980 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Even if their message leads to the death of people?

 

Joseph Mercola's antivax messaging must have resulted in the death of many people. Hard to estimate how many, but it could be tens, hundreds, it could be thousands of people.

 

If you believe that messaging which causes fatalities should be protected under freedom of speech, what would you do in cases such as the Heaven's Gate religious cult, where their crazy leader convinced his religious followers that they should all commit suicide, after which their souls would be picked up by an alien spacecraft hidden behind a passing comet. 

 

Quite a few Heaven's Gate followers killed themselves because of this messaging. 

 

Would you arrest the leaders of Heaven's Gate because of this, or would you allow them to continue to spread their messaging?

 

 

I always see Mercola as a crazy religious cult leader. If you look at the beginning of the video posted above, Murky-Cola has the crazy eyes of a cult leader. 

 

Even if their message leads to the death of people. I'm that committed to free speech.

 

What's the alternative? The government becomes the sole arbitrator of what is and isn't true and decides what people are allowed to say publicly? Ultimately that is the only other choice.

 

Let me play you a little scenario here:

 

Let's say that a government agency is funding a type of research that is potentially very dangerous. Unfortunately, an accident occurs, there is a leak, and millions of people worldwide die as a result.

 

What are the chances that said government ever lets that information see the light of day? If they get to determine what is true and false, would they not be highly inclined to declare stories that the research they were funding caused the deaths as "misinformation", declare that it could not be disseminated publicly, and the average person would never hear this story?

 

Now surely this is just my fevered imagination run wild and would never occur in the real world ... but it does make you pause to consider the possibilities. Or at least it should.

 

 

Hip - I'll tell you what your problem is and why you have a blind spot in this area. Like a lot of smart people, particularly people with STEM backgrounds, at the end of the day you think the world is perfectible. That you could have some wise council of sages that could sit above it all and make wise and intelligent decisions that would lead to the best possible outcome. It's a very alluring idea.

 

But unfortunately, down here in the real world there are really no wise sages that make selfless decisions with the best interests of the most people in mind. Governments like every other aspect of human life are populated with flawed, often not very bright, error prone people that will put their own interests ahead of everyone else in a heartbeat. Nirvana is not of this world unfortunately.

 

Given that real world, freedom and liberty are really the only arrangements that I am aware of historically that lead to progress long term. But it is frequently a bloody, messy, unsightly process.  I wish things were different but my wishes seem to have little influence over reality.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 14 August 2023 - 06:53 PM.

[Hip]

Even if their message leads to the death of people. I'm that committed to free speech.

 

What's the alternative? The government becomes the sole arbitrator of what is and isn't true and decides what people are allowed to say publicly? Ultimately that is the only other choice.

 

Let me play you a little scenario here:

 

Let's say that a government agency is funding a type of research that is potentially very dangerous. Unfortunately, an accident occurs, there is a leak, and millions of people worldwide die as a result.

 

What are the chances that said government ever lets that information see the light of day? If they get to determine what is true and false, would they not be highly inclined to declare stories that the research they were funding caused the deaths as "misinformation", declare that it could not be disseminated publicly, and the average person would never hear this story?

 

Now surely this is just my fevered imagination run wild and would never occur in the real world ... but it does make you pause to consider the possibilities. Or at least it should.

 

 

Hip - I'll tell you what your problem is and why you have a blind spot in this area. Like a lot of smart people, particularly people with STEM backgrounds, at the end of the day you think the world is perfectible. That you could have some wise council of sages that could sit above it all and make wise and intelligent decisions that would lead to the best possible outcome. It's a very alluring idea.

 

But unfortunately, down here in the real world there are really no wise sages that make selfless decisions with the best interests of the most people in mind. Governments like every other aspect of human life are populated with flawed, often not very bright, error prone people that will put their own interests ahead of everyone else in a heartbeat. Nirvana is not of this world unfortunately.

 

Given that real world, freedom and liberty are really the only arrangements that I am aware of historically that lead to progress long term. But it is frequently a bloody, messy, unsightly process.  I wish things were different but my wishes seem to have little influence over reality.

