914 replies to this topic

[Hip]

It has been awful to see the suppression of honest inquiry over the past year. There have always been weird/fringe theories and fake information in the public discourse and open discussion filters it out. The blocking/censoring of everything that did not go along with the official bureaucratic narrative over the past year has not been good.

 

A fantasy media, where newspapers etc publish unevidenced suspicions and unproven speculations rather than facts, is a dangerous thing.

 

Once a society deviates from being rational and empirical (empirical means evidence or observation based), it's all downhill after that. A country which runs on bullshit rather than solid fact will always end up being a tinpot country. 

 

 

People are always free to inquire and investigate any subject. Nobody has suppressed any scientific research. Scientists do not need or use newspapers to disseminate their research; they communicate via academic journals. 

 

All the media are doing is suppressing claims about something when there is little or no evidence to support those claims. 

[Daniel Cooper]

A fantasy media, where newspapers etc publish unevidenced suspicions and unproven speculations rather than facts, is a dangerous thing.

 

Once a society deviates from being rational and empirical (empirical means evidence or observation based), it's all downhill after that. A country which runs on bullshit rather than solid fact will always end up being a tinpot country. 

 

 

People are always free to inquire and investigate any subject. Nobody has suppressed any scientific research. Scientists do not need or use newspapers to disseminate their research; they communicate via academic journals. 

 

All the media are doing is suppressing claims about something when there is little or no evidence to support those claims. 

 

I think what you fail to understand is that we currently have a fantasy media.

 

These stories that covid absolutely could not possibly come from a lab - pure fantasy.  These social media platforms that deleted and banned people that even raised the possibility - they also contributed to the fantasy.

 

You seem to have a desire for a media that is "curated" so that "the people" (whom you seem to have a low regard for) don't see the "wrong information".

 

What you fail to realize is that such a curated media will never be run in the public interest. It will always be run for the benefit of those in power. The government, large corporations, etc.  The only way we avoid that is to have an open and free exchange of ideas without Big Brother shutting down debate when it strays into territory that it finds inconvenient.

 

The whole lab leak story is a perfect example. Powerful institutions - a government that appears to have funded some of the gain of function work in Wuhan, research labs that don't want any oversight in their gain of function work, a media that put it's thumb on the scale in an election, all these powerful groups generated a fantasy that it simply was not possible that covid had escaped from a lab in Wuhan.  

[Hip]

These stories that covid absolutely could not possibly come from a lab - pure fantasy.  These social media platforms that deleted and banned people that even raised the possibility - they also contributed to the fantasy.

 
 Can you show me an article from a quality established newspaper which stated that covid absolutely could not possibly come from a lab?
 
 

 

You seem to have a desire for a media that is "curated" so that "the people" (whom you seem to have a low regard for) don't see the "wrong information".

 
I do not have a desire for such media: that's how quality media have always been. 

 

If you want to read newspapers where writers distort the truth and make things up, there is plenty of scope for you: just read the tabloid newspapers. I believe a popular one in the US is the National Enquirer, which reports on Bigfoot sightings, and other such nonsense.

 

 

 

 

What you fail to realize is that such a curated media will never be run in the public interest. It will always be run for the benefit of those in power. The government, large corporations, etc.  The only way we avoid that is to have an open and free exchange of ideas without Big Brother shutting down debate when it strays into territory that it finds inconvenient.

 
Not in Europe, with its strong traditions of socialism / social democracy. Europe has plenty of left wing socialist / social democracy newspapers whose will very quickly publish the dirt on the rich, the famous and the people in power.

 

Edited by Hip, 04 June 2021 - 04:30 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Can you show me an article from a quality established newspaper which stated that covid absolutely could not possibly come from a lab?

 
Are you kidding me? I'm not sourcing information for something we all witnessed a little over a year ago. I refer you to statements by Tony Fauci that were widely reported (most especially in the "quality media") from February 2020 till about 2 weeks ago.
 
 

I do not have a desire for such media: that's how quality media have always been. 
 
If you want to read newspapers where writers distort the truth and make things up, there is plenty of scope for you: just read the tabloid newspapers. I believe a popular one in the US is the National Enquirer, which reports on Bigfoot sightings, and other such nonsense.

