1504 replies to this topic

[DanCG]

 
I would suggest using your own judgement on this matter, rather that relying on quotes from random individuals online.
 
Presumably you are familiar with the left or right political leanings of a wide range of newspapers, TV channels, and other news and information sources.

 

Presumably you are familiar with which websites constantly serve up conspiracy theories, and which websites constantly post pseudoscience.

 

Thus all you have to do it take any media source you are familiar with, and check it against Media Bias/Fact Check, and see if their rating of the source matches you own understanding. I've found Media Bias/Fact Check always align with my own judgement of a media source.

 

So,

1. The person who wrote “what I register from this team is that they have zero experience to suggest their opinions are any more accurate than my own when it comes to judging the veracity of news sites. In fact given I could produce 10–15 years of writing editorials in various places about the news, I find myself more qualified.” needs to be told that they should use their own judgment.

 

2. The Poynter Institute and the Columbia Journalism Review are just “random individuals online”

 

3. A good way to evaluate a self-appointed “fact checker” is based on whether they confirm your own biases.

 

Wow!

[Hip]

A good way to evaluate a self-appointed “fact checker” is based on whether they confirm your own biases.

 

Well, if you can find any websites which are fact checker-checkers, then you always run Media Bias/Fact Check through that fact checker website-checker.

 

But last time I checked, there were no fact checker-checkers available!

 

So my own judgement, and yours too (provided you are sane, intelligent and not politically biased) may be just as good as the judgement of the Poynter Institute.

 

In fact, the Poynter Institute appear rather biased, as they are a left wing organization, who run their own politically partisan fact checker:

 

"Poynter operates the controversial left-of-center PolitiFact fact-checking organization, which was launched by its subsidiary St. Petersburg Times in 2007.

 

Critics have argued that Politifact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and Democrats and hostile to conservatives and Republicans."

 

Source: Influence Watch.

 

Thus the Poynter Institute's views on Media Bias/Fact Check may be merely cheap political point scoring.

Edited by Hip, 09 January 2022 - 08:14 PM.

[DanCG]

Well, if you can find any websites which are fact checker-checkers, then you always run Media Bias/Fact Check through that fact checker website-checker.

 

But last time I checked, there were no fact checker-checkers available!

 

So my own judgement, and yours too (provided you are sane, intelligent and not politically biased) may be just as good as the judgement of the Poynter Institute.

 

In fact, the Poynter Institute appear rather biased, as they are a left wing organization, who run their own politically partisan fact checker:

 

"Poynter operates the controversial left-of-center PolitiFact fact-checking organization, which was launched by its subsidiary St. Petersburg Times in 2007.

 

Critics have argued that Politifact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and Democrats and hostile to conservatives and Republicans."

 

Source: Influence Watch.

 

Thus the Poynter Institute's views on Media Bias/Fact Check may be merely cheap political point scoring.

The fact that the Poynter Institute's views on Media Bias/Fact Check may be merely cheap political point scoring underscores the point I was trying to make.

We could have an infinite regress of fact checkers checking fact checkers who check fact checkers. At some point each of us should ask, “who are these people, and why should I be persuaded by them?” I became suspicious of Media Bias/Fact Check simply because of the simplistic and bombastic charge of “100% quackery”. Then I became more suspicious when I read the summary in post 1226. Whatever Mercola has been wrong about in the past, here he is mostly quoting doctors who raised substantive questions which, right or wrong, cannot be dismissed with a blanket charge of quackery. So I find it very credible that Media Bias/Fact Check is mainly the opinion of one person with dubious qualifications along with “and some ‘writers’ and ‘researchers’ which include a retired accountant and insurance saleswoman, someone with a degree in politics from Ireland, a pleasant seeming chap named Ken, married, who hates nazis…and another man who is studying psychology.”

I recognize that this does not mean that Media Bias/Fact Check is necessarily wrong in their general assessment of Mercola. Likewise, Mercola is not necessarily wrong when he promotes a video that he did not write, but only endorses. Do we need to review the genetic fallacy again?

 

You, in contrast, are willing to accept Media Bias/Fact Check without question, and recommend that we all do the same.

[Hip]

The fact that the Poynter Institute's views on Media Bias/Fact Check may be merely cheap political point scoring underscores the point I was trying to make.

We could have an infinite regress of fact checkers checking fact checkers who check fact checkers. At some point each of us should ask, “who are these people, and why should I be persuaded by them?” 

 

You are now seem to be saying roughly what I said at the beginning of this discussion on Media Bias/Fact Check. I said we should use our own judgement as to whether Media Bias/Fact Check are providing accurate results. 

 

I mentioned earlier that I have found their views on any media source almost always coincide with my views. My views have been cultivated over many decades of reading many different newspapers and magazine, and viewing many different TV channels. 