 

I am in agreement with you about the importance of free speech in terms of its ability to create checks and balances on our institutions. 

 

Indeed, one of the things that concerns me these days is the liberal takeover of our universities and much of the media, which means that it can be a struggle to get a platform for ideas and opinions contrary to the liberal orthodoxy. I am not anti-liberal, in fact I am more liberal than anything else, but I don't think the stranglehold of liberalism in our universities is good for creating a freethinking society. 

 

So free speech is important.

 

 

However, we are in danger of polluting the so-called noosphere (the sphere of human thought, ideas and communication) with so much misinformation, fake news and garbage that people no longer know what to believe. What is the value of free speech if the important information you broadcast is lost or drowned out in a jungle of lies and misinformation? 

 

The Internet has allowed any Tom, Dick or Harry to publish their ideas, irrespective of whether they are truthful or just fanciful fabrications. Unfortunately the present financial structure of the web is such that it does not promote truth, but rather encourages sensationalist clickbait. So people make more money online by serving up sensationalist fabrications that spread virally than they do by publishing down-to-Earth fact-checked truth.

 

You are concerned about the dangers to society resulting from of loss of free speech (and I don't disagree with you), whereas I see the dangers of creating a noosphere where sensationalist fabrications and conspiracy theories dominate over truth. Online, sensationalism dominates via viral spread, which makes money for its creator. It's these financial structural dysfunctions of the Internet which are to blame.

 

Increasingly we see people who have lost faith in authoritative sources, but fully subscribe to Tom, Dick or Harry's sensationalist fabrications. 

 

I am sure in the long run these things will be sorted out. But at present the Internet remains the untamed Wild West.

Edited by Hip, 14 August 2023 - 07:37 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

However, we are in danger of polluting the so-called noosphere (the sphere of human thought, ideas and communication) with so much misinformation, fake news and garbage that people no longer know what to believe. What is the value of free speech if the important information you broadcast is lost or drowned out in a jungle of lies and misinformation? 

 

The Internet has allowed any Tom, Dick or Harry to publish their ideas, irrespective of whether they are truthful or just fanciful fabrications. Unfortunately the present financial structure of the web is such that it does not promote truth, but rather encourages sensationalist clickbait. So people make more money online by serving up sensationalist fabrications that spread virally than they do by publishing down-to-Earth fact-checked truth.

 

You are concerned about the dangers to society resulting from of loss of free speech (and I don't disagree with you), whereas I see the dangers of creating a noosphere where sensationalist fabrications and conspiracy theories dominate over truth. Online, sensationalism dominates via viral spread, which makes money for its creator. It's these financial structural dysfunctions of the Internet which are to blame.

 

Increasingly we see people who have lost faith in authoritative sources, but fully subscribe to Tom, Dick or Harry's sensationalist fabrications. 

 

I am sure in the long run these things will be sorted out. But at present the Internet remains the untamed Wild West.

 

So what I'm hearing is that you are concerned that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can get their ideas heard by a wide audience even though they lack the proper credentials, which will result in the pollution of the "noosphere" (or what other have called the "arena of ideas").  

 

Well, for one thing - the noosphere has been polluted from day one. So many ideas - geocentrism, phrenology, unbalanced humors causing disease, the list goes on. All incidentally proposed by men of impeccable credentials of their respective eras. All pollution by your definition.

 

So what to do about having Tom, Dick, and Harry's icky ideas being heard out in public? Well, you're going to need some sort of gatekeeper to the modern public square which is to say access to the internet.

 

Is there any other agency that will invariably end up taking that gatekeep role than the government? Ah, but I hear you say - the social media platforms can gatekeep themselves! Except we tried that already. And almost every major social media platform ended up essentially acting as deputies of the government. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, (pre-Musk) Twitter, et. al. To the extent that most ended up with government employees actually on site giving the thumbs up/down on content and further ranks of government bureaucrats that ended up having nothing less than admin privileges on these platforms from their government offices. 

 

So, your gatekeeper will invariably end up being the government.