 

All the quality media ridiculed the very idea that covid-19 had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology for the last year. But they did so with the upmost quality and decorum.  Here's one from the New Statesman. Is that a quality newspaper?  https://www.newstate...-leaked-chinese
 

Not in Europe, with its strong traditions of socialism / social democracy. Europe has plenty of left wing socialist / social democracy newspapers whose will very quickly publish the dirt on the rich, the famous and the people in power.

Interesting. How's the left wing/socialist newspapers (of the upmost quality I'm sure) on reporting the malfeasance, corruption, and foolishness (something endemic to all governments of all stripes) of your socialist governments? I suppose that sort of thing is left to the lesser quality media. 
 
You don't get it. Acton was right - power corrupts. You put the government in charge of determining what people hear and see (either directly or through their proxies in the social media corporations) you'll get information crafted in their interest, not the interest of the people.  Pravda wasn't just a phenomena of the Soviet Union.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 June 2021 - 05:30 PM.

[joesixpack]

 
 Can you show me an article from a quality established newspaper which stated that covid absolutely could not possibly come from a lab?
 
 
Would The Lancet satisfy you? Published February 21, 2021. The letter signed by multiple "scientists", debunking "conspiracy theories" that the virus came from a lab. You can find it here: https://www.thelance...0418-9/fulltext
 

 
I do not have a desire for such media: that's how quality media have always been. 

 

If you want to read newspapers where writers distort the truth and make things up, there is plenty of scope for you: just read the tabloid newspapers. I believe a popular one in the US is the National Enquirer, which reports on Bigfoot sightings, and other such nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 
Not in Europe, with its strong traditions of socialism / social democracy. Europe has plenty of left wing socialist / social democracy newspapers whose will very quickly publish the dirt on the rich, the famous and the people in power.

 

 

Edited by joesixpack, 04 June 2021 - 06:38 PM.

[bladedmind]

A fantasy media, where newspapers etc publish unevidenced suspicions and unproven speculations rather than facts, is a dangerous thing.

 

Once a society deviates from being rational and empirical (empirical means evidence or observation based), it's all downhill after that. A country which runs on bullshit rather than solid fact will always end up being a tinpot country.

 

Authoritarians of many stripes have celebrated the value of liberty, with the proviso that it be the liberty only to do the right thing – as the authority defines the right thing.  J.S. Mill clarified the modern idea of liberty, that so long as there is not direct and tangible harm to others (if censorship is justified by indirect or intangible harms, then authorities have a rationale to ban almost anything), liberty is the liberty do the wrong thing. If liberty is not defined as the right to speak wrong and do wrong then there must be a political or social authority that define for all what is right speech and action.  Mill (rightly) feared social tyranny more than political tyranny.  Who is that authority, and why is it right and all others wrong?

 

A great example of this is Pope Leo XIII’s Libertas Praestantissimum (1888).  Leo is sure that he knows what the truth is.  Although mistaken in my view, he has pretty good reasons for that belief. 

 

23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which — as We have before said and must again and again repeat — it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State….And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions….

 

36. And now to reduce for clearness’ sake to its principal heads all that has been set forth with its immediate conclusions, the summing up in this briefly: that man, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject to the most faithful and ever enduring power of God; and that, as a consequence, any liberty, except that which consists in submission to God and in subjection to His will, is unintelligible. To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists….

 

42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty….And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

 

 

Just substitute Science for God and Church.

 

 

I suggest some study of western history, starting with:

https://en.wikipedia...Galileo_Galilei

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/On_Liberty

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Bolshevism

Edited by bladedmind, 04 June 2021 - 08:26 PM.

[Hip]

Are you kidding me? I'm not sourcing information for something we all witnessed a little over a year ago. I refer you to statements by Tony Fauci that were widely reported (most especially in the "quality media") from February 2020 till about 2 weeks ago.

 

Fauci is just one person, and if the media report his views, it does not mean they will not report other people's opposing views.

 

Fauci did not rule out a lab leak in any case, he just said that based on the scientific evidence it was very unlikely. That was his best guess given the information we have at the time. We still do not have much more information, and so Fauci's view probably still holds. Just because Biden has taken an interest in the lab leak theory, that does not prove anything yet.

