Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 61579 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18501
    • View Profile
Nobel Peace candidate Fauci lied
« Reply #753 on: May 17, 2023, 10:29:38 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/05/17/doj-apple-engineer-stole-self-driving-vehicle-tech-for-chinese-company/

who knew ?

but
he could win a Pulizter since it matters not if a story is honest accurate of made up
as in the case of multiple left wing Pulizter winners

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #755 on: May 20, 2023, 07:42:27 AM »
Nice little piece of propaganda (not an insult).


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Berenson: A random piece of good news
« Reply #757 on: May 23, 2023, 12:08:35 PM »
   
Open in app or online
Some good news! (Really)
Yulia Hicks, the North Carolina girl denied a kidney transplant by Duke University surgeons because she was not vaccinated against Covid, will get her new kidney Thursday
ALEX BERENSON
MAY 23

 



SHARE
 
Finally, a happy ending.

In December, I wrote about Yulia Hicks, a 14-year-old North Carolina girl denied a lifesaving kidney transplant for the crime of being unvaccinated.

Transplant surgeons at Duke University Hospital told her parents that Yulia could not stay on the transplant list if she did not have a Covid shot, even though she had already had Covid.

The story, which Fox News picked up, led to a wave of publicity - and more than 30 potential donors stepped forward. Fortunately, one was a match.

Now, another North Carolina hospital has stepped up, and Yulia will receive a new kidney from a live donor tomorrow.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Pasting that in case in gets disappeared
« Reply #759 on: May 28, 2023, 07:29:56 AM »
The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery
BY Julie SladdenJULIE SLADDEN   MAY 27, 2023   VACCINES   6 MINUTE READ


In 1928 scientist Alexander Fleming returned to his laboratory after a 2-week holiday.  A petri dish of bacteria accidentally left on the lab bench, somehow became cross-contaminated with Penicillium notatum mould.  Fleming noticed the mould inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This accidental discovery marked the dawn of the antibiotic era and a turning point in medical, and perhaps human history.

Recently, another accidental discovery has scientists wondering whether we have turned another corner in history.

The story begins with Kevin McKernan, a scientist with 25 years experience in the genomic field and a leading expert in sequencing methods for DNA and RNA. He has worked on the Human Genome Project and more recently in medicinal genomics involving DNA sequencing. 

In the process of trying to sort out a sequencing problem, McKernan used anonymously sent, Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 bivalent vaccines to act as mRNA controls. 

‘Somebody sent me these thinking, this is the perfect control… It should be pure. So, if you get this to work, you’ll sort out your mRNA sequencing problems,’ McKernan explains in a recent interview.  ‘They were right about that. It did sort out our problems. But what we discovered in the process is that they weren’t pure mRNA. They actually had a lot of DNA in the background.’

McKernan was shocked, ‘It’s not what we were looking for… I had this hunch that the new modified nucleotides they have in the mRNA may have a higher error rate, and therefore we would see more mistakes in the mRNA. So, I knew we would have to sequence like a millionfold deep… over and over again to find these mistakes. When we did that DNA popped up and I thought “Oh, that’s a bigger problem. We have to focus on that.” … I kind of went into panic mode, realizing that I didn’t budget any time to look into this, and the world has to know about it.’

Let’s pause here and look at what we’re told about the Covid-19 mRNA injections.  We’re assured:

The injections are safe. Meanwhile, adverse event reporting systems around the world record previously unseen rates of adverse events and injuries;
The injections are effective.  We would ask: Effective for what?  Not stopping transmission.  We’re not sure about preventing serious illness either evidenced by recent data and New South Wales Health reports which show a disproportionate number of hospital and ICU admissions amongst the vaccinated.
The injection materials stay at the injection site.  Recently released documents obtained under FOI show the lipid nanoparticles become widely distributed – notably to the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries, and testes;
The injections won’t change your DNA.
Let’s look at that last one a little bit closer.

