearing for the public at the start of the pandemic, these clowns (like Fauci, the same guy that pushed for extremely dangerous gain-of-function virus research) are doubling-down on their incompetence and still not recommending respirators for use by the public.

 

https://www.cnn.com/...shna/index.html

Edited by Florin, 03 February 2021 - 07:39 PM.

[dlewis1453]

Just finished watching PBS FRONTLINE "China's COVID Secrets".  Looks like it will be rebroadcast Wednesday night, & may be available online after the broadcast. 

 

.....

 

 

Made me think of the battle to get outpatient therapeutics recognized and adopted to attempt to reduce morbidity.  "No Proof" early/outpatient hydroxychloroquine might help.  "No Proof" early/eoutpatient ivermectin might be wise.  Here we are, just over a year now and still no outpatient therapeutic in America, UK or EU.  A fine mess!  

 

I just watched that documentary last night as well. I thought it was very interesting and well done. It brought me flashbacks as well. 

 

Regarding Covid therapeutics, earlier in the pandemic my pharmacist told me that he was frustrated with how little was being done to prevent the cytokine storms. He said that there were multiple cheap and safe options for reducing or preventing cytokine storms, such as IV vitamin C. Finally now we are seeing some acknowledgement that vitamin D can reduce Covid severity.  

[dlewis1453]

 

 

Marshall McLuhan once made the enigmatic comment: "the medium IS the message". That comment is hard to understand on first reading, because normally we think of a medium as something that carries the message, we do not think the medium is the message.

 

...

 

 

Each of us should make efforts to become aware of the effects of the Internet on the world: its effects on children growing up, its effects of the way we conduct politics, it effects on how we make friends, and in particular its effects on the conveyance of reliable information.

 

In particular we have to question whether we want to give an Internet soapbox to foolish people. 

 

I was not aware of Marshall McLuhan's comment. That was very interesting, thanks for sharing. That comment definitely gave me a new perspective on history and the development of societies. The internet is more disruptive than television, the radio, and the printing press in the sense that it provides a voice to everyone, not just those who control the medium. 

 

I agree completely on the dangers of internet and social media. The internet has great promise with its ability to facilitate human connection and to spread knowledge and also in its ability to empower people living under repressive regimes, but at the same time these abilities could allow the internet to destabilize societies, to spread lies and misinformation, and to empower fringe groups, radicals, and crazies. 

 

I think we will see all sorts of interesting information released in the next decade regarding the internet's impact on developing minds. I worry for kids who are growing up with access to a smart phone since an early age. I think we will see greatly increase rates of depression and attention deficit disorder among future generations.

 

Facebook started in my late teen years, and I initially viewed it with some suspicion but overall positively, and I used it frequently to interact with the people I knew. I now view social media mostly negatively, but I recognize its usefulness for certain things, so I do the minimum by  maintaining a bare bones profile. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Censorship is bad thing, but it is being forced upon us because of the fact the world's fools, as well as those with mental health problems which reduce their ability to judge rationally, have taken to the Internet in their droves.

 

 

 

Those that censor speech invariably claim that "censorship is being forced upon us".

 

I'm not afraid of an open and free exchange of ideas personally.

[Hip]

I was not aware of Marshall McLuhan's comment. That was very interesting, thanks for sharing. That comment definitely gave me a new perspective on history and the development of societies. The internet is more disruptive than television, the radio, and the printing press in the sense that it provides a voice to everyone, not just those who control the medium. 

 

I agree completely on the dangers of internet and social media. The internet has great promise with its ability to facilitate human connection and to spread knowledge and also in its ability to empower people living under repressive regimes, but at the same time these abilities could allow the internet to destabilize societies, to spread lies and misinformation, and to empower fringe groups, radicals, and crazies. 

 

I think we will see all sorts of interesting information released in the next decade regarding the internet's impact on developing minds. I worry for kids who are growing up with access to a smart phone since an early age. I think we will see greatly increase rates of depression and attention deficit disorder among future generations.

 

Facebook started in my late teen years, and I initially viewed it with some suspicion but overall positively, and I used it frequently to interact with the people I knew. I now view social media mostly negatively, but I recognize its usefulness for certain things, so I do the minimum by  maintaining a bare bones profile. 