 

 

 

You say that the lab leak theory was suppressed, but I just found many articles on it when I search the Guardian newspaper (which is free to view) — articles from 2020 and early 2021, talking about the Wuhan lab escape as a viable possibility:  

 

https://www.theguard...lab-coronavirus

https://www.theguard...ese-laboratory 
https://www.theguard...nese-lab-claim 

https://www.theguard...s-theory-china 

https://www.theguard...y-pushed-by-us 

 

For more of last year's Guardian articles on the lab leak, see here.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. How's the left wing/socialist newspapers (of the upmost quality I'm sure) on reporting the malfeasance, corruption, and foolishness (something endemic to all governments of all stripes) of your socialist governments? I suppose that sort of thing is left to the lesser quality media. 

 

Right-wing broadsheet newspapers tend to be the ones who most criticize left-wing governments, and left-wing broadsheet newspapers tend to be the ones who most criticize right-wing governments. That happens everywhere, including the US. Doesn't everyone know that?

 

Edited by Hip, 04 June 2021 - 08:33 PM.

[Hip]

Nothing here affects people's liberties regarding what they want to write or want to read.

 

If you want to read the National Enquirer for the latest new on Bigfoot, because you believe Bigfoot is real, then off you go. That's the newspaper for you. You have the liberty to read that newspaper, and its writers have the liberty of producing Bigfoot material and other such stuff to entertain the readership.

 

If you want to join a religious cult that believes aliens live on the far side of the moon and control all life on Earth, hey, you are free to follow your desires and beliefs.

 

The Flat Earth society really does exist, and they have international conferences every year. Nothing prevents them from doing this. They are at liberty to talk about and propagate their flat Earth theories.

 

 

In my case, I want to read newspapers and publications which have a scrupulous high regard for fact checking, authenticating their sources and reporting very accurately. That's my choice. And there are a lot of people like me, and this is the segment of society high quality newspapers target. If these newspapers lowered their standards, readers like me would go elsewhere. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

You clearly are totally clueless regarding the importance of "The National Enquirer" and other hot sheets in disseminating the latest information so critical to the making of an informed public. You probably are one of those who poo-pooed, or pee-peed (if "Hip" is just one of your, Christopher Steele, nicks) the earliest disclosures about the high probability of a Wuhan lab-leak.

[bladedmind]

Straight from the tabloids, here’s some red meat for the Alternative Theories thread. 

 

If this were to lack truth, it would still be spectacular as fiction.

https://redstate.com...rograms-n391238

 

https://twitter.com/...961589977640965

https://twitter.com/...961998473482244

https://twitter.com/...962275708604422

https://twitter.com/...963042075021312

 

Relax, it's presumed false unless published in the Washington Post.

[bladedmind]

[post='https://twitter.com/...1589977640965'][/post]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Meantime India has told the U.S. it believes the release was intentional. Remember India and China are on thin ice right now.</p>&mdash; Adam Housley (@adamhousley) <a href="https://twitter.com/...twsrc^tfw">June4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[bladedmind]

Straight from the tabloids and twitter, here’s some red meat for the Alternative Theories thread.

 

If this were to lack truth, it would still be spectacular as fiction.

 

High-Ranking Chinese Defector Has 'Direct Knowledge' of Several Chinese Special Weapons Programs

A person believed to be among the highest-ranking defectors ever to the United States from the People’s Republic of China has been working with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for months, sources inside the intelligence community have told RedState on condition of anonymity. The defector has direct knowledge of special weapons programs in China, including bioweapons programs, those sources say…

 

US intelligence continues to believe that spread was intentional and that China had an effective vaccine earlier in 2020 and only used it for those who mattered in country.  https://twitter.com/...961589977640965

 

Also being told: DHS is testing passengers from China upon arrival regardless of documentation showing vaccination...they don’t trust the government of China.  https://twitter.com/...961998473482244

 

I are seeing high tech restrictions and I’m being told that is in relation...and More movement with Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong against China because of the investigation and what has and is being...found.  https://twitter.com/...962275708604422

 

Meantime India has told the U.S. it believes the release was intentional. Remember India and China are on thin ice right now.  https://twitter.com/...963042075021312

 

 

Relax, it's presumed false until printed in the Washington Post.
 