The Australian TGA states you can find reputable information about Covid-19 vaccines on their ‘Is it true’ section of the website.  It is worth a look.  In answer to the question ‘Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA?’ the TGA is clear: ‘No, COVID-19 vaccines do not alter your DNA.’

They explain, ‘mRNA vaccines use a synthetic genetic code called RNA to give our cells instructions about how to make the coronavirus’ unique spike protein.  When our body has made the protein encoded by the mRNA vaccine, it then recognises the spike protein as being foreign and launches an immune response against it.  The RNA from the vaccine does not change or interact with our DNA in any way.’

Phew.  Well, that’s ok then, right?

Possible routes for mRNA to convert to DNA (including a process known as reverse transcription) were discounted.  Until the publication of an annoying little paper in 2022 by Alden et al, an in vitro study involving human liver cells which showed Pfizer’s mRNA was expressed as DNA within six hours. 

At the time, this was assumed due to reverse transcription of the mRNA.  However, in light of McKernan’s discovery, there’s a whole new possibility to consider.  What if the vaccines already contained DNA?  Then arguments about whether the mRNA could reverse transcribe into DNA become irrelevant.

Let’s return to McKernan and take a closer look at what he found.  In addition to the expected mRNA, he also found mRNA fragments, other pieces of RNA, and two forms of DNA: linearised and circular.  The significance of the circular – or plasmid – DNA is important.  The plasmid DNA is the ‘complete recipe’ used to program bacterial cells to mass produce the mRNA.  This DNA should not be there.  Further investigation by McKernan showed the plasmid DNA contained in the vaccines was indeed viable and capable of transformation in bacterial cells.

So, the Pfizer and Moderna vials of bivalent vaccine that McKernan tested were contaminated with DNA.  DNA encoding the spike gene and potentially capable of inserting into the genome of an organism. 

The question is, does this DNA have the potential to become part of the genome of a human organism and if so what might be the consequences?  This would have required looking at ‘genotoxicity,’ something Australia’s TGA says the (Pfizer) injections were not tested for, and the TGA did not ask for.

In case you are wondering, there are strict guidelines about DNA contamination levels in mRNA products.  The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA stated limits are 330 nanograms of DNA per milligram of RNA. In Australia, the TGA says it should be no more than 10 nanograms per dose. 

(It’s unclear how these limits were decided. Personally, we’d be hoping for zero DNA in our mRNA injections.) 

This means that DNA should not be more than 0.033 per cent of the total nucleic acids in the dose.  But McKernan’s analysis demonstrated DNA contamination of up to 35 percent in the bivalent injection samples.  This is up to 1,000 times higher than deemed to be ‘acceptable’ by the regulating authorities. 

Next, McKernan analysed the monovalent (earlier) injections. The Pfizer monovalent injections were also found to be contaminated with DNA, though not as much.  The levels of DNA in the Pfizer monovalent injections were 18-70 times higher than the EMA limit.

So, what happens now? 

These results are in the process of being further verified by the scientific community.  In the essence of speed, McKernan published his findings and methods publicly on Substack and online.  He explains, ‘The publication system, during the pandemic, is politicised. So, that’s probably not going to get the word out very quickly. I had to do my best to document this all and make the data public.’ 

If McKernan’s findings are verified, the implications are serious. Widespread DNA contamination would bring into question the quality of the entire mRNA injection manufacturing process, safety systems, and regulatory oversight. In addition, DNA might not be the only contaminant.

This contamination discovery begs a question. What does Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) know about the safety of these mRNA injections?  And what discussions have occurred between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the safety of these injections? 

Some of these questions are being asked and will hopefully get answers. Soon, we hope.

Another question weighs heavily. What does this ‘accidental discovery’ mean for those who’ve had the mRNA injections, in terms of their health, their offspring, and future of the human genome?

Scientists and genomics experts are shocked by the discovery.  McKernan too, ‘I didn’t expect to find Pfizer’s entire blueprint for how they manufacture this thing sitting in the vial.’

Neither did we.