 

Yeah, Marshall McLuhan had some amazing foresight. His work in the 50s and 60s was long before the advent of the Internet, but even back then he predicted that in the future, advancing communications technologies would join the world into what he coined as the "global village".

 

Especially in the last 20 years, that's exactly what has happened, as a result of communications technologies like the Internet, smartphones, and cable or satellite television. These technologies were all before McLuhan's time, yet he predicted their rise, and predicted the effect they would have on human society. 

 

We now most definitely live in a global village. We have an amazing amount of awareness about what goes on in every corner of the world, and we can communicate with people in every corner as easily as we can talk to our neighbor next door.

 

 

 

But social media is something so new that we still really do not understand its effects on society, and while it may offer many good things, we still are learning about how to control or mitigate its negative effects. Social media is a new universe we have entered into, and we still are just beginning to learn what it is all about.

 

The British TV personality and intellectual Stephen Fry, who has always been a keen observer of the sociology of the Internet, made a very astute comment about social media. He said that when he meets ordinary people in the normal face-to-face manner, people are generally kind, polite, friendly and good natured.

 

Yet when he encounters people online on Twitter, Facebook, online forums, etc, they are often nasty, rude, hostile and combative. So Fry says that rather than social media being a reflection or depiction of our society, social media is more like what he called "an anti-matter universe", where all social norms are reversed: kind becomes nasty, polite becomes rude, friendly becomes hostile, and so forth.

 

Fry made that comment on a TV program I saw a few days ago, and I thought it was a profound observation. There's something about social media that often turns good human nature into bad nature.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 03 February 2021 - 08:39 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Who determines who the "foolish people" are? I, for one, will trust my own judgement in determining the soundness and the merit of the ideas that I run across, rather than following the dictates of a "Judas goat" that's leading a herd of sheeple into the abattoir of conformity and groupthink.

 

I'm not saying that those who want to be nannied shouldn't have that right. They do. Just don't drag me into that particular "struggle session".  

 

*"Judas goat"--in this context, refers to those entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter et alia that have apparently experienced an apotheosis somewhere along the line which has endowed them with the right to engage in suppression of speech, or outright censorship, in order to protect people from themselves.  (Yeah, I know that they are private companies, blah, blah, blah, but that's another topic for another day.). It's a noble idea to protect people against those that would cod the gull, however: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" 

 

"Make 1984 fiction again."

[Hip]

Who determines who the "foolish people" are? I, for one, will trust my own judgement in determining the soundness and the merit of the ideas that I run across, rather than following the dictates of a "Judas goat" that's leading a herd of sheeple into the abattoir of conformity and groupthink.

 

If you are an intelligent, educated free-thinker, you will have no difficulty in getting access to information and resources, especially in the free West. 

 

For example, Google has started penalizing alternative health websites, so that they do not routinely appear at the top of medical and health searches; but most people would still be able to find such sites, just by entering into Google "heart disease, alternative treatments", which will find these alternative sites. Or you can use another search engine.

 

It's not as if the information has been removed; it's just been arranged so that it's not routinely presented to ordinary people, who may not have the education to determine whether an alternative treatment is viable.

 

 

There is a difference between protecting ordinary people from online bad advice or misinformation which they do not have the intellectual capacity to gauge, and complete censorship. Nobody is stopping you from starting a website promoting carrot juice as a cancer treatment which you believe is more effective than chemotherapy. But do not expect Google to place that website in its top search results when someone enters "cancer treatment".

 

 

Who determines who the foolish people are? Well that's always a difficult task, because though we would like to think humans are sane and rational, there is in fact a lot of mild insanity in the human race, which blurs judgement. For example, an astounding 1 in 25 people have schizotypy, which a sort of schizophrenia-lite condition that may not be immediately obvious to others, but causes a very mild level of psychosis in sufferers, which often leads them to subscribe to the most outlandish conspiracy theories.  

 

Were you not astounded in the shear number of people who believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory? Did you ever wonder why so many human beings thought that conspiracy theory was true? Well schizotypy can probably explain a lot of that. 

 

Incidentally LongeCity itself seems to attract more than its fair share of eccentrics and those with mental health problems. That's to be expected, as people with mental health issues will naturally be coming to websites like LongeCity to look for treatments. I am one of them, as I have several mental health conditions (anhedonia, blunted affect, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, plus the dreaded chronic fatigue syndrome).