Edited by bladedmind, 05 June 2021 - 12:34 AM.

[Mind]

Here is a story about the Washington Post and their low journalism ethics - stealth editing an article instead of issuing a "correction".

 

They called it a "debunked conspiracy theory" (which is wasn't  - the evidence was available) - then they unethically edited the headline to now read "disputed....fringe theory".

 

https://thefederalis...y-was-debunked/

 

Most US national media outlets are trash - they are the modern day Enquirer.

 

CNN admits to stoking irrational fears about COVID (and are now going to move on to climate change): https://xyz.net.au/2...climate-change/

[Hip]

Here is a story about the Washington Post and their low journalism ethics - stealth editing an article instead of issuing a "correction".

 

They called it a "debunked conspiracy theory" (which is wasn't  - the evidence was available) - then they unethically edited the headline to now read "disputed....fringe theory".

 

https://thefederalis...y-was-debunked/

 

 

That is very bad practice, I agree. You should not be changing the historical record. 

 

I read that vox.com did a similar thing recently, with respect to some article they wrote on COVID.

 

 

As for whether the lab leak hypothesis can be considered a conspiracy theory or not: lab leaks have happened in the past, so there is a plausibility; but no direct evidence so far of a lab leak, just circumstantial stuff. So "improbable lab leak theory" might have been a better title than "conspiracy theory".

 

However, in one sense the lab leak theory did take on the proportions of a conspiracy theory, because it was lapped up by all the world's conspiracy theory addicts, who believe in any conspiracy theory, no matter how outlandish. Many conspiracy theory addicts have a mild form of schizophrenia called schizotypy, which studies have shown predisposes to believe in all sorts of outlandish conspiracy theories.

 

An astounding 4% of the population have schizotypy, so this is extremely common. And this is why crazy, implausible conspiracy theories spread.

 

So in terms of the half mad people with schizotypy and their delusionary world, yes, the lab leak hypothesis was turned into a mental health conspiracy theory extravaganza. 

 

 

 

It is a pity that we do not give conspiracy theory addicts with schizotypy more medical help. Their condition might be treated with antipsychotics. But instead we just make fun of our conspiracy theory addicts friends, without realizing that they have a medical condition.

Edited by Hip, 05 June 2021 - 02:17 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 

However, in one sense the lab leak theory did take on the proportions of a conspiracy theory, because it was lapped up by all the world's conspiracy theory addicts, who believe in any conspiracy theory, no matter how outlandish.

 

Sadly we may never know the origins of COVID. And, while COVID is starting to get under control with vaccines, we will still stuck with the conspiracy theory addicts. 

 

I found this to be a well-balanced take on the issue:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=mdxBT0bDRRs

[bladedmind]

Now, with control apparently on the horizon, a return to uncensored debate?

 

Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists

Members of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour express regret about ‘unethical’ methods

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Interesting article about the recent CDC push to vaccinate children age 12 and up. 

 

From the piece:

 

"We all knew this was coming. In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer's efficacy data."

 

The article goes on to show how the data was massaged to come to the needed conclusion.

[bladedmind]

There is science, a method of inquiry constrained by disciplined observations and public scrutiny of results, and there is Science^TM, a social institution populated by many good people who can be pressured or enticed by enormous bureaucratic, commercial, and governmental interests.

 

Covid-19, trust, and Wellcome: how charity’s pharma investments overlap with its research efforts

 

The major funder of health research stands to gain financially from the pandemic, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

 

An increasingly clear feature of the covid-19 pandemic is that the public health response is being driven not only by governments and multilateral institutions, such as the World Health Organisation, but also by a welter of public-private partnerships involving drug companies and private foundations.

 

One leading voice to emerge is the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s top funders of health research, whose sprawling charitable activities in the pandemic include co-leading a WHO programme to support new covid-19 therapeutics. The Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator project hopes to raise billions of dollars and deliver hundreds of millions of treatment courses in the year ahead, including dexamethasone and a number of monoclonal antibodies.