 

I don't care too much who Media Bias/Fact Check is run by, provided they are not sneakily trying to score political points, as the Poynter Institute are doing. What is more important is that Media Bias/Fact Check coincides from my long cultivated understanding of the biases and allegiances of various media outlets. Since it does coincide, I am impressed, and that validates their methodology as good as anything we can muster. As you say, we cannot have in infinite regress of fact checker, so we have to make our own judgement.

 

 

 

Anyway, I just thought it would be fun to see which posters on this thread would be categorized as as posters of quack or pseudoscientific material, and posters of conspiracy theory. It would be an interesting exercise. I already know the answer, because have seen with my own eyes who on these COVID threads has been posting quackery and conspiracy theory. But it would nevertheless be interesting to quantify this, and measure who comes up high on the quack-ometer, using the Media Bias/Fact Check database.

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 01:46 AM.

[Hip]

Whatever Mercola has been wrong about in the past, here he is mostly quoting doctors who raised substantive questions which, right or wrong, cannot be dismissed with a blanket charge of quackery.  

 

I have mentioned many times before that Mercola is a part time quack. Some of his articles are accurate and useful. Many others enter into quackery territory. Only someone very well versed in medical science can work out which articles are quackery and which are accurate.

 

Therefore, Mercola's site is dangerous to the general public, because they will not know whether what they are reading is factual or a quackfest. Thus we have to assume anything and everything on his site could be quackery. Thus I think Media Bias/Fact Check is right to label Mercola's site as quackery.

 

 

Pity that Media Bias/Fact Check do not have a category for genocidal murder level. Because Mercola would come up high on the genocide scale, with his massive support for antivax movements which have led to the death of millions during this pandemic. Mercola donates $millions to promote antivax propaganda.

 

If there were a genocide hall of fame, naturally we'd have Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot at the top. But Mercola would come up at respectable position in the genocide hall of fame.

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 02:01 AM.

[DanCG]

[Edited for reference]

 

[1] You are now seem to be saying roughly what I said at the beginning of this discussion on Media Bias/Fact Check. I said we should use our own judgement as to whether Media Bias/Fact Check are providing accurate results. 

 

 

 

[2] Anyway, I just thought it would be fun to see which posters on this thread would be categorized as as posters of quack or pseudoscientific material, and posters of conspiracy theory. It would be an interesting exercise. I already know the answer, because have seen with my own eyes who on these COVID threads has been posting quackery and conspiracy theory. But it would nevertheless be interesting to quantify this, and measure who comes up high on the quack-ometer, using the Media Bias/Fact Check database.

[1] Yes, I am agreeing when you say that we should each use our own judgment. Part of forming a judgment can include considering the judgments of others who have thought about the same question, which is exactly what lancbr did in post 1227. In fact, you were using someone else’s opinion to inform your own opinion when you brought up Media Bias/Fact Check in the first place.

Every allegation of fact has to be examined on its own merits. Post 1227 was convincing not because the sources are more reliable than Media Bias/Fact Check but because of the facts that were brought to light. The fact that the writers at Media Bias/Fact Check are not qualified to judge the veracity of news related to science or medicine is quite damning in my eyes.

 

[2] This sounds like a high-minded ideal, but in practice it would only sow more division and distrust. I, for one, have seen enough that I would not accept the Media Bias/Fact Check database as a reliable measure of what is or is not quackery. I would not accept Dr. Mercola, or Dr. Fauci, or anyone else you can name as the sole arbiter. It is not possible to find a single source of information that would be acceptable to everyone.

By way, the genetic fallacy does not say that the reliability of a source should never be considered, it only says that this cannot be the only consideration in lieu of examining the underlying facts. Your proposal would steer us away from the underlying facts and elevate the source as the most important consideration.

Edited by DanCG, 10 January 2022 - 03:27 AM.

[Hip]

I just noticed that Media Bias/Fact Check have some neat Chrome and Firefox extensions which automatically indicate the veracity (or lack thereof) and political bias of the news website you are currently reading. 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I just noticed that Media Bias/Fact Check have some neat Chrome and Firefox extensions which automatically indicate the veracity (or lack thereof) and political bias of the news website you are currently reading. 

 

 

Don't you think it's something of a bad idea to outsource your critical thinking to a group of people that you know precious little about?

 

It is at the least a single point failure.

[Daniel Cooper]

Pity that Media Bias/Fact Check do not have a category for genocidal murder level. Because Mercola would come up high on the genocide scale, with his massive support for antivax movements which have led to the death of millions during this pandemic. Mercola donates $millions to promote antivax propaganda.