 

And how about the quality of their gatekeeping? Well, in the pandemic we saw a great tendency to remove content not because it was technically inaccurate or incorrect, but because it conflicted with the official narrative or it was promoted by people who were currently politically disfavored.  

 

Remember when you couldn't even whisper that the virus might have come out of that Wuhan lab? Uttering such Wrongthink could get you removed from every major social media platform on the Internet. Simultaneously from all of them in fact.

 

Then suddenly six months after the election what was not allowed is allowed, even though no facts on the ground had changed. The only conclusion I can come to is this decision was made on a political rather than scientific basis. 

 

No, at the end of the day you'll either have free speech or not. There really isn't anything in between.

 

Either Tom, Dick, or Harry get to say their piece, or you put the truth in the hands of the political and bureaucratic class.

 

What can I say. It's an imperfect world we live in. We're mostly just faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. But between a society that values individual liberty and what will naturally evolve to be some sort of authoritarian regime (naturally run for your best interests of course), I know where I come down.

 

As far as people "who have lost faith in authoritative sources, but fully subscribe to Tom, Dick or Harry's sensationalist fabrications", the official sources have no one to blame but themselves. When they were telling each other one thing, but telling the public something completely different, and changing their stories to meet their perceived immediate requirements, of course people are going to quit listening to them. People are not quite as stupid as you imagine them. Most people can sense when they're being lied to, even if they can't quite pin down what the lie is. Fauci, Collins, Brix. etc. They burned down their own credibility. You don't get to lie to people but later insist you be believed. Credibility isn't something you get to switch on and off like a light switch.

 

All of the prevarications and half truths - that was the fertilizer for the ground that the conspiracies grew in. To this day Fauci still claims that what Wuhan was doing was not "gain of function" research and that his NIAID certainly wasn't funding it.

 

Liar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 15 August 2023 - 08:08 PM.

[Hip]

Is there any other agency that will invariably end up taking that gatekeep role than the government? Ah, but I hear you say - the social media platforms can gatekeep themselves! Except we tried that already. And almost every major social media platform ended up essentially acting as deputies of the government. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, (pre-Musk) Twitter, et. al. To the extent that most ended up with government employees actually on site giving the thumbs up/down on content and further ranks of government bureaucrats that ended up having nothing less than admin privileges on these platforms from their government offices. 
 
So, your gatekeeper will invariably end up being the government.

In times of war — and a pandemic is like a war — all media tend to become a mouthpiece for the government, as part of a concerted war effort. Absolutely nothing unusual about that. 

 

So you example of the pandemic is not a very good one, because it is an unusual circumstance akin to a wartime situation. 

 

 

Well, in the pandemic we saw a great tendency to remove content not because it was technically inaccurate or incorrect, but because it conflicted with the official narrative or it was promoted by people who were currently politically disfavored. 

I am fully in agreement with that approach. 

 

The way to totally paralyse a nation's decision making process and to paralyse any call to action is to allow everyone to voice their contradictory opinions, so that in the end, everyone is in disagreement about what course of action to take, and nothing actually gets done. The government just sits there in a paralysed state not being able to do anything. 

 

Your approach of allowing all voices and opinions to be publicly discussed would have led to total paralysis of the chain of command, and thus a collapse of all courses of action.

 

Do you know what happens in the military (an institution where a functioning chain of command is viral)? Subordinates are allowed to voice their opinions and misgivings to their commanding officers, and these commanders will listen. But once the commander makes a decision, all subordinates have to obey that decision, irrespective of whether they agree with it or not. That's how military discipline works. 

 

If it were any other way, the military chain of command would become paralysed, and that military force would be destroyed by their enemy.

 

 

I am sure that different ideas were presented in private to our scientific and political leaders during the pandemic, and they listened to these different ideas fro different experts. But once our commanders make a decision on the course of action they wanted to take, that's when everyone needs to toe the line. Otherwise you would have a breakdown of governance, or even mutiny, if people rebel from the commander. 

 

We vote in our leaders to make decisions on our behalf, and that's exactly what they did in the pandemic. 