 

At the same time, The BMJ finds, Wellcome itself holds investments in companies producing these same treatments. Financial disclosures from late 2020 show that Wellcome has a £275m (€318m; $389m) stake in Novartis, which manufactures dexamethasone and is investigating additional therapeutics. And Roche, in which Wellcome holds a £252m stake, is helping to manufacture monoclonal antibodies with Regeneron. Both Roche and Novartis report having had conversations with WHO’s ACT Accelerator about their therapeutic drugs.

 

Wellcome’s financial interests have been published on the trust’s website and through financial regulatory filings but do not seem to have been disclosed as financial conflicts of interest in the context of Wellcome’s work on covid-19, even as they show that the trust is positioned to potentially gain from the pandemic financially.

 

Revelations of the Wellcome Trust’s financial conflicts of interest follow news reports that another charity, the Gates Foundation, is also positioned to potentially benefit financially from its leading role in the pandemic response. An investigation by the Nation revealed that Gates had more than $250m (£179m; €206m) invested in companies working on covid-19 and cited civil society groups expressing alarm with the outsize influence the billionaire charity wields in the pandemic response, which they see as elevating the role of the drug industry.

 

Lots more stinky details, and

 

Wellcome’s role in financial markets has played out in other striking ways during the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Wellcome held conference calls with private investment companies as far back as January 2020, with Farrar warning money managers about the gravity of covid-19. The calls prompted investors to reorganise their portfolios, either to minimise losses or to make financial gains, the newspaper reported.

 

The trust would not provide transcripts of Farrar’s conference calls with outside investors but stated that he offered investors the same covid warnings he offered in the news media and other venues.

 

Two investment companies on the calls with Farrar—Sequoia and Blackstone—have paid out dividends to Wellcome in recent years, the charity’s recent tax filings in the US show. Wellcome would not comment on whether it had money invested with these companies at the time it organised Farrar’s calls.

 

Dangerous, irresponsible!

[Mind]

Increasingly, it looks like a small group of fanatics ran the entire pandemic response and it was barely tethered to "science". I would estimate that the health professionals, doctors, researchers, epidemiologists who continue to rationally analyze and question the pandemic response outnumber those who advocate for continued failed pandemic policies (leaders of the CDC, WHO, FDA, etc) by 10 to 1. Yet somehow, those who promote failed policies are still in control. https://dailyreckoni...over-the-world/

 

The failed policies are also being driven by a small number of seemingly neurotic germ-a-phobes, who think the entire natural world and human society can be turned into a sterilized level 5-type clean room. Check out this policy advisor in the UK "Sadly, the lockdowns cannot go on forever". https://summit.news/...ant-be-forever/

[Hip]

Increasingly, it looks like a small group of fanatics ran the entire pandemic response and it was barely tethered to "science". I would estimate that the health professionals, doctors, researchers, epidemiologists who continue to rationally analyze and question the pandemic response outnumber those who advocate for continued failed pandemic policies (leaders of the CDC, WHO, FDA, etc) by 10 to 1. Yet somehow, those who promote failed policies are still in control. https://dailyreckoni...over-the-world/

 

The failed policies are also being driven by a small number of seemingly neurotic germ-a-phobes, who think the entire natural world and human society can be turned into a sterilized level 5-type clean room. Check out this policy advisor in the UK "Sadly, the lockdowns cannot go on forever". https://summit.news/...ant-be-forever/

 

It may look that way to you, but to the people on this forum with scientific qualifications and a scientific mind, the way the pandemic has been handle looks appropriate, even though it was not perfect, and people made mistakes, 

 

 

As for the articles you quoted, looks like the first article is written by an apparently brainless individual named Jeffrey Tucker, whose belief in anarchism (anarcho-capitalism to be precise, see Wikipedia), shows that he has little grasp on the realities of the world.

 

If Tucker were a young person, you could put his silliness down to intellectual immaturity. But given he is in his 50s, it looks like he has a flawed mind, probably suffering from some sort of condition which makes it hard for him to get a grip on reality.

 

 

 

Incidentally anyone who finds it hard to get a grip on reality, and is attracted to conspiracy theories, you may want to get yourself checked for the very common mental health condition called schizotypy, which predisposes people to believe in outlandish conspiracy theory material.

