FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Fri Oct 1 01:23:30 PDT 2021
Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2, Informative)
by a-zA-Z0-9etc ( 6394646 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:29AM (#61844209) Homepage
Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people.
People who seek to gain by misleading others are doing something
very similar to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It's a
deliberately destructive act.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:47AM (#61844287)
Disinformation has become a public nuisance.
It's killing people.
TFA is about misinformation not disinformation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3)
by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:52AM (#61844317)
That's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:59PM (#61844707)
That's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap.
Disinformation and Misinformation are nothing alike.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:27PM (#61844873)
Dafuq you talking about. Most disinformation is
used to misinform... I think your talking about intent. The
disinformation of Russian stooges leads to misinformation being
propagated. The former has an intent to show distrust but the latter
has just been duped. It doesn't change the validity of the
information...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:13PM (#61845623)
Dafuq you talking about. Most disinformation
is used to misinform...
The argument disinformation and misinformation
is similar is like saying murder and self defense are similar. After
all both end with a dead body.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @01:28AM (#61846991)
They are similar. In both cases someone
was harmed or killed. A person who kills someone in self-defense still
killed someone, just like the murderer. An average person will likely
have this weigh on their consciousness a fair bit even given the
justification they did it to defend themselves. Only a psychopath
would feel nothing from killing someone in self-defense.
Nonetheless you didn't refute my argument
that both disinformation and misinformation rely on information that
is incorrect. So you come up with some silly comparison, which itself
is flawed, but still do not engage in any reasonable argument against
what your opponent is saying. You basically just proved why
misinformation is so effective.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they
did this. (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:44PM (#61848383)
They are similar.
This is an outlier minority position.
They are clearly not similar to most members of society or the legal
regimes of most states of the world.
Killing an attacker may result in
public praise and being branded a hero.
Killing defenseless old ladies for
kicks results in life imprisonment or death penalty and public
outrage.
Nonetheless you didn't refute my
argument that both disinformation and misinformation rely on
information that is incorrect.
This isn't an argument its an obvious
statement of fact. As with murder vs self defense the outcome isn't
the relevant issue. It's the Mens rea / intent / circumstances that
matter.
So you come up with some silly
comparison, which itself is flawed, but still do not engage in any
reasonable argument against what your opponent is saying. You
basically just proved why misinformation is so effective.
Basically my position is humanity is
comprised entirely of shitheads and therefore all that matters are
structures of governance that reinforce less stinky behavior and how
big and gross any particular shithead is liable to become.
The one constant throughout all of
human history is the corrupting influence and stench of power.
Aside from the practical matter of
non-existence of an impartial Oracle to decide truth demanding people
only say true things places an unacceptable amount of power in the
hands of shitheads who want to play Oracle complete with their shitty
sensibilities and lust for smelling and shitting.
Much better for society to have
everyone fighting over scraps of power and influence even though some
portion of them are completely full of shit and smell bad than
tolerating structures which only breed corruption and even more
dangerous worse smelling shit.
It might suck to have to tolerate
idiots who think that Joseph Smith's golden plates are anything other
than a scam or Lafayette Hubbard didn't really create a religion to
make money. It might suck to deal with cranks who talk of electric
universe, aliens, "squibs" in the trade towers, Abrahamic religions
and Saddam being in on 9/11. Yet what is proven to be far worse for
society is when a few shitheads get to play Oracle and dictate to
everyone what is true and what they are allowed to say.
Freedom of speech I believe should be
absolute. This means everyone should have the freedom to communicate
any ideas and beliefs regardless of their content. It does not mean
people get to use communication as an excuse to achieve whatever
shitty scheme they are cooking up. It means the right to in legal
parlance "pure speech". Those who don't like what you have to say have
a remedy of speaking up. If you can't compete too bad so sad.
The problem with (social) media is
that it is intentionally architected to reinforce poor governance and
promote shitty behavior intentionally for profit. The answer is
legislation / anti-trust action not censorship.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:38PM (#61844575) Homepage Journal
Misinformation is harmful. Censorship is harmful. Both are
harmful. No matter who wins, we lose.
The operators of YouTube have just pronounced themselves the
proper authority on truth. Why would we trust THEM? They are humans
too, full of biases and corruption, and stupidity, just like the
people spreading the misinformation.