 

 

As far as people "who have lost faith in authoritative sources, but fully subscribe to Tom, Dick or Harry's sensationalist fabrications", the official sources have no one to blame but themselves. When they were telling each other one thing, but telling the public something completely different, and changing their stories to meet their perceived immediate requirements, of course people are going to quit listening to them. People are not quite as stupid as you imagine them. Most people can sense when they're being lied to, even if they can't quite pin down what the lie is. Fauci, Collins, Brix. etc. They burned down their own credibility. You don't get to lie to people but later insist you be believed. Credibility isn't something you get to switch on and off like a light switch.

 

People here keep claiming that official government sources told lies during the pandemic, but nobody has been able to give me any actual examples of these lies. 

 

By a lie, I don't mean a scientific statement which was made at one time, and then science later changed its mind. Science is always evolving towards the truth, so statements made earlier can be contradicted later in the light of new knowledge. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 15 August 2023 - 08:44 PM.

[Mind]

Show me one instance where Dr. Mercola lied. A lie is an INTENTIONAL misstatement.

 

Unlike Dr. Mercola, the FDA, Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and a whole host of other officials and national media figures DID brazenly lie to the public. The CDC even publicly admitted to lying about tracking vaccine safety.

 

After seeing the COVID panic and the unnecessary carnage unleashed by our public health officials, I would much rather follow the advice of Dr. Mercola. He is over 70 and can leg press over 600 pounds. He sells high quality organic supplements grown on natural regenerative farms. Unlike the FDA and CDC, he helps people stay healthy.

 

Unlike the US/UK "health" bureaucrats, Dr. Mercola doesn't really stand to gain anything from critically evaluating the COVID injections and vaccines in general. Usually, financial gain is considered a source of bias and unethical in academia and government. Not so during the COVID debacle. Hospitals were heavily financially incentivized to label everything under the sun as COVID, put people on ventilators, and stick with certain toxic treatments. Even funeral homes were incentivized to label everything as COVID - $10,000 per funeral. Health officials in the US government were paid mRNA technology royalties. Bill Gates invested in the technology as well, told everyone to get the COVID injection, then cashed out, then told everyone the injections don't work, lol.

[Mind]

The fear-mongering from national media outlets continues - trying to scare everyone into locking down, isolating, and wearing masks again. They got billions of dollars from governments and huge pharma companies during the last COVID panic - why wouldn't they try the irrational fear campaign again.

 

Time to wear masks again!

More masks, more masks, more masks!

Warning new variants might be super scary!

Here comes the real deal - a really bad COVID variant!!

Edited by Mind, 18 August 2023 - 05:21 PM.

[Hip]

Show me one instance where Dr. Mercola lied. A lie is an INTENTIONAL misstatement.

 

Mercola removed all his COVID material from the Internet, so it would now be hard to find the falsehoods he has propagated, unless some has an archived copy. He tried to use the pandemic to sell more of his supplements and expand his business.

 

The threat of a social media ban tames a leading anti-vaccine influencer 

 

 

 

[Mind]

Mercola removed all his COVID material from the Internet, so it would now be hard to find the falsehoods he has propagated, unless some has an archived copy. He tried to use the pandemic to sell more of his supplements and expand his business.

 

The threat of a social media ban tames a leading anti-vaccine influencer 

 

Then you should clarify your statement about him lying. If you have no evidence, then you should say something like "he is misinformed", "he isn't looking at the correct (government-approved) research", "he unwittingly spread questionable reports about the COVID panic", etc...

[Hip]

Then you should clarify your statement about him lying. If you have no evidence, then you should say something like "he is misinformed", "he isn't looking at the correct (government-approved) research", "he unwittingly spread questionable reports about the COVID panic", etc...

 

I found a webpage which details Mercola's lies about COVID and other health matters. 

 

You might argue that these false or misleading claims by mercola are not lies, they are just unintentional errors on his part. 

 

However, I would reject that, as Mercola presents himself as a health specialist, and health is his well-paid business (his net worth is more than $100 million). Therefore he is not like an ordinary layperson who might make an honest mistake; he is considered an expert and read by a lot of people, and there is no excuse for these errors. 