[bladedmind]

Incidentally anyone who finds it hard to get a grip on reality, and is attracted to conspiracy theories, you may want to get yourself checked for the very common mental health condition called schizotypy, which predisposes people to believe in outlandish conspiracy theory material.

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ad_hominem
 

[Hip]

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ad_hominem
 

 

 

Firstly, ad hominem applies when you attack a particular person, not when you make a general statement like my statement, which is directed to the category of people with a penchant for conspiracy theories. 

 

Secondly, in any case, my statement is not attacking anyone, it is simply a medical diagnosis. Belief in conspiracy theories is a medical psychiatric symptom, which indicates that the person concerned may have schizotypy. 

 

Some people may dislike being told that they have a mental health disorder (because of the stigma attached to mental health). Others however might be grateful to receive information concerning their mental health which they might put to good use. Schizotypy and other schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are treatable to an extent, with both drugs, supplements and other therapies.

 

Whenever I post online that belief in conspiracy theories is linked to schizotypy, I often get a lot abusive responses. And I think this is because of the stigma linked to mental health. Not many people will happily admit they may have some mental health issues, they may not even want to admit this to themselves, as it affects one's self-esteem and ego. But if you are able to see that you may have some mental health concerns, that is the first step to getting effective treatment.

Edited by Hip, 12 June 2021 - 04:15 PM.

[geo12the]

 category of people with a penchant for conspiracy theories. 

 

 

 

What has happened the last few years is toxic AI algorithms on Youtube and social media amplify extremist views and conspiracy theories and worsen people's mental well being. There is fascinating podcast that investigates this that I recommend: Rabbit hole.

 

https://podcasts.app.../id1507423923  

 

And it's become tangled up with political identity in a way that demonizes the other to the extent that being right is more important than truth.  Our country (the US) is mental ill at the moment. And this has of course now been tangled up with the pandemic  with people on the hard right tending to be anti-vax, anti-mask, pro-anything espoused by Orange God-king. Lot's of people here believe and promote what I consider sketchy ideas about the pandemic. It's fine to keep an open mind to alternate views but there is something to be said for trying to understand and comprehend the non-alternative views as well and realize for example that when I espouse my pro-vax view that is coming from  a place of reason and thought.

[Hip]

What has happened the last few years is toxic AI algorithms on Youtube and social media amplify extremist views and conspiracy theories and worsen people's mental well being.  

 

Indeed. Questionable rationality of individual people is one thing, and there are plenty of mental health conditions which can affect human rationality. Aberrant biological processes which affect brain function and can lead to mental ill health: the bulk of mental ill health is likely underpinned by physical brain problems, which cause incorrect wiring and incorrect information transmission in the brain.

 

 

But then there is also the very important issue of how human brains are "wired" together though the Internet and social media. Not many people are cognizant of the fact that the Internet and other electronic media is emerging as one giant planet-wide brain, where individual human beings are like neurons of this brain. We might call this the Big Brain of humanity.

 

If the way humans interact on social media is not set up properly, then the Big Brain itself becomes incorrectly wired, and then the Big Brain can become insane. Viral spread of hearsay and unproven wackly ideas on social media is a bit like schizophrenia itself, and can make the Big Brain go mad.

 

In schizophrenia, people start to believe things that are not true, because schizophrenics lose the ability to perform proper reality checks.

 

For example, a schizophrenic person might it get into their head that all Amazon delivery drivers are working together in an evil scheme to kill them. Once they have this idea, they cannot let it go, because they cannot do the normal fact and reality checks that sane people are capable of.

 

It's a totally wacky idea that Amazon is out to kill you via its drivers, but a schizophrenic may start to believe it, because the psychosis symptom of schizophrenia prevents the brain from doing normal fact checking. So this idea of evil Amazon delivery drivers may remain in the mind of a schizophrenic, and he or she cannot let go of the thought.

 

 

If we return to our Big Brain analogy, viral spread of unproven wacky ideas on the Internet is just like the psychosis of schizophrenia. All sorts of wacky ideas come to life on social media, and zap around the planet by viral spread (social media retweets, shares, etc). And in this way, the Big Brain of humanity can develop a psychotic mental illness. 