Author
Julie Sladden

Dr Julie Sladden is a medical doctor and freelance writer with a passion for transparency in healthcare. Her op-eds have been published in both The Spectator Australia and The Daily Declaration. In 2022, she was elected as a Local Government Councillor for West Tamar in Tasmania.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Another movie
« Reply #761 on: May 29, 2023, 09:03:07 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18501
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #763 on: May 30, 2023, 10:26:50 AM »
My post of

7.26.21

"hundred + million vaccinated and 7 months into it and people are not dropping like flies from the vaccine  The Left is making hay about how so many cases are now in Florida  and the vast majority of hospitalized ones are in unvaccinated  Anyway, somehow I suspect we are nearing the tail end of the pandemic and the waves will burn out over the next 1 or 2.  in 1918 the flu came in waves now identified to persist in smaller less severe pockets of outbreaks until 1921 to1923 ish  of course just a hunch."

corona seems to be following the path of the 1918 epidemic
finally just fizzles out over couple yrs

and just as the flu became less virulent then corona so far is heading in that direction

perhaps my hunch then is more accurate then the know it alls - Bill Gates etc,

 :-D


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #764 on: May 30, 2023, 10:29:52 AM »
And of the vax injuries/deaths?

My post of

7.26.21

"hundred + million vaccinated and 7 months into it and people are not dropping like flies from the vaccine  The Left is making hay about how so many cases are now in Florida  and the vast majority of hospitalized ones are in unvaccinated  Anyway, somehow I suspect we are nearing the tail end of the pandemic and the waves will burn out over the next 1 or 2.  in 1918 the flu came in waves now identified to persist in smaller less severe pockets of outbreaks until 1921 to1923 ish  of course just a hunch."

corona seems to be following the path of the 1918 epidemic
finally just fizzles out over couple yrs

and just as the flu became less virulent then corona so far is heading in that direction

perhaps my hunch then is more accurate then the know it alls - Bill Gates etc,

 :-D

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18501
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #765 on: May 30, 2023, 01:53:41 PM »
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"

I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up

I am still alive after 4 doses ......

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #766 on: May 30, 2023, 05:33:53 PM »
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"

I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up

I am still alive after 4 doses ......

Yeah, they’d never cover up ClotShot injuries! 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #767 on: May 30, 2023, 05:43:34 PM »
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"

I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up

I am still alive after 4 doses ......

Yeah, they’d never cover up ClotShot injuries!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/statistics-canada-reports-27-jump-in-excess-deaths-in-citizens-under-44-in-2022/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18501
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #772 on: June 01, 2023, 10:04:08 AM »
 "That $1.3 billion is the low-end, given how difficult it is to track where federal research money ultimately ends up"

 :x :x :x



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
And here is the study
« Reply #775 on: June 04, 2023, 04:34:48 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Is the ClotShot eating brains?
« Reply #776 on: June 10, 2023, 10:53:14 AM »
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/disturbing-rise-in-cognitive-problems

Safe and effective, just like gender affirmation surgery on children!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18501
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #778 on: June 12, 2023, 08:56:28 AM »
around the same merrick appoints a true independent counsel

on Biden -

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/11/dershowitz-of-course-there-is-enough-evidence-for-impeachment-inquiry-of-biden-for-bribery/

problem is too many lawyers are crats


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Zuckerberg says FH of Freedom was right
« Reply #779 on: June 17, 2023, 05:20:41 AM »
Zuckerberg: Establishment Asked to Censor COVID-19 Posts That Ended Up Being True
HEALTH NEWS
Zachary Stieber, Reporter
Jun 10 2023

Big Tech firms were asked to censor COVID-19 information that ended up being true, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has assessed.

“Just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier in the pandemic where there were real health implications, but there hadn’t been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions,” Zuckerberg, whose company is the parent of Facebook and Instagram, said during a discussion with podcaster Lex Fridman that was released on June 8.

“And unfortunately, I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true,” he added. “That stuff is really tough, right? Really undermines trust.”


U.S. officials pressured Facebook and Instagram to censor posts, emails disclosed in court cases and through Freedom of Information Act requests have shown.