Edited by Hip, 21 August 2023 - 08:46 PM.

[Hip]

For me, a real healer and a real physician is someone who does not cast aspersions on other modes of healing.

 

If I go to my doctor, and tell him that I found a herb or supplement useful for treating a certain symptom, he usually says "I don't know much about that, but it's interesting". If I tell him I have obtained benefit from a herb, my doctor does not start a tirade against herbal medicine. On the contrary, in my doctor's surgery, the doctors will sometimes suggest to patients to go to visit a local naturopath if the doctors cannot offer anything useful for treating their patients' ailments. That is called respect for other modes of healing.

 

Joseph Mercola on the other hand has no respect for other modes of healing, he only promotes the supplements he sells.

 

Mercola does not say: "the COVID vaccines offer great protection from COVID death; but you might also like to consider taking vitamin D, which potentially may offer further protection". If Mercola said that, I would consider him to be an authentic healer.

 

But no, Mercola just criticises other modes of healing, bad-mouthing the COVID vaccines. He says nothing good whatsoever about the vaccines.

 

Thus to me Mercola is no healer. He is just a rich and wily businessman who knows how to sell his own products by casting aspersions on the therapies of other systems of health.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 02:52 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #640

 

Hip wrote:

 

"For me, a real healer and a real physician is someone who does not cast aspersions on other modes of healing."

 

"If I tell him I have obtained benefit from a herb, my doctor does not start a tirade against herbal medicine."

 

"On the contrary, in my doctor's surgery, the doctors will sometimes suggest to patients to go to visit a local naturopath if the doctors cannot offer anything useful for treating their patients' ailments. That is called respect for other modes of healing."  (my emphasis)

 

Wow!  Your doctor must be Dr. Fauci who said to you, when you asked about ivermectin:

 

“Don’t do it; there’s no evidence whatsoever that it works and it could potentially have toxicity… with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick,” he said. “There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”

 

​Now, to be fair, he did say that if you take a ridiculous amount you could wind up getting sick.

 

And, as is well known, respect for other modes of healing is the one-way street on which Fauci, et al., drives (when he isn't tergiversating back and forth, that is).

 

That man Fauci has an open mind!  (Fauci is sitting behind the desk)

 

 

 

"But no, Mercola just criticises other modes of healing, bad-mouthing the COVID vaccines. He says nothing good whatsoever about the vaccines."

 

Incidentally, there is no moral or legal requirement that mandates that one has to say anything good about something that they stand in opposition to. In fact, to do so, in certain cases, would probably indicate that an element characteristic of schizophrenia has raised its ugly head (i.e. possible disorganized thinking).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 22 August 2023 - 04:35 AM.

[Hip]

Advocatus Diaboli, you don't seem to understand how modern scientific evidence-based medicine works. Let me enlighten you: the clue is in the name: evidence-based. Scientific medicine will always make statements based on the evidence (a practice otherwise known as being rational). 

 

Thus Dr Fauci was following the rules and requirements of his scientific profession when he said that there is no evidence that ivermectin can help with COVID. That was a correct statement for the time. Now things have changed, and there is good evidence ivermectin may help.

 

I am surprised that you do not know this, and that I have to spell it out for you. I would have thought that this would be knowledge about the wider world that you would have. (Actually, I am not really surprised: the more time I spend online, the more I realise that people are often clueless about the nature of the world they live in, and have to be spoon feed with the facts).

 

It is the solemn duty of those who work in modern scientific evidence-based medicine to remain evidenced-based.

 

If you don't like evidence-based medicine, and prefer speculation-based medicine, then by all means go to a naturopath or functional medicine doctor, who will often just try out herbs, supplement or drugs speculatively, to see if any might help. Nothing wrong with either approach; it depends on what you are looking for.

 

But do try to understand the difference between these two schools, and try to understand why physicians from each school act in the way they do. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 04:38 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Sorry, Hip, show me where in your post that I was responding to (#640) that you mention "evidence-based medicine". 

 

When you find the mention, get back to me and I'll address your other nonsense.