 

 

So it is up to the world's rational people to ensure that the irrational do not take over. When the irrational take over, you get situations like Nazi Germany. Hitler it is believe suffered from bipolar, and had all sorts of weird supernatural and occult beliefs. The Nazi regime are a prime example of what happens if a crazy person gets into power. 

 

Edited by Hip, 04 February 2021 - 05:31 PM.

[Hip]

I'm not afraid of an open and free exchange of ideas personally.

 

So you think that the Wikipedia page on the Apollo Moon landings should also detail the views of the conspiracy theorists, who say that the Moon landings never happened, and were faked in a Hollywood studio? 

 

And you think the Wikipedia page for the planet Earth should include the views of the Flat Earth Society, who think that our planet is flat? You are happy to get into an open and free exchange of ideas with the Flat Earth Society, to thrash out who might be correct? 

 

There are probably a few flat Earthers reading this thread. 

Edited by Hip, 05 February 2021 - 04:55 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

So you think that the Wikipedia page on the Apollo Moon landings should also detail the views of the conspiracy theorists, who say that the Moon landings never happened, and were faked in a Hollywood studio? 

 

And you think the Wikipedia page for the planet Earth should include the views of the Flat Earth Society, who think that our planet is flat? You are happy to get into an open and free exchange of ideas with the Flat Earth Society, to thrash out who might be correct? 

 

There are probably a few flat Earthers reading this thread. 

 

That's quite the leap of logic don't you think?

 

As a practical matter, the Wikipedia page will contain the consensus of what that the editors on that page decide it should contain.  I have no issue with that.

 

What I do have issue with is Google, Facebook, Twitter, et. al. shutting down expression because they don't conform to some current consensus to what is true or acceptable. For one, science doesn't work like that. There is no arbitrator of what is and isn't scientific fact, and those entities are decidedly ill equipped to assume that role. Additionally, if you put someone in the role of arbitrator, they will invariably decide what is truth based not on a cool consideration of the facts but rather on their own self interests - be that Facebook or some government. There are no disinterested institutions that decide issues purely on the facts. They do not and never have existed.

 

Lastly - I am not afraid of the opinions of moon landing hoaxers or flat earthers being published.  Those opinions will stand or fall (generally the latter) based on their own merits. I think it is far more dangerous to create a "Ministry of Truth" (does no one read books anymore btw?) than it is to allow some fallacies to be accepted for a time. In the long run, truth will prevail.

 

You have a very paternalist view, and look on "the common people" as children. You want to decide what they can and can not read and hear. That is arrogant and hubristic to say the least. 

 

People deserve to be treated as adults and should be allowed to hear and read whatever they will and make their own decisions. Sure, some of them will make poor decisions. But that is less dangerous in the long run than putting a person or institution in charge of what we are allowed to know.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 05 February 2021 - 04:01 PM.

[Heisok]

Unfortunately,

 

This thread has devolved from the topic. I think a critical mass of off topic writings has been reached. Look at the size of the posts.  In the past Longecity has let the off topic discussions essentially end threads. This has gone that way. Only the very determined will dig past the diatribes to find opinions, statistics, and science around the issue. Right or wrong.. valid or not.

 

Fortunately, Google has not blocked the flat (earth, earther, society) pages on Wikipedia. Yet.

Edited by Heisok, 05 February 2021 - 05:26 PM.

[Hip]

As a practical matter, the Wikipedia page will contain the consensus of what that the editors on that page decide it should contain.  I have no issue with that.

 
So then you do agree to the principle that some material should not be allowed to be published on certain platforms like Wikipedia? And by the way, Wikipedia pages do not necessarily result from a consensus of editors, but often from a pitched battle about who gets to say what. I've done some Wikipedia editing, so I know. Especially on Wikipedia medical, where non-evidenced based statements and unproven theories are ruthlessly removed by other editors. You may have a cherished medical theory and post it on Wikipedia, but unless there is solid evidence for it, it will be removed by other editors.
 
If a person believing in faked Moon landing tried to post their views on the Moon landings Wikipedia page, other editors would ruthlessly remove them, not by consensus, but by force. Some Wikipedia pages are so contentious, that they have to be locked, and only privileged editors can alter them. 
 