The disease is bad and the cure is even worse.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:40PM (#61844587) Homepage Journal
Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the dual-meaning of
my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure is even worse."
In that case "the disease" was supposed to be "misinformation." Not
COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders of misinformation
because of my distaste for censorship.
I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3)
by Goetterdaemmerung ( 140496 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:26PM (#61844865)
Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the
dual-meaning of my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure
is even worse." In that case "the disease" was supposed to be
"misinformation." Not COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders
of misinformation because of my distaste for censorship.
I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win.
The only winning move is not to play.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:01PM (#61844723)
Honestly, the best way to make a conspiracy ring true to
is to forbid any reference to said conspiracy.
How do you trust the "science" behind covid when doctors
or scientist that are critical get pulled from visibility? When you
are only allowed to hear about how good something is, how do you trust
that it is actually good?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Random Walk ( 252043 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @07:21AM (#61847397)
The people spreading FUD on youtube are not
scientists, they are crackpots. It's easy to recognize the difference,
because scientists tend to take account of the difference between what
is known and what is not. Scientists don't yell "VACCINES KILL YOU",
they say things like "this particular side effect needs to be studied
more thoroughly".
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021
@08:32AM (#61847481)
This is the kind of video that is censored on
youtube: https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com]
The video is 100% legit, the only thing these
videos are doing is undermining the criminal get rich model of bigtech
and its allies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @10:25AM (#61847723)
If it is that easy to tell the difference, then
why remove it. I have to take your word for it since it's all being
hidden.
They are not removing the posts with people
screaming "NOT TAKING A VACCINE WILL KILL THE VACINATED!!"
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30,
2021 @11:16AM (#61847857)
As far as I know, this is the first time in
history that the medias are blaming the people who refuse to take this
product for the failure in efficiency and effectiveness of the product
itself. The medias are executing this divide and conquer operation.
This should be considered as a psychological warfare.
Anyway, after 20 years of covid vaccine
experiments, no team passed the animal trial stage successfully.
Informed consent, about these experimental phase 3 products, implies
to know this little scientific issue. As written this is a phase 3
experiment, this means you could be injected with the placebo as well.
A summary by Alexis BUGNOLO: https://twitter.com/GaumontRen...
[twitter.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021
@08:27AM (#61847473)
These drug companies are serial scammers; This is
likely the reason why MSM and bigtech adore them.
If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful
products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any
product where they have NO liability?
In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the
4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to
market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995,
1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine
also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for
another discussion)
Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal
payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count.
You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are
demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection
put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's
hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in
case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in
at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they
completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their
study that didn't match.
Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for
"Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not
approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their
ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops.
...
https://www.deconstructingconv... [deconstruc...tional.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by aquacrayfish ( 1986878 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @12:29PM (#61848135)
In general, sure, but people have been all in on all
sorts of vaccine conspiracies since they came out. People don't trust
the science because there are organized media channels (TV, podcasts,
etc.) that have been injecting bad faith arguments. I don't know what
the 'right thing' to do is, but up until YouTube doing this it
certainly hasn't felt like we're moving in a great direction. This
move will likely not change much because this late in the game people
tend to have their minds made up with the information they have,
correct or otherwise.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:40PM (#61848167)
Could you explain where the conspiracy is? He
gives verifiable facts.
Science is not a religion; The expression "trust
the science" means you are 100% science illiterate.
If the “vaccines” were actually vaccines (not an
experimental therapeutic) and worked with minimal side effects then
censorship would not be necessary. The act of censorship is all you
need to know really. It’s a tacit admission to run towards verboten
information.
Is this Dutch Politician "trust the science", or
he is someone very well informed? https://www.bitchute.com/video...
[bitchute.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:24PM (#61846477)
>The operators of YouTube have just pronounced themselves
the proper authority on truth.
Ugh, this is so misleading. If you actually read the
policy update blog, they've spent a lot of time working with actual
public health authorities to craft this policy. They aren't making
things up according to their whims - they're following the best
science we have to date. That's literally the best possible authority
and the ONLY one you (or they) should trust.