[Hip]

Sorry, Hip, show me where in your post that I was responding to (#640) that you mention "evidence-based medicine". 

 

I didn't. I was merely educating you about evidence-based medicine, as your post demonstrated that you seem clueless about this concept. Someone who is oblivious to the concept will never understand why Dr Fauci said the things he did. 

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 04:48 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #644

 

Hip writes:

 

"I was merely educating you about evidence-based medicine, as your post demonstrated that you seem clueless about this concept. Someone who is oblivious to the concept will never understand why Dr Fauci said the things he did."

 

Right, I guess I'm clueless about "Level IV evidence" of evidence-based medicine.:

 

"Level IV: expert opinions from respected authorities on the subject based on their clinical experience."

 

See respected authorities link below.

 

Hip continues with information gained from his most trusted source:

 

"Thus Dr Fauci was following the rules and requirements of his scientific profession when he said that there is no evidence that ivermectin can help with COVID. That was a correct statement for the time." (my emphasis)

 

Wrong.

 

August 29, 2021  Fauci says "Don't do it". Evidence was available before that date (Avail. on April 22, 2021 in the below link. And, the studies cited in that link, are even earlier dated, obviously) and that evidence indicates that it was known that ivermectin had benefits:

 

Respected authorities are to be found in the references of: "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19"

 

 

FDA Walkback

 

 

You are, without a doubt, a Fox reporter.

 

 

 

KIAMATSIYWBNTPWCTEGK

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 22 August 2023 - 06:18 AM.

[Hip]

Advocatus Diaboli: when one is wrong, it is good form to gracefully admit it. The fact that you do not appear to know how evidence-based medicine works is obvious, and the only recourse is to start to learn how EBM functions.

 

Evidence-based medicine is the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the medical care of patients. If you look at any of Dr Fauci's statements, you will see that they operate by this principle. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 02:48 PM.

[Mind]

I found a webpage which details Mercola's lies about COVID and other health matters. 

 

You might argue that these false or misleading claims by mercola are not lies, they are just unintentional errors on his part. 

 

However, I would reject that, as Mercola presents himself as a health specialist, and health is his well-paid business (his net worth is more than $100 million). Therefore he is not like an ordinary layperson who might make an honest mistake; he is considered an expert and read by a lot of people, and there is no excuse for these errors. 

 

Is that webpage a joke? Maybe a satirical site?

 

Even the EPA has confirmed that fluoridated water is highly correlated with lower IQ.

 

Voluminous research through the course of DECADES has found that higher vitamin D levels correlate with a healthier immune system and better COVID outcomes. Many people in this forum have posted the peer-reviewed research. Have you even read any of it.

 

Even the NYT recently admitted that COVID cases/deaths were wildly recently overcounted in the US. Coroners in multiple states confirm this analysis. The episodes of public "health" officials and hospitals counting suicides, murders, car accidents, heart attacks, any and every respiratory illness, etc... as a COVID death are too numerous to list.

 

I could go on.

 

You keep relying on data from CDC - who has admitted to lying to the public. They have been hiding data from the public as well. This is not good. They should not be trusted.

[Florin]

Evidence-based medicine is the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the medical care of patients. If you look at any of Dr Fauci's statements, you will see that they operate by this principle. 

 

Fauci and most public health officials didn't operate on the latest evidence-based medicine. They ignored the evidence for aerosol transmission and refused to endorse effective counter-measures such as the use of respirators by the public. People like Fauci are more dangerous than Mercola will ever be.

Edited by Florin, 22 August 2023 - 06:26 PM.

[Hip]

Even the EPA has confirmed that fluoridated water is highly correlated with lower IQ.

 
That is just a single study, and as we know, you can only get a perspective when you review the results of multiple studies. 

 
This article which reviews numerous studies on water fluoridation and IQ concludes that:

The bottom line is that high doses of fluoride can be toxic, but the recommended concentration (0.7 mg/L) used in community water fluoridation is not harmful or toxic. Public water fluoridation is not going to decrease your children’s IQs.