So you agree that Wikipedia editors should police what can be posted on Wikipedia. But you do not agree that Google or Facebook should police?
 
I am trying to following your reasoning, but can't see why you think it's OK for Wikipedia to police information, but not Google or Facebook.


 

You have a very paternalist view, and look on "the common people" as children. You want to decide what they can and can not read and hear. That is arrogant and hubristic to say the least.

 

That perception may be down to cultural differences.

 

Europe, especially Continental Europe, has always been more paternalist than the US. European political philosophy tends to look at the populace as a big family that you look after, including frail old grandmother or grandfather. Whereas the US has an element of the Wild West, where it's every man for themselves, and you survive by your wits. 

 

The UK is a bit more tilted towards the US, so is slightly more Wild West than the rest of Europe. I was born in the UK, but both sides of my family come from Continental Europe originally, so I can understand the Continental perspective quite well.

 

In Continental Europe, they tend to think along the lines that you cannot introduce a new pharmaceutical drug, or a new chemical pesticide, until it has been proven safe. Whereas in the US, and in the UK to an extent, you introduce a new drug or chemical, and only later do you figure out whether it was safe or not, usually by the number of lawsuits that result.

 

But even in the US, you have the FDA, which tries to ensure that new pharmaceutical drugs are properly tested for safety as much as possible before they are released to the public. Indeed, some people consider that the FDA is more stringent than its European counterparts. Would you class that as paternalistic too?

 

Not saying the European approach is better than the US, or vice versa. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 05 February 2021 - 04:53 PM.

[aribadabar]

 

You have a very paternalist view, and look on "the common people" as children. You want to decide what they can and can not read and hear. That is arrogant and hubristic to say the least. 

 

People deserve to be treated as adults and should be allowed to hear and read whatever they will and make their own decisions. Sure, some of them will make poor decisions. But that is less dangerous in the long run than putting a person or institution in charge of what we are allowed to know.

 

Many people are children in adult bodies so saving them from themselves is not arrogant, it is samaritan.

 

Allowing all conspiracy theorists to flourish online lately is largely what caused the large political and social divide in US we are observing of late - low-information and, in many cases low-IQ, adults got hoodwinked by shysters to believe all sorts of lies in order to achieve certain political agenda.

And it becomes not just a personal problem anymore but a societal one.

 

Putting good information and outlandish BS at the same level is one of the Internet's downsides.

Edited by aribadabar, 07 February 2021 - 01:31 AM.

[pamojja]

Almost funny. There must be some english version of the corona cult somewhere:

[Hip]

If anyone wants to contemplate more on the societal effects of Internet, here is a stimulating 14 minute video by Stephen Fry on the good and bad things that the Internet brings: 

 

 

[Hebbeh]

Severe undercounting of COVID-19 cases in U.S., other countries estimated via model -- ScienceDaily

 

Severe undercounting of COVID-19 cases in U.S., other countries estimated via model

 

A new machine-learning framework uses reported test results and death rates to calculate estimates of the actual number of current COVID-19 infections within all 50 U.S. states and 50 countries. Jungsik Noh and Gaudenz Danuser of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on February 8, 2021.

 

During the ongoing pandemic, U.S. states and many countries have reported daily counts of COVID-19 infections and deaths confirmed by testing. However, many infections have gone undetected, resulting in under-counting of the total number of people currently infected at any given point in time -- an important metric to guide public health efforts.

 

Now, Noh and Danuser have developed a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual daily number of current infections for all 50 U.S. states and the 50 most-infected countries. To make the calculations, the model draws on previously published pandemic parameters and publicly available daily data on confirmed cases and deaths. Visualizations of these daily estimates are freely available online.

 

The model's estimates indicate severe undercounting of cases across the U.S. and worldwide. The cumulative number of actual cases in 9 out of 50 countries is estimated to be at least five times higher than confirmed cases. Within the U.S., estimates of the cumulative number of actual cases within states were in line with the results of an antibody testing study conducted in 46 states.

 

For some countries, such as the U.S., Belgium, and the U.K., estimates indicate that more than 20 percent of the total population has experienced infection. As of January 31, 2021, some U.S. states -- including Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Florida -- have currently active cases totaling more than 5 percent of the state's entire population. In Washington, the active cases were estimated to be one percent of the population that day.