Issues of science are never solved by public debate or
unfettered speech - they're solved by doing more science. If these
wackos had any integrity or interest in real truth, they would be
doing real scientific research instead of publishing sensationalist
non$en$e to scare laypeople. Good riddance.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3)
by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:18PM
(#61845109) Homepage
I agree it's a nuisance, and I agree that it's dangerous, but
it's also dangerous to see censorship by big nebulous organizations
that control so much of the communication bandwidth. It's actually
pretty easy to imagine a vaccine that does end up having some problems
in the future, and you've just made it impossible to post a video to
YouTube about it. Don't you think the pharmaceutical company will be
happy that they can now get YouTube's help in covering it up? "That
vaccine is approved! You can't say anything negative about it!"
This is a sad day, both for the fact that we seem to deem it
necessary because there is so much misinformation, and because it's so
bad that people like yourself are willing to allow the bending of
fundamentally important democratic principles in order to deal with
it. You admit that you're not swayed by these arguments because you
understand they're B.S., but your goal is to protect other people you
don't even know from this B.S. by accepting a (frankly untrustworthy)
3rd party's determination of what passes for the "truth" on their
website. The 10,000 foot view of this is that it's bad for society all
around.
We've never been a population full of logical reasonable
thinkers. There has always been lots of misinformation. In fact, most
information that large corporate or political organizations come out
with is carefully selected to promote a selected narrative. There is a
spectrum of objectivity, but we never get to the absolute objective
truth. That's why a healthy democracy depends on the proverbial
firehose of B.S. in order to challenge current beliefs, make us
re-evaluate what we hold true, and nudge us ever so slowly towards a
slightly more accurate view of reality. Just because it's painful
doesn't mean we shouldn't bear it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by jabuzz ( 182671 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@05:15AM (#61847209) Homepage
In which case gather the data, publish a peer reviewed
paper in an appropriate journal. Then saying vaccine X causes harm Y
will not be misinformation about a vaccine and you will be fine to
publish a YouTube video about it.
However if you post a video that says a vaccine has a
microchip in it, will sterilise you, de-religion you (how the fucking
hell that works is beyond me) etc. etc. then yes it is not even an
opinion is just fantasy and it gets pulled, keep doing it and your
account gets suspended. Opinions are not facts.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:36PM (#61845219) Journal
Why would I guess that you would be insisting (pre Trump, that
is) that we not believe what evil corporations tell us is "the truth".
My, how times have changed, as long as they genuflect toward
your particular banners, eh? Now they're the good guys and we have
people on slashdot (!) INSISTING angrily that 'freedom of speech' only
narrowly applies to government and corporations can muzzle whomever
they have the ability to.
You know, for the public good.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:31PM (#61846507)
That's such a bad argument. This isn't a matter of
political opinion - it's a matter of scientific knowledge. You don't
have to believe the corporation because you can crosscheck their
policies with actual public health authorities, who are making
decisions according to the best science we have. Scientific knowledge
is hardly infallible but the ONLY rational choice laypeople have, *by
the very definition of layperson*, is to follow the advice of the
actual health authorities.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@11:15AM (#61847851) Journal
"trust it, it's scientific knowledge" is absolutely a
load of crap, though.
Find me one - ANY- scientist who will assert that we
know the complete truth about something that will never change,
particularly about something so complex, and absolutely at the
front-end as COVID. (Don't bother, because you probably CAN find such
certainty; it's a sign of a snake-oil salesman, not a scientist.)
I was accused of 'peddling lies and disinformation' on
THIS SITE when last year I merely said that the question of where this
came from (natural, vs lab leak was the context of that discussion)
/wasn't settled/.
Was that scientific "fact" then? Because various
social media sites were already screening that conversation at that
time for what the "facts" were.
The idea that we take whatever "a scientist" says as
some sort of infallible holy writ is unbelievable. As if scientists,
and the organizations they belong to, aren't subject to tribalism,
politics, personal bias, and the host of other very HUMAN factors that
play a role in what's "believed to be true".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-science. Not at all.
Fucking creationists, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers...all of a breed of
particularly stupid people. Frankly, if you're stupid enough to
home-dose yourself with veterinary meds or dumb shit like that, I call
that a win for Darwin.
But I am reasonably scientifically literate myself,
and only someone trying to shill a political opinion would insist
'just trust it, the science says so'. That's not science, that's
religion.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @11:42AM (#61847965)
You misunderstand and are presenting a false
choice - it's not all or nothing and has nothing to do with religion.