 
But I think that the best way to prevent dental decay is to ban all sugar in drinks, foods, and confectionaries, and replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. Sugar causes the bacteria on your teeth to excrete acids, and it is those acids that burn holes in your teeth. Take away the sugar, and you remove the corrosive acids.

 
 

Voluminous research through the course of DECADES has found that higher vitamin D levels correlate with a healthier immune system and better COVID outcomes. Many people in this forum have posted the peer-reviewed research. Have you even read any of it.

 
Mercola claimed vitamin D is more effective than the flu vaccine. There is no evidence to support that. 
 
If you make statements for which there is no evidence, that is equivalent to lying. 


 

Even the NYT recently admitted that COVID cases/deaths were wildly recently overcounted in the US. Coroners in multiple states confirm this analysis. The episodes of public "health" officials and hospitals counting suicides, murders, car accidents, heart attacks, any and every respiratory illness, etc... as a COVID death are too numerous to list.

 

Excess death data indicates that COVID deaths have been greatly under reported: excess death data suggests there are 50% more COVID deaths than the official reports.

 

 

I could go on.

 

I could go on refuting!

 

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 07:38 PM.

[Hip]

Fauci and most public health officials didn't operate on the latest evidence-based medicine. They ignored the evidence for aerosol transmission and refused to endorse effective counter-measures such as the use of respirators by the public. People like Fauci are more dangerous than Mercola will ever be.

 

I agree that in the early pandemic, the little white lies that officials told (in the UK too) about masks not being effective to protect the general public were not a good idea. I think they told these lies in order to safeguard the supplies of masks for frontline health workers in COVID wards; which is a good reason, but in scientific circles it's never a good idea to lie.

Edited by Hip, 22 August 2023 - 07:38 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In post #650, Miss Manners wrote:

 

"...but in scientific circles it's never a good idea to lie."

 

Thank you, Miss Manners!

 

But, as the Spanish visitors to Rapa Nui are want to say, you are: "el rongorongo" (which appears to be a pallilogy, when parsed as "rongo rongo", for which English speakers translate as "wrong, wrong" with the additional descriptor "you dunderhead" being understood).

 

It is well known in the scientific circle of theoretical physicists that Lie algebras and Lie groups provide the mathematical backbone for working with symmetries.  So, your above assertion flat-out contradicts all the progress made gaining a greater understanding of symmetry since the time of Lie. 

 

 

Post #642:

 

"Thus Dr Fauci was following the rules and requirements of his scientific profession when he said that there is no evidence that ivermectin can help with COVID. That was a correct statement for the time."

 

That is el rongorongo. (Don't forget the understood part of the phrase.)

 

Post #646:

 

"...when one is wrong, it is good form to gracefully admit it."

 

We await your mea culpa.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 22 August 2023 - 10:56 PM.

[Florin]

I agree that in the early pandemic, the little white lies that officials told (in the UK too) about masks not being effective to protect the general public were not a good idea. I think they told these lies in order to safeguard the supplies of masks for frontline health workers in COVID wards; which is a good reason, but in scientific circles it's never a good idea to lie.

 
2021 wasn't early in the pandemic.
 
The white lie excuse is nonsense. The only reason health workers were wearing respirators was to protect themselves against aerosolizing procedures such as intubation. As I mentioned before, most experts didn't think aerosol transmission (outside of a hospital setting) was a thing even as evidence for this kind of transmission was piling up. So, when the respirator supply wasn't so constrained in 2021, Fauci and co. still didn't recommend them. Even today, the WHO doesn't mention respirators at all. The CDC (finally) mentions respirators (but not elastomerics) but also mentions ineffective cloth and surgical masks. Public health officials claim to follow evidence-based medicine, but they often don't. From what I can tell, the white lie excuse was just an attempt to cover up gross incompetence.

 

https://www.cnn.com/...all-sot-vpx.cnn
https://www.who.int/...ow-to-use-masks

https://www.cdc.gov/...-coverings.html

Edited by Florin, 23 August 2023 - 04:07 AM.

[Hip]

The white lie excuse is nonsense.