 

Looking ahead, the model has been estimating current COVID-19 case counts within communities, which could help inform contact-tracing and other public health efforts.

 

The authors add: "Given that the confirmed cases only capture the tip of the iceberg in the middle of the pandemic, the estimated sizes of current infections in this study provide crucial information to determine the regional severity of COVID-19 that can be misguided by the confirmed cases."

 

 

Journal Reference:

1. Jungsik Noh, Gaudenz Danuser. Estimation of the fraction of COVID-19 infected people in U.S. states and countries worldwide. PLoS ONE, 2021; 16 (2): e0246772 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246772

 

[Hebbeh]

New clues to how SARS-CoV-2 infects cells -- ScienceDaily

 

New clues to how SARS-CoV-2 infects cells

 

The molecular details of how SARS-CoV-2 enters cells and infects them are still not clear. Researchers at Uppsala University have tested the bioinformatic predictions made by another research group and have identified receptors that could be important players in the process. The results are presented in the journal Science Signaling and at the AAAS Annual Meeting held this week.

 

The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 binds the protein ACE2 on the outside of the human cell. This triggers a series of events that leads to invasion of the cell by the virus. The molecular details of this process have remained obscure despite much research on SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. Moreover, ACE2 is not present in human lung cells, which would suggest that different players are involved when the virus infects these cells.

 

A recent study by researchers at Uppsala University sheds some new light on the issues. The study was published back-to-back with a study by an international team led by Dr Toby Gibson at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) in Heidelberg. The Gibson study predicted potential interactions that could be of importance for the entry of Sars-CoV-2 into the cell.

 

The researchers at Uppsala University tested the bioinformatic predictions in vitro and could show that ACE2 and the potential co-receptor integrin beta3 interact with important players involved in endocytosis and autophagy - cellular processes of uptake and disposal of substances. This means that these processes might be hijacked by the virus during infection.

 

"The Gibson team is world leading in terms of the bioinformatic analysis of these types of interactions, and we were excited to follow up on their predictions," says Professor Ylva Ivarsson, who headed the Uppsala study. "Our results also helped them to improve their analysis. It was an easy decision to engage in this project, as our lab has a strong interest in host-pathogen protein-protein interactions."

 

Journal References:

1. Johanna Kliche, Hanna Kuss, Muhammad Ali, Ylva Ivarsson. Cytoplasmic short linear motifs in ACE2 and integrin β3 link SARS-CoV-2 host cell receptors to mediators of endocytosis and autophagy. Science Signaling, 2021; 14 (665): eabf1117 DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.abf1117
2. Bálint Mészáros, Hugo Sámano-Sánchez, Jesús Alvarado-Valverde, Jelena Čalyševa, Elizabeth Martínez-Pérez, Renato Alves, Denis C. Shields, Manjeet Kumar, Friedrich Rippmann, Lucía B. Chemes, Toby J. Gibson. Short linear motif candidates in the cell entry system used by SARS-CoV-2 and their potential therapeutic implications. Science Signaling, 2021; 14 (665): eabd0334 DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.abd0334

 

[Hip]

Almost funny. There must be some english version of the corona cult somewhere:

 

 

Let's see what Wikipedia says about Gunnar Kaiser, the author of the video you posted:
 

Gunnar Kaiser has spoken at demonstrations against protective measures taken against Covid 19 and questions whether climate change is caused by humans.

 
So Gunnar Kaiser denies that CO2 is causing global warming. What kind of scientific qualifications does he have to make such a determination? 

 

 

Let's see what Wikipedia says:
 

Gunnar Kaiser studied philosophy, German philology, and Romance studies

 
Right! So no scientific qualifications whatsoever! And in spite of having no scientific qualifications, he makes statements about climate change. That tells us a lot about Gunnar: he is someone who strongly opines on subjects he knows nothing about.
 
That brings us back to that lovely new word we saw earlier in this thread: ultracrepidarian! 
 
Gunnar also has no medical education, so therefore his medical opinions on coronavirus have no expertise behind them. 

 

If Gunnar needed brain surgery, would he get a plumber to do it? I think not. For complex tasks, you need professionals who are experts in the field. Same goes with the science of pandemics or climate change: you need a massive team of scientific experts to interpret these complex phenomena, not some quirky individual who has a degree in Romance studies.