If there were a genocide hall of fame, naturally we'd have Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot at the top. But Mercola would come up at respectable position in the genocide hall of fame.

 
I suppose that there's been plenty of hyperbolic language to go around on all sides, but I think this reaches new heights. One can't simply disagree with someone these days. Have a difference of opinion. Believe that the other party is in error. No, your opponent must be guilty of "genocide". Because someone that has a different opinion can't merely be wrong, they must be evil. Why, obviously the only moral thing to do is to shut down the speech of such a person and put them in the dock.
 
No wonder the world is in such turmoil.
 
I'm no Mercola fan and consider him to be in my opinion not a reliable source of information for much of anything. But I think you overestimate the man's reach if you think he contributed to a substantial portion of the 5.5M currently recorded covid deaths, i.e. "millions".

And words do have meanings. Exactly which ethnic group does Mercola have it in for?

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 January 2022 - 01:33 PM.

[Hip]

Don't you think it's something of a bad idea to outsource your critical thinking to a group of people that you know precious little about?

 

It is at the least a single point failure.

 

The main use I make of Media Bias/Fact Check is showing other people who have poor judgement that their favorite website is in fact a conspiracy theory rag, or a medical quackfest.

 

I can then say, not only do I think your sources are quack sources, but Media Bias/Fact Check think so also. So then it strengthens the argument.

 

For example, I think Natural News is quackfest and high on conspiracy theory too, thanks to the poor but subclinical mental health of its founder Mike Adams.

 

And Media Bias/Fact Check say the same thing.  

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 04:42 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The main use I make of Media Bias/Fact Check is showing other people who have poor judgement that their favorite website is in fact a conspiracy theory rag, or a medical quackfest.
 
I can then say, not only do I think your sources are quack sources, but Media Bias/Fact Check think so also. So then it strengthens the argument.
 
For example, I think Natural News is quackfest and high on conspiracy theory too, thanks to the poor but subclinical mental health of its founder Mike Adams.
 
And Media Bias/Fact Check say the same thing.

 
But you assume that Media Bias/Fact Check is correct. If you want to make the case that someone else's website/source is wrong, you need to make the case yourself.
 
Otherwise you're simply making an appeal to authority.  And a most curious appeal to authority at that, for this site's authority is simply that they have declared themselves an "arbiter of truth". They don't actually have any authority beyond their own declaration and even if they did you have committed a logical fallacy.

 

Make the case for someone's else's error yourself. It's just intellectually lazy to say "you're wrong because Media Bias/Fact Check says so". 

 

Socrates must be spinning in his grave these days.

 

 

[Hip]

Exactly which ethnic group does Mercola have it in for?

 
The low IQ ethnic group, naturally. Those are the ones susceptible to antivax propaganda.
 
Maybe Mercola just wants to improve the overall intelligence of the human race, by weeding out low IQ genes.
 

 

 

I suppose that there's been plenty of hyperbolic language to go around on all sides, but I think this reaches new heights. One can't simply disagree with someone these days. Have a difference of opinion. Believe that the other party is in error. No, your opponent must be guilty of "genocide".

 

You do realize that I am just having a bit of fun here. I hope you are too. What I say is sometimes tongue in cheek.

 

I have no dislike of the people I am arguing with; the argument is in part for the pleasure of the debate, like a in a university debating society. It's good for mind to debate; it keeps your neurons sharp. 

 

It does not mean I have any ill feelings towards the people I am debating with, and it I were to meet anyone in a bar, for example, the first thing I would say was "Great, to meet you, let me get you a drink".

 

 

Do I really think that Mercola is a genocidal maniac. No, of course not. I am just being tongue in cheek. 

 

However, I do think that the antivax articles on his website, plus the money he generously donates to the antivax movement, has likely led to the death of a lot of people from COVID. How many is hard to say. A 100 perhaps. Maybe a 1000.   

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 02:15 PM.

[Hip]

 Otherwise you're simply making an appeal to authority.  

 

But earlier Media Bias/Fact Check was criticized for being a very small group headed by one guy, and thus decidedly not an authority.

 

If Media Bias/Fact Check is not an authority, and I agree that it is not, then there can be no appeal to authority. 