 

 

It is thus very important that we start properly controlling the way information travels on social media and the Internet, to prevent the Big Brain from going insane. If Big Brain goes insane, then the consequences for human society are significant.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

Hip wrote in post #740:

 

"It may look that way to you, but to the people on this forum with scientific qualifications and a scientific mind, the way the pandemic has been handle looks appropriate, even though it was not perfect, and people made mistakes," 

 

 Hip, who are these aforementioned people on this forum? Name some names. Seems that you must have been in contact with them, or perhaps made inferences from what they’ve written (otherwise how could you know their scientific bent), in order to assert that “they” view the pandemic response as being “appropriate”. I, for one, would like to be able to winnow the scientific posts from the unscientific posts, and knowing the nicks of these qualified scientists or other persons with “scientific minds” posting to this forum would be helpful to me in that regard. Thanks, in advance.

 

Hip writes further:

 

"As for the articles you quoted, looks like the first article is written by an apparently brainless individual named Jeffrey Tucker, whose belief in anarchism (anarcho-capitalism to be precise, see Wikipedia), shows that he has little grasp on the realities of the world.

 

If Tucker were a young person, you could put his silliness down to intellectual immaturity. But given he is in his 50s, it looks like he has a flawed mind, probably suffering from some sort of condition which makes it hard for him to get a grip on reality."  (my bold emphases)

 

I’m glad that your critical excoriation was directed to the content of Tucker’s article and not to the person himself (ad whatchamacallit—sorry, Latin is Greek to me, and the correct term escapes my current linguistic ability). Had you done otherwise, I’d have been tempted to call you a Hipocrite (snicker, snicker). I will not mention your “anarcho-capitalism” red herring, as I prefer deep-fried breaded sole.

 

 

 

[Hip]

Name some names.

 

Your posts read like a clue in a cryptic crossword: hard to know what you are trying to say.

 

 

But to answer you question: geo12the, Florin, gamesguru, Hebbeh and others are on the sanity side of the fence in coronavirus discussions.

 

On the other side of the fence, where people have a "mainstream media is full of lies" and conspiracy theory perspective, I shall refrain from naming names of the people who take that view.

[Mind]

It is not a conspiracy theory. Almost all talk about Ivermectin, HQC, and other interventions ROBUSTLY proven to help with COVID, are banned from national media sources and social media. Even Senators and Presidents are barred from mentioning such things, as Senator Johnson just found out. https://twitter.com/...446941304905728

 

When did it become bad to ask questions and think critically about the issues?

 

Just a reminder that official government sources and government agencies officially used "science" (actually bad science, or pseudo-science) to promote smoking, over-consumption of sugar, opioids, asbestos, and many other things. The current pandemic response looks vary much like another case of regulatory capture by big corporations.

[Mind]

I am sure there will be a lot of "attacking the messenger here", instead of addressing the issue rationally, but Tucker Carlson does a good job describing the censorship revolving around vaccines. No dissent!! No questions!! No critical thinking!! Take the experimental gene therapy and shut up!! Scientists, virologists, epidemiologists, researchers, and people who have suffered after receiving the shot are being censored. Who are the people at Google, Facebook, and the National Media, preventing this important information from getting out? The vaccine-makers are shielded from legal liability, but the tech companies and media companies are not.

 

https://www.bitchute...o/TeNLA5TZgzjQ/

 

And for those who say "you are free to talk about it, just not on Facebook or Google", take note. Denmark (allegedly) recently blocked BitChute over "disinformation" about COVID and vaccines - apparently not just blocking one channel with "dangerous" disinformation, but the entire site.  https://canadamornin...19-information/

Edited by Mind, 13 June 2021 - 04:11 PM.

[geo12the]

I am sure there will be a lot of "attacking the messenger here", instead of addressing the issue rationally, but Tucker Carlson does a good job describing the censorship revolving around vaccines. No dissent!! No questions!! No critical thinking!! Take the experimental gene therapy and shut up!! Scientists, virologists, epidemiologists, researchers, and people who have suffered after receiving the shot are being censored. Who are the people at Google, Facebook, and the National Media, preventing this important information from getting out? The vaccine-makers are shielded from legal liability, but the tech companies and media companies are not.