 

 

It was not an excuse used by anyone. To my knowledge, no health authorities claimed that they lied about the efficacy of masks in order to protect the supply of masks for frontline workers. 

 

It is my assertion that they told this white lie to protect the supply of masks. 

Edited by Hip, 23 August 2023 - 04:11 AM.

[joesixpack]

It was not an excuse used by anyone. To my knowledge, no health authorities claimed that they lied about the efficacy of masks in order to protect the supply of masks for frontline workers. 

 

It is my assertion that they told this white lie to protect the supply of masks. 

 

So, you just made it up?

[Florin]

It is my assertion that they told this white lie to protect the supply of masks. 

 

So, why weren't respirators recommended when there was no supply shortage?

[Hip]

So, you just made it up?

 

No, I used my intelligence and reasoning powers to arrive at that conclusion. Yes I know those are faculties are often in short supply. 

Edited by Hip, 23 August 2023 - 04:14 PM.

[Hip]

So, why weren't respirators recommended when there was no supply shortage?

 

There was a shortage of surgical masks and respirator masks.

 

Except in Taiwan, whose intelligence and organisation during the pandemic far outstrips that of the West. At the first hint of a pandemic, Taiwan opened up dozens of new factory production lines to make masks, so that there were enough masks for everyone, even at the beginning of the pandemic. 

Edited by Hip, 23 August 2023 - 04:10 PM.

[Mind]

 
That is just a single study, and as we know, you can only get a perspective when you review the results of multiple studies. 

 
This article which reviews numerous studies on water fluoridation and IQ concludes that:

 
But I think that the best way to prevent dental decay is to ban all sugar in drinks, foods, and confectionaries, and replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. Sugar causes the bacteria on your teeth to excrete acids, and it is those acids that burn holes in your teeth. Take away the sugar, and you remove the corrosive acids.

 
 

 
Mercola claimed vitamin D is more effective than the flu vaccine. There is no evidence to support that. 
 
If you make statements for which there is no evidence, that is equivalent to lying. 


 

 

Excess death data indicates that COVID deaths have been greatly under reported: excess death data suggests there are 50% more COVID deaths than the official reports.

 

 

 

I could go on refuting!

 

You can keep on lying about Dr. Mercola. I can't stop you. The fact is that he has peer-reviewed data, expert opinion, and studies behind all the of the statements he makes. You can say the EPA study is stupid. You can say the admitted liars at the CDC are now truthful and we should believe everything they say 100%, but that does not change the fact that there is real research behind every position Dr. Mercola takes.

[Florin]

There was a shortage of surgical masks and respirator masks.

 

Except in Taiwan, whose intelligence and organisation during the pandemic far outstrips that of the West. At the first hint of a pandemic, Taiwan opened up dozens of new factory production lines to make masks, so that there were enough masks for everyone, even at the beginning of the pandemic. 

 

Again, there was no respirator shortage in 2021 (probably late 2020 too) and later. Yet, Fauci and the CDC didn't recommend them and the WHO doesn't even today. Obviously, Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, and a bunch of other health officials don't always follow evidence-based medicine or even simple logic.

 

When people like Fauci tell you that you don't need respirators, there's no reason to manufacture them.

[Hip]

Again, there was no respirator shortage in 2021 (probably late 2020 too) and later. Yet, Fauci and the CDC didn't recommend them and the WHO doesn't even today. Obviously, Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, and a bunch of other health officials don't always follow evidence-based medicine or even simple logic.

 

When people like Fauci tell you that you don't need respirators, there's no reason to manufacture them.

 

Well first of all, a respirator shortage might have ensued if everyone in the US suddenly went online to buy them. Most people were buying surgical masks, which are easier to manufacture, and about 50 times cheaper than respirators. So demand for respirators was low. But if demand rocketed, there might have been a shortage.

 

Secondly, respirators are far less comfortable to wear on an all-day basis than surgical masks. Have you tried to wear a respirator for even a couple of hours? It gets rather claustrophobic and irritating after a few hours. So perhaps it was a calculated policy to suggest the public wear surgical masks rather than respirators, on the assumption that the public might accept surgical masks for all day use, but would not accept respirators.