[pamojja]

A review by Dr. Mercola of Joe Rogan's 3 hour interview with the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone: https://articles.mer...&rid=1374819535

Censored mRNA Platform Inventor Tells All on Rogan Show

January 10, 2022

Story at-a-glance

December 30, 2021, Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA gene transfer technology. YouTube and Twitter promptly deleted the interview

Google has also been caught red-handed manipulating search results such that Malone’s Rogan interview won’t show up when searching for “mass formation psychosis”

Malone was permanently banned from Twitter December 29, 2021, likely triggered by a post that included a video by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, which reviewed Pfizer data showing the COVID jab causes more illness than it prevents, and that the Pfizer trial was flawed both in design and construction

Alternatively, Malone may have been banned due to a post showing how the World Economic Forum controls the global media narrative

A Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, states that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted


December 30, 2021, Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA gene transfer technology. YouTube and Twitter promptly deleted the interview and mainstream media published a rash of articles attacking Malone and Rogan in the most disparaging terms possible.1

In addition to censoring Malone, Google has also been caught red-handed manipulating search results such that Malone’s Rogan interview won’t show up when searching for “mass formation psychosis.”2 That search term also won’t give you any of the interviews given by psychologist Mattias Desmet, who was the first to use that term as a diagnosis for why so many are buying an obviously flawed, if not ridiculous, COVID narrative.

In response to the obvious Big Tech censorship, Congressman Troy Nehls, R-Texas, entered the transcript of the podcast (the Joe Rogan Experience #17573) into the Congressional Record with the following statement:4

“By deplatforming Dr. Robert Malone for voicing opposition and removing the interview, Twitter and YouTube are once again proving that they don’t work for their users but for big Pharma, big media, and the elites.

When we stray away from our core principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of debate, democracy is lost. Today, I entered the transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience #1757 into the Congressional Record to preserve the podcast forever. Big Tech may be able to censor information on their own platforms, but they cannot censor the Congressional Record.”

Malone Permanently Banned From Twitter

Malone had been permanently banned from Twitter the day before, December 29, 2021. He suspects his ban was triggered by one of the two last posts he made. One was a link to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s website,5 with the comment:6

“Pfizer 6 month data which shows that Pfizer's Covid-19 inoculations cause more illness than they prevent. Plus, an overview of the Pfizer trial flaws in both design and execution.”

The video, featured on the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s website, reviews that Pfizer data. We will feature this excellent video later and go into far more details of how they exposed the fraud of Pfizer’s clinical COVID jab trial.

The other tweet that might have triggered the ban was a post about how the World Economic Forum manages global media in a lockstep fashion. Either way, Malone was permanently banned from the social media platform either for highlighting Pfizer’s own science — the very science we’re told to “trust” — or highlighting the WEF’s central role in the global censorship campaign.
Mainstream Media Are Losing the Information War

Interestingly, Rogan has become something of a key workaround to the universal mainstream media censorship. While Malone lost 512,000 followers on Twitter when they suspended his account, it’s rumored his interview with Rogan has garnered some 50 MILLION views across alternative free-speech platforms.7 As noted in a January 3, 2022, ZeroHedge article:8

“... nowadays when you make it on JRE, you’ve officially ‘made it.’ Putting aside the obvious irony of Twitter attempting to ban somebody and the person in question going viral as a result, I also thought about how, despite the fact that Malone’s opinions put him at odds with the mainstream media ... Joe Rogan launched him past the usual media suspects and into the real ‘mainstream’ ...

[In] 2022, the mainstream media as we know it today (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.) is going to be forced to change its narrative on COVID. The idea of the media being forced to change its tune on Covid is something I touched upon a couple of days ago when I wrote about the Omicron variant and how the media is creating a mass hysteria mountain out of a mole hill.

But after listening to Dr. Robert Malone‘s well reasoned arguments, delivered for three straight hours, concisely and calmly, it became clear to me that the entire mainstream media machine could wind up falling at the hands of content creators like Joe Rogan.

Rogan generates so many views and has grown so quickly — strictly because he allows open dialogue, civil discourse and approaches things with honest intent ... One issue for media and political elites to consider is the fact that Rogan has supporters on both sides of the aisle.

These supporters watch him because he routinely touches on topics that are considered faux pas or irreverent ... Rogan has thrived, whether intentionally (bringing on people specifically because they are being censored) or unintentionally (shooting the shit with people he finds interesting), from the start, by shining light in the dark areas that the mainstream media refuses to discuss.”

While Malone’s Twitter feed has been erased, you can still follow him on Gab, GETTR and Substack. A Gab mirror with the last 400 tweets from Malone’s Twitter feed is also available. January 2, 2022, when Rogan joined GETTR, he urged his 7.8 million Twitter followers to join him there “in case s**t over at Twitter gets even dumber.”9,10
Cliff Notes From the Rogan Interview

Many Rogan fans agree that Malone’s interview is among the best interviews Rogan has ever done. I know, many of you are saying to yourself, I don’t have three hours to watch this interview. Well, let me encourage you to find the time. If 50 million people have watched this video, it is likely you could find the time.

Trust me on this one. You won’t regret it. It is such a pure joy and pleasure to listen to Malone’s relaxed, eloquent, masterfully precise language as he destroys the mainstream COVID narrative. You can watch it in bits and pieces, but this is clearly the best interview Malone has done and is on par with the Peter McCullough interview with Rogan a few weeks ago.