 

https://www.bitchute...o/TeNLA5TZgzjQ/

 

And for those who say "you are free to talk about it, just not on Facebook or Google", take note. Denmark (allegedly) recently blocked BitChute over "disinformation" about COVID and vaccines - apparently not just blocking one channel with "dangerous" disinformation, but the entire site.  https://canadamornin...19-information/

 

Tucker makes money from riling people up and dividing Americans into warring camps. He is not someone I would go to for honest and real information on the pandemic. Nor would I go to Rachael Maddow or any other partisan political pundit. I encourage people to think for themselves and not be a ventriloquist dummy of these political hacks.

 

Here is my perspective. The CDC, mainstream science, Fauci  are not infallible. But we could be in a much worse place now. We now have vaccines that are 90 something % effective at preventing the disease with minimal side effects. I am grateful to the scientist who made that happen. They are heroes and have saved countless lives. Can anyone dispute the fact that the vaccines are saving lives?

 

I know people here are big on touting Ivermectin. I think it's promising but it's not a cure people. 

 

From a recent study I found on pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34076901/) " Although there was no statistically significant difference in any endpoints by ivermectin doses (12 mg/day for 3 days); there was an observed trend to reducing hospital stay in the ivermectin-treated group."

 

Ivermectin may have benefit for COVID but it's no cure. But people here talk like HCQ and Ivermectin are cures that will magically make the pandemic go away. I don't buy it. I am 100% libertarian about people being able to ingest whatever substances they want. If people want to take them, by all means take them. If you think the vaccine is scary by all means don't take it.

 

For me a bigger problem than censorship is that so many people believe lies and conspiracies and you have all these all these charlatans who make it their livelihood to spread  distortions of reality.  I've never in my 50 something years on earth felt like our country was so sad and deranged. 

 

Is that dangerous and irresponsible enough for y'all?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Here is a link to a real-time meta analysis of 58 studies using Ivermectin for COVID-19

 

From the conclusion:

 

"Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 58 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 9 trillion (p = 0.00000000000011). As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 78% in the effect measured using random effects meta-analysis (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.39]). 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 95% of the 58 studies reporting positive effects (27 statistically significant in isolation)."

 

The study whose abstract was linked to in post #739 used a 3-day course of Ivermectin for inpatients with "mild to moderate" COVID-19 infection ("mild to moderate" not defined). The MATH+ HOSPITAL TREATMENT PROTOCOL FOR COVID-19 recommended by the FLCCC Alliance calls for a "5 days or until recovered" course of Ivermectin. The FLCCC also suggests additional medications in their protocol.

 

Although "no Ivermectin statistically significant difference in any endpoint doses" were obtained it could be the case that if the study cited in post #739 had used 5 days of Ivermectin treatment instead of 3 days of treatment, endpoint differences might have been identified. In addition, there is evidence that continued Ivermectin treatment of post-acute symptoms of COVID-19 is beneficial--note that this study is from July 2020:

 

"CONCLUSION: The result of the present study demonstrates that clinical improvement is observed in high percentage of patients with Persistent or Post-Acute Symptoms of COVID-19 who are treated with Ivermectin. Given the high number of patients with Persistent Symptoms and a favorable clinical response seen after receiving this specific treatment, we recommend that additional clinical studies be carried out on the use of Ivermectin and other drugs to reduce and eliminate the viral load in these cases."

 

 

geo12the, in post #739 you write:

 

"Ivermectin may have benefit for COVID but it's no cure. But people here talk like HCQ and Ivermectin are cures that will magically make the pandemic go away.".

 

I don't recall any posts in which people "talk like" HCQ and/or Ivermectin are cures that will magically make the pandemic go away. I suspect that you're reading into posts claims that haven't been explicitly made by any posters. Your "talk like" is merely a biased subjective determination, on your part, and doesn't reflect what posters have actually written. If I'm wrong, please provided a link to a post that claims HCQ and/or Ivermectin are cures for COVID-19. Let's talk about what people have actually said, not what we think they have said.