this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
38 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
12 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Saying those things before having any data to back them up was indeed anti-science.
You couldn't know they didn't have data if they didn't have the ability to present it. Once censored, it's impossible to tell what media is, that's the point of censorship.
You can't know if what was censored was false information, if you don't have the data on what was said.
Questioning is the heart and soul of science. Doubting included.
To censor doubt is a demand for agreement, and an intimidation of dissent.
There was a time I would believe you whole heartedly.
I despise book bans.
I see people try to censor other people's very existence.
I hate China's authoritarian laws.
I wish to strive to allow as much free speech and liberty reasonably possible.
Then COVID happened. Misinformation, narrative pushing, and just plain lying. My grandma died from the virus in a hospital not consistently wearing masks or even checking for it in the first place. A hospital wear fox news plays abound and nurses proudly talk about their "knowing" of what actually is happening.
I have to ask myself, is this worth it?
I don't think so. A line must be drawn somewhere.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
That's a whole lot of claims with little to no sources backing them up.
Which ones specifically? These are all fairly well known at this point. Let me ask, if I provide them, do you think it would influence you in any way?
All of them. If it's the truth I will see it.
But be warned. No tabloid or backwater new articles. Actual studies and statements.
Not even enough info to know who "they" or "them" are when referenced in their comment.
People posting pro horse-medicine posts on social media aren't ever going to be doing anything close to "science".
And this romantic concept of "questioning is the heart and soul of science" is just a banal platitude. Rigorous testing and record keeping is the heart and soul of science. Latching on to conspiracy theories is not even tangentially related to science.
You've got to do your homework. This has already been proven to be a false narrative set up by MSNBC and CNN (and their subsidiaries). You're behind. Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.
But not for coronaviruses. For parasites. And not in the doses that are intended for animals, but for humans. And not purchased from a farm supply store, but through a pharmacy.
That's not what I said though. They spread a lie by saying it was only for horses, and were never silenced or corrected. They were allowed to lie. "Rules for thee, but not rules for me."
Some people were actually buying the horse variant of it...
You suspiciously left out all the context of the discussion. I can only imagine why you'd do this. Haha
Horse dewormer was mentioned because that's what the maga cultists were using, because (sane) doctors wouldn't prescribe it to humans for a coronavirus.
You agree that Ivermectin isn't for coronavirus, right? Right?
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it. That being said, calling it a horse dewormer within context is literally just lying. I'm actually giving them a chance when I leave out said context.
Little to no research? Did you bother looking? I found quite a few on Google scholar. Here's one: https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
Do you mean little to no research that comes to the conclusion that you want?
I find that it is often the case that people who say "do your homework/research" (wrt science/news) were the very same students who wouldn't do their homework.
But somehow the government and corporations doing so is okay?
That was the data we had at the time, yes. New data can mean new stances, and that's okay. But notice the order of operations there; new data, then new stance. Not the other way around.
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
Uh, sources? Specifically about the forced resignation.
Oh, that's the easiest one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64891745
You didn't read that article, did you? It doesn't support your stance.