If it’s not OK for me to be part of the conversation ... who can be allowed? ~ Dr. Robert Malone

As explained by Malone, he has been involved in vaccine development and distribution for more than three decades, and played a crucial role in the development of the very technology that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots are based upon, so “If it’s not OK for me to be part of the conversation ... who can be allowed?” Malone asked.

Indeed, as noted by Rogan, with its ban of Malone, Twitter basically banned “one of the most qualified people in the world to talk about vaccines.” Malone said he has attorneys looking at potentially filing some sort of lawsuit over the ban.

Of course, mainstream media and “fact checkers” (now legally defined by recent Facebook litigation as opinion promoters) call him a liar for saying he invented the mRNA technology currently used, but his name on 10 patents proves otherwise.

"No one can dispute that I played a major role in this tech," Malone said. "And virtually all other voices that have that background have financial conflicts of interest. I think I'm the only one that doesn't. I'm not getting any money out of this."

Some of the cliff notes from Malone’s interview include the following:11

Government responses — Malone believes the U.S. government is “out of control” and “lawless” in their COVID response and that their actions have resulted in, probably, half a million excess deaths. COVID jab mandates are “explicitly illegal” as the shots are experimental. What’s more, people are not getting the information they need to be able to make an informed decision about the risks they’re taking by participating in this experiment.

Social psychology of the times — Malone believes the irrational behavior we’re witnessing is the result of “mass formation psychosis,” a societal diagnosis first presented by Desmet at the end of 2021.

Natural immunity — Natural immunity is more robust than “vaccine” induced immunity, and people with natural immunity also have a higher risk of adverse events from the COVID jab.

COVID jab risks — Malone actually took the Moderna shot, thinking it might help with some long-COVID symptoms he was having after getting seriously ill with COVID-19 in February 2020. He says he suffered some side effects from the shot, but that those effects have since resolved.

Malone expresses concern about post-jab myocarditis rates and the possibility of fertility problems. When it comes to reproductive health, he warns that the lipid nanoparticles in the COVID shots can have adverse effects on the ovaries.

He also reviews how the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can cause blood clots, regardless of whether they come from natural infection or the COVID jab, and how the spike protein can disrupt the blood-brain-barrier.

Malone believes the reason some experience no or few adverse effects from the COVID shot has to do with phenotypic or genetic differences. He points out that diabetics and those with high blood sugar levels tend to be more affected by spike protein effects, for example.

Suppression of early treatment — Early treatment with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is very effective and both drugs have also been safely administered for several decades. The Chinese anti-COVID protocol, obtained by Malone in February 2020, actually included hydroxychloroquine. When he got COVID-19, Malone also self-treated with femotadine (Pepsid). He’s now leading a clinical trial to assess its usefulness in the treatment of COVID.

Narrative management and global coordination of censorship — The Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC is central to the censorship campaign, according to Malone. It labels anyone who disagrees with the official narrative on vaccines as an “anti-vaxxer,” and suppresses anything that goes against “approved” sources such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization.

He also points out that Thomson-Reuters, which has ties to Pfizer, is a primary fact checker of Twitter. Since they in part decide what’s allowed to be discussed on Twitter, Pfizer has this hidden influence as well (not to mention that James C. Smith, chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, also has been a director at Pfizer and chair of their compensation committee since 201412).

COVID jab efficacy — Malone notes the window of effectiveness is ever shrinking, with some studies, such as one from Denmark,13 showing negative effectiveness against Omicron.

According to Malone, we’re administering a “mismatched vaccine” and driving the B and T memory cells toward a virus that is no longer in circulation. His hypothesis for why the shots stop working so quickly is because of this original antigenic sin. He explains:

“We've got a new pathogen [Omicron] but it's got a series of overlaps with the old ones that we've seen before, and our immune system is biased to respond as if it's the old one.

Now, to make matters worse, we're taking the spike protein — only one of the proteins the dominant immunologically dominant protein — and we're jabbing everybody multiple times, and driving memory cells and effector cells to a virus that is not the one we're encountering.

So it could very well be that as you're taking more jabs, you're further skewing your immune response in a way that's dysfunctional for infection to Omicron ... When you see a signal this strong, it's saying something's going on you ought to pay attention to it in my opinion.”

Malone Also on InfoWars After Rogan Interview
Video may not work on all browsers

Malone also sat down with InfoWars reporter Kristi Leigh within days of his Twitter ban.14 A highlight reel15 from the 80-minute interview is embedded above. In it, Malone described being “multidimensionally red-pilled” by the current censorship. He also discusses his journey of “coming to terms with what the World Economic Forum represents.”