Rob Flaherty, a White House official, pressured Facebook to take action against “mis- and -disinformation” as well as “hesitancy-inducing content,” one email showed.

One Facebook official said in one of the messages that the company’s goal was “to help organizations to get their safety message out to the public, remove misinformation, and support overall community efforts in areas where we can be of help.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), meanwhile, showed executives with Facebook and other social media companies specific posts that were described as misinformation.

“There were a lot of things circulating that were not accurate information about COVID,” Carol Crawford, a CDC official, said during a deposition. “I didn’t believe we were asking them to remove content specifically,” she added later.

Facebook’s actions included shutting down groups aimed at supporting people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines over alleged misinformation, according to a lawsuit filed this month by people with suspected or confirmed vaccine injuries. Facebook told Flaherty in early 2021 that the company was removing groups that contained “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.”

Meta did not respond to a request for comment on Zuckerberg’s new remarks, including a request for examples of censored information that turned out to be true.

Zuckerberg elsewhere in the interview said he is “very pro-freedom of speech” and that Facebook was aimed at allowing people to “express as much as possible” while describing government requests to censor content as “obviously bad” and that, ultimately, “it’s Facebook’s call” on how to handle such requests.

Zuckerberg also said that some of the censorship requests were “punitive or vengeful,” as in “I want you to do this thing, and if you don’t, then I’m going to make your life difficult in a lot of ways.”

Casey Norman, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group of lawyers representing the injured plaintiffs in the new case, said Zuckerberg’s remarks were contradictory.

“Zuckerberg’s remarks in this interview came off to me as evasive and as an attempt to appease all sides without actually providing any meaningful answers or responses to specific issues and instances of censorship and viewpoint moderation of protected speech at the government’s behest,” Norman told The Epoch Times via email.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who has experienced censorship on Twitter, said that Facebook’s censorship “enabled school closures, vax mandates, toddler masking, and much else.”

“Glad to see some humility here,” he said of Zuckerberg’s remarks.

Meta properties have in recent months restored some users that were banned, including presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., though others remain banned.

Zuckerberg said that when it comes to deciding what information to take action on, “it’s best to generally boil things down to the harms that people agree on,” listing examples such as “sexual exploitation of children.”

“You want to reserve the censorship of content to things that are of known categories that people generally agree are bad,” he said.

Zuckerberg’s interview was released on the same day an investigation of Instagram found its algorithms helped connect a network of pedophiles.

A Meta spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the company works to fight child pornography on its platforms and has dismantled dozens of pedophile networks in recent years.

“Predators constantly change their tactics in their pursuit to harm children,” the spokesperson said, “and that’s why we have strict policies and technology to prevent them from finding or interacting with teens on our apps, and hire specialist teams who focus on understanding their evolving behaviors so we can eliminate abusive networks.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The greatest mystery of our time!
« Reply #780 on: June 19, 2023, 07:19:08 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
From an internet friend
« Reply #782 on: June 19, 2023, 11:48:51 AM »
Hello all,

Here is a book that was recently released on Pfizer’s knowledge and suppression of severe adverse events caused by their COVID vaccine and brought to my attention by Dr. Naomi Wolf, who has been doing podcasts about this issue for some time now.

Also, I have included a link to an article from The New York Sun, where Elon Musk and others have offered to donate $100,000 to charity if a prominent pro-vaccine author agrees to debate RFK Jr. on this subject. RFK Jr. has been talking about this for some time as well, and went on Joe Rogan’s podcast for an interview about it and other subjects. RFK Jr. has also written a book about this. (link below)

Pfizer is immunized against all liability for harm from these vaccines, which are experimental and never had proper clinical trials. They were released under the Emergency Use Authorization Act. There have been THOUSANDS of reports of serious adverse effects from the vaccines, and I for one will NEVER get another COVID booster.