Initially he resisted the idea that there was a global agenda underway aimed at stripping us of our rights and freedoms. He thought The Great Reset was fantasy — until he started looking into claims for himself and found this supposed “conspiracy theory” is fully documented and laid out for the world to see on the WEF’s own website. “And then you see [the plan] deployed,” he says.
Malone’s Warning to Parents

In another recent interview with the WND,16 Malone discussed two grassroots projects that he’s gotten involved with. The first is the Unity Project, which opposes vaccine mandates, and the second is the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, launched by the Global COVID Summit.17

Malone also highlighted the second Physicians Declaration18 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, dated October 29, 2021, in an article for The Defender.19

The declaration has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, and states that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity. The declaration also demands that health agencies and institutions “cease interfering with physicians treating individual patients.”

In the article, Malone also warned parents that the decision to inject their children is "irreversible," and that they need to be aware of "the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created." Here’s an excerpt from that written warning:20

“Before you inject your child — a decision that is irreversible — I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created.

There are three issues parents need to understand: The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including:

Their brain and nervous system.
Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots.
Their reproductive system.
This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system.

The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable:

You can’t fix the lesions within their brain.
You can’t repair heart tissue scarring.
You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system.
This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family.

The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested. We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks. Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later.”

Again, I urge you to listen to Malone’s interview with Rogan, embedded at the top of this article, in its entirety. He covers a lot of ground, and does so in his calm and well-reasoned way. I can confidently assure you that you won’t have any regrets for making the time investment.


Sources and References

1, 6 Daily Mail January 3, 2021
2 Steve Kirsch Substack January 2, 2022
3 Spotify Joe Rogan Experience #1757
4 Nehls.house.gov January 3, 2022
5 Canadian COVID Care Alliance
7 Steve Kirsch Substack January 1, 2022
8 ZeroHedge January 3, 2022
9 The Blaze January 3, 2022
10 ZeroHedge January 3, 2022, ZeroHedge January 3, 2022, Joe Rogan Joins GETTR In Anticipation Of Censorship On Twitter "Getting Even Dumber"
11 Twitter Acclaimed Journalist December 31, 2021
12 Pfizer Board Members 2021
13 medRxiv December 23, 2021
14 Freedom World News December 31, 2021
15 Freedom World News January 1, 2022
16 WND December 31, 2021
17 Global COVID Summit
18 Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists
19, 20 the Defender December 15, 2021

Edited by pamojja, 10 January 2022 - 03:18 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

But earlier Media Bias/Fact Check was criticized for being a very small group headed by one guy, and thus decidedly not an authority.

 

If Media Bias/Fact Check is not an authority, and I agree that it is not, then there can be no appeal to authority. 

 

 

If Media Bias/Fact Check isn't an authority, and you've selected them simply because they agree with your position to a high degree of certainty. then exactly what is the point of citing them?

 

It amounts to your saying - "Hey guys look - these guys that almost always agree with me agree with me once again".  

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 January 2022 - 03:53 PM.

[DanCG]

The main use I make of Media Bias/Fact Check is showing other people who have poor judgement that their favorite website is in fact a conspiracy theory rag, or a medical quackfest.

 

I can then say, not only do I think your sources are quack sources, but Media Bias/Fact Check think so also. So then it strengthens the argument.

 

 

 

But earlier Media Bias/Fact Check was criticized for being a very small group headed by one guy, and thus decidedly not an authority.

 

If Media Bias/Fact Check is not an authority, and I agree that it is not, then there can be no appeal to authority. 

The first statement is an appeal to authority by the rules of logic.  The fact that Media Bias/Fact Check turns out not be very authoritative does not make it any less so. The point is that you are attempting to use Media Bias/Fact Check as an authority to back up your argument.

[bladedmind]

Here's some official science.

 

https://www.scienced...191886914000324
 

In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

 

[Hip]

If Media Bias/Fact Check isn't an authority, and you've selected them simply because they agree with your position to a high degree of certainty. then exactly what is the point of citing them?

 

Because I recognize sane, intelligent and insightful people and organizations, just as I also recognize wackos and misinformation

 

Based on my judgement, I am commending Media Bias/Fact Check, because I believe they are a rational organization, and I like to promote sane, intelligent reasoned factual discourse.

 

If you prefer dubious information sources, misinformation, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, that's you choice. If you choose misinformation, then you will be in good company on Longecity. This forum now seems to have more than its fair share of scientifically challenged misinformation posters. There were some smart people here before the pandemic, but they disappeared after seeing how the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

[Hip]

 The point is that you are attempting to use Media Bias/Fact Check as an authority to back up your argument.