Mark

https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LG4ZO82I3S6D&keywords=naomi+wolf+books+pfizer+documents&qid=1687194710&sprefix=naomi+wolf%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-1

https://www.nysun.com/article/joe-rogan-elon-musk-challenge-prominent-vaccine-booster-to-debate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-safety-of-covid-vaccines

https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Liberals-Censorship-American-Childrens-ebook/dp/B0B43N1BTM/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3JJ3VPX4N0H6X&keywords=robert+f+kennedy+jr+books&qid=1687195405&sprefix=robert+f%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-2

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Wuhan Scientist was defenestrated?!?
« Reply #785 on: June 19, 2023, 04:55:09 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Reasons to not debate?
« Reply #787 on: June 20, 2023, 06:26:27 AM »

This is what the arguments for the other side look like:

============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
 
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.


Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.

Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.

Hotez 100% made the right move.

This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)

The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?

But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:

It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.

Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.

It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.

May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.

Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.

While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.

Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.

Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:

Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”

“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.

Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.

Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)

Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.

“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.

Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?

One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful. 

Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.

Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?

A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.

Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.


The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.

The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity. 

Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.

Love, YLE and KP

In case you missed it:

The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.

COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.

Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Reasons to not debate?
« Reply #788 on: June 20, 2023, 06:34:00 AM »
Bullsh*t excuses. This is sciencism, not science.



This is what the arguments for the other side look like:

============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
 
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.


Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.

Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.

Hotez 100% made the right move.

This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)

The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?

But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:

It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.

Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.

It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.

May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.

Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.

While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.

Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.

Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:

Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”

“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.

Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.

Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)

Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.

“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.

Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?

One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful. 

Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.

Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?

A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.

Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.


The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.

The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity. 

Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.

Love, YLE and KP

In case you missed it:

The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.

COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.

Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #789 on: June 20, 2023, 06:59:41 AM »
Agreed, but good to know what the arguments used are so as to be ready to answer.

Otherwise we wind up looking like Hannity trying to lay a glove on Newsome.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #790 on: June 20, 2023, 07:05:20 AM »
Agreed, but good to know what the arguments used are so as to be ready to answer.

Otherwise we wind up looking like Hannity trying to lay a glove on Newsome.

Hannity is a moron. He could just run b-roll of Californian cities.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #791 on: June 20, 2023, 07:12:15 AM »
Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #792 on: June 20, 2023, 07:13:44 AM »
Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data.

Those states former Californians move to ?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Reasons to not debate? Because they are guilty as hell!
« Reply #793 on: June 20, 2023, 07:16:30 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/vax-pushing-debate-dodger-linked-chimeric-cronavirus-creation-wuhan

Bullsh*t excuses. This is sciencism, not science.



This is what the arguments for the other side look like:

============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
 
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.


Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.

Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.

Hotez 100% made the right move.

This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)

The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?

But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:

It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.

Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.

It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.

May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.

Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.

While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.

Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.

Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:

Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”

“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.

Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.

Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)

Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.

“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.

Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?

One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful. 

Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.

Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?

A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.

Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.


The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.

The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity. 

Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.

Love, YLE and KP

In case you missed it:

The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.

COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.

Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #794 on: June 20, 2023, 10:41:41 AM »
"Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data."

"Those states former Californians move to?"

IIRC he cited Mississippi and other deep south states.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #795 on: June 20, 2023, 10:47:00 AM »
"Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data."

"Those states former Californians move to?"

IIRC he cited Mississippi and other deep south states.

https://www.cato.org/study/overview-poverty-inequality-california#covid-19

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #796 on: June 20, 2023, 02:55:58 PM »
Not seeing how that is responsive to the question presented in this moment.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #797 on: June 20, 2023, 10:45:22 PM »
Not seeing how that is responsive to the question presented in this moment.

In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1).


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
More for Newscum
« Reply #798 on: June 20, 2023, 10:48:54 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69383
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #799 on: June 21, 2023, 05:15:13 AM »
"In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1)."

Well, that is certainly a relevant response to Newsome's slippery assertions!  Simple, concise, usable by an interviewing reporter or an opponent in debate.

BTW, I am realizing that as interesting as this is, this is not the thread for it.  We should be in the Newsome and/or the 2024 threads.