 

And what is the difference between that and the anti-establishment anti-science individuals here using their quack web sources to support their views?

 

You are criticizing the use of Media Bias/Fact Check, but you do not criticize people posting dubious articles from non-authoritative sources to back up their particular arguments. So your criticisms seem rather inconsistent and partisan. 

 

Plus Media Bias/Fact Check has been illogically criticized here for not being an authority, as well at the same time criticized as being an appeal to authority. That's a self-contradictory argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

You are criticizing the use of Media Bias/Fact Check, but you do not criticize people posting dubious articles from non-authoritative sources to back up their particular arguments. So your criticisms seem rather inconsistent and partisan. 

 

 

Not inconsistent at all. You can use a very poor authority when you make your appeal to authority (which is exactly what you've done), and you are therefore rightly criticized for using a lousy authority and for making an appeal to authority.

[Daniel Cooper]

Because I recognize sane, intelligent and insightful people and organizations, just as I also recognize wackos and misinformation

 

Based on my judgement, I am commending Media Bias/Fact Check, because I believe they are a rational organization, and I like to promote sane, intelligent reasoned factual discourse.

 

If you prefer dubious information sources, misinformation, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, that's you choice. If you choose misinformation, then you will be in good company on Longecity. This forum now seems to have more than its fair share of scientifically challenged misinformation posters. There were some smart people here before the pandemic, but they disappeared after seeing how the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

 

You really don't understand do you?

 

You pick your fact checkers because they agree with your opinion, they pick their fact checkers because they agree with their opinions, then we're left with dueling fact checkers.

 

Which is why we should argue on the facts, and not the fact checkers.

[Hip]

You really don't understand do you?

 

You pick your fact checkers because they agree with your opinion, they pick their fact checkers because they agree with their opinions, then we're left with dueling fact checkers.

 

Which is why we should argue on the facts, and not the fact checkers.

 

What you seem to miss is that society is in the middle of a culture war, in which truth is battling over falsity online. Some have called our era the post-truth era, because when false statements are pimped up with hyperbolic language, emotion and scare tactics, they carry more weight that sober truthful statements.

 

In the dictionary, post-truth is defined as "circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief".

 

I know which side of the culture war I am fighting on. You can choose your side.

 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 06:02 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

What you seem to miss is that society is in the middle of a culture war, in which truth is battling over falsity online. Some have called our era the post-truth era, because when false statements are pimped up with hyperbolic language, emotion and scare tactics, they carry more weight that sober truthful statements.

 

In the dictionary, post-truth is defined as "circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief".

 

I know which side of the culture war I am fighting on. You can choose your side.

 

I find it rather rich that the person that was not too many posts back throwing around the word "genocide" is now decrying "hyperbolic language, emotion and scare tactics".

 

And are we debating science or fighting a culture war now? Because I thought it was "all about the science".

 

 

 

[Hip]

Funny isn't it, Daniel Cooper and DanCG, how when we are all discussing exactly the same topic, my posts get labeled "Off topic", whereas yours are labeled "Good point". Even though the topic is the same.
 
It does not bother me, but it does show how people reading this thread appear to be incapable of rational thought or logical consistency. So not much hope for them really.
 
 

 

Anyway, dealing with your point:
 

I find it rather rich that the person that was not too many posts back throwing around the word "genocide" is now decrying "hyperbolic language, emotion and scare tactics".
 
And are we debating science or fighting a culture war now? Because I thought it was "all about the science".

 

All is fair in love and war. If the other side uses tactical nukes, you have to respond, otherwise you are going to lose the war. I think the tactical nukes of hyperbolic language, emotion and scare tactics are vile, but since those are the weapons used by the other side, unfortunately we may need to deploy them too. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 07:56 PM.

[Gal220]

 No, your opponent must be guilty of "genocide".
 
I'm no Mercola fan and consider him to be in my opinion not a reliable source of information for much of anything. But I think you overestimate the man's reach if you think he contributed to a substantial portion of the 5.5M currently recorded covid deaths, i.e. "millions".

 

Genocidal is the wrong word, but this lack of early treatment(when the virus is at its weakest..) is as bad as it gets imo, on top of the Remdesivir exploitation. - link1, link2

 

I still think Mercola had the best Covid page in 2020, where I first heard about H202 nebulization. That doesnt mean everything else he writes is golden, but that is how internet arguments go now, "youre using that source.."

Edited by Gal220, 10 January 2022 - 10:01 PM.

[Hip]

I still think Mercola had the best Covid page in 2020, where I first heard about H202 nebulization. That doesnt mean everything else he writes is golden, but that is how internet arguments go now, "youre using that source.."

 

Mercola claimed H202 nebulization would treat COVID, even though there is no evidence it can. That's already bad; you should not be pushing treatments when there is no evidence of efficacy.

 

Now, I am not saying that there is no chance H202 nebulization would work; if one were to run a clinical trial, you might find some benefits it has for COVID patients. Alternatively, the breathing of this bleaching substance into the lungs of COVID might damage the lung tissues and actually make COVID worse. We don't know which until a clinic trial is performed.

 

So if Mercola believes in H202 nebulization, and if he really cares about people, why didn't he pay for a H202 clinical trial himself? Why didn't he put his money where his mouth is? Mercola is worth over $100 million, money gained by peddling fake cures for health issues. A clinical trial for H202 nebulization would probably only cost $500,000. He can well afford it, and it should be the moral duty of uber wealthy people like Mercola to help out in times like this. 

 

But the most important thing to Mercola it seems is not the lives and health of people, but the traffic he can drive to his website, as it is that traffic that makes him rich. 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2022 - 11:18 PM.

[geo12the]

https://en.wikipedia...g–Kruger_effect
There is reality and truth and then there are the Mercolas. The point is not that Mercola and other internet gurus people here worship are wrong about everything. The point is you got folks here disparaging vaccines and mainstream science and in the same breath worshiping these internet charlatans. They don't see the disconnect there. lots of people brainwashed by misinformation here. Also lots of people here who suffer from Dunning Kruger. Too bad there is no treatment for that

https://en.wikipedia...g–Kruger_effect

Edited by geo12the, 10 January 2022 - 11:30 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I honestly would love to see a self imposed moratorium on the use of the Dunning Kruger effect on the internet.  I've yet to see it used in any way other than to say "Oh yeah, well you're stupid".

 

It's almost as bad of a debate technique as Hitler comparisons.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Genocidal is the wrong word, but this lack of early treatment(when the virus is at its weakest..) is as bad as it gets imo, on top of the Remdesivir exploitation. - link1, link2

 

I still think Mercola had the best Covid page in 2020, where I first heard about H202 nebulization. That doesnt mean everything else he writes is golden, but that is how internet arguments go now, "youre using that source.."

 

I come at Mercola from the other direction. I won't say that everything he writes is wrong. I suspect he does get some things right now and then. But if I read something of his and think he's on the right track, I'd cite his sources (if he has any) rather than to cite Mercola. I've just seen too many sketchy statements by him to use him as a source. Just my personal opinion.  On the other hand, if you cite Mercola in your argument that does not immediately invalidate what you're saying. It does mean I have to go research the topic to see what the evidence is (which we should be doing anyway).

 

Likewise, I wouldn't use Fauci or others in his orbit as a direct source. He's been frequently wrong when he's not just outright lying. Take for instance "two weeks to bend the curve". I can do math. I understand exponential growth. I knew immediately that was never going to pan out, and I would hope that Fauci knows a hell of a lot more about pandemics than I do. So that was just a lie. I'm sure Fauci thought it was a "noble lie", but a lie none the less.

 

Which is why appeals of authority are considered to generally be illegitimate avenues of debate. You see, even if your authority knows his stuff, he's just as subject to other influences (politics, greed, lust, etc.) as you or I. "Two weeks to bend the curve" was a lie and not an error. Fauci knew full well two weeks would be meaningless in the scope of this pandemic.

 

This is why you argue on the basis of facts instead of prominent personalities or institutions. 

[Hip]

Which is why appeals of authority are considered to generally be illegitimate avenues of debate. 

 

If you don't like appeals to authority, don't get involved in science, keep to the humanities or stamp collecting, because the whole edifice of the scientific method is based on the authority of knowledge and fact. Not the sort of authority you have in politics or the military, but an authority based on established proven fact, on peer view journals, on institutions and careers in which people ascent to the top based on their brilliance, deep scientific understanding and achievements.

 

It's this hierarchical and authoritative structure of science that gives it its power and success. If you are an idiot, you do not ascend the hierarchy of science, because all the scientific doors will be closed for idiots. You may do well on social media as an idiot, but don't expect to get a professorship in quantum chromodynamics. 

 

This structured approach to knowledge is what put man on the Moon. It's the basis of all the advanced theories we know have of physics, chemistry and biology. 

 

When someone at the top of their field in a government position makes a scientific statement, it comes with all the checks and balances that being at the apex of the pyramid of the scientific edifice.

 

 

Same as statements on global warming: these statements from climate change research institutions come as a result of tens of thousands of scientists all checking each others work. There is a massive hierarchical and authoritative structure required to produce these scientific statements on climate change. Just as there is a massive hierarchical and authoritative structure to put together a major engineering feat, like building a 747 plane, with its millions of parts.

Edited by Hip, 11 January 2022 - 12:23 AM.