The bottom line is we need heuristics that make the most reliable
decisions given the available information. That ONLY rational
heuristic for laypeople is "what do the majority of actual experts
think right now"? That says NOTHING about infallibility or that what
experts think won't change in the future - that's not a flaw, that's
just how science works. But any other heuristic is pure hubris for
laypeople - they (myself included) literally don't have the knowledge
or tools to evaluate anything else. It's when they think they DO that
they become vulnerable to misinformation and spread bullshit.
To be clear, trusting experts is itself NOT binary
- there are things for which the science is just about AS settled as
possible, such as evolution and vaccines. Then there are things where
lots of experts (/global health authorities) think meaningfully
different things and there's more leeway for personal judgment, just
because the answer is very much not clear to anybody. I had this same
debate at the height of the mask debates early on in the pandemic - I
know somebody who was insisting people NOT where masks simply because
the CDC said not to at the time. But he was ignoring that plenty of
health authorities in Asian countries WERE advocating masks. The
expert/global health opinion was unclear and he was making the mistake
of trusting just a specific, single one.
I can understand your frustration at people
thinking scientific knowledge is complete or insulting you for calling
out where it's incomplete. But that doesn't change the core issue
that, even though it's guaranteed to be wrong some percentage of the
time, the best *bet* we have at any given moment is to act in
accordance with the opinion of the majority of experts. People want
certainty that just doesn't exist and we have to figure out how to
make the best decisions available, knowing that they'll be wrong some
percentage of the time.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Troll)
by Fatalintent ( 7507602 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:42AM (#61844253)
Will it still be disinformation if Trump gets back in office?
Then will we be crying about censorship when it doesnt go with our
current agenda? This is dangerous. Once you censor and once you give
up or take away freedoms, you don't get them back. Sometimes the ends
really does not justify the means.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:03PM (#61844383)
Will it still be disinformation if Trump gets back in office?
Yes, reality doesn't change based on who is President.
This is not a "both sides" problem. One "side" has
completely untethered themselves from reality thanks to the right-wing
media ecosystem.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Offtopic)
by rapierian ( 608068 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:27PM (#61844875)
Because Russia Collusion was completely based on reality.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:5, Informative)
by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:34PM (#61845213)
Yes. It was:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24... [npr.org]
https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com]
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05... [techcrunch.com]
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
And those are just the top handful of articles
from googling for: "facebook russia 2016". It doesn't include their
shenanigans with other social networks, traditional media, leaks,
hacking, and the rest. So yes, it is entirely based in reality. We
don't "have the receipts," as they say, in my specific examples. But
that's because Facebook WROTE the receipts after cashing the damn
checks. So you can take your dear leader's "the Russia hoax" BS and
just GTFO. You're not fooling anyone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:3, Insightful)
by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @03:20PM (#61845415) Homepage
https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com]
Russiagaters are great at ignoring evidence to
the contrary of their conspiracy. I'm saying this as a far Leftie, not
a Trump-Humper. Russiagate was a great excuse for the Democratic Party
to completely ignore the actual reasons they lost to a gameshow host.
I'm sure it is very comfy having your head buried in the sand.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:5, Insightful)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:47PM (#61845523)
It depends on what you think "Russiagate"
actually is. I don't think Trump is a KGB asset. Honestly he's too
fucking stupid and can't keep his mouth shut. Is he being deferential
to Putin because he wants Putin's help in the form of disinformation
campaigns to help him win? I think that's pretty obviously true.
We already know the reasons Hillary lost
to Trump. She was very unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. IN
fact Trump and Hillary were the 2 least popular presidential
candidates in US history. What happens when 2 very unpopular
candidates are in an election together? One of them wins. And the
electoral college advantage for Trump was just enough to help him beat
Hillary despite losing the popular vote.
Our dumb election system causes dogshit
candidates to be nominated. It only benefits the two political
parties.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:3, Insightful)
by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:40PM (#61845757) Homepage
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com]
The reasons go beyond Hillary's
disastrous campaign and are quite the condemnation of what the
Democratic Party has become. Obama acting like Reagan turned off a lot
of voters, such as myself. I voted for him in 2008, but not in 2012.
The Dems chased me from their party, and no planet destroying
Republican will ever get my vote. So, third party it is, until the
Dems get their heads out of billionaire butts and do more than write
strongly worded letters or post sassy tweets or blame unelected,
appointed officials for not being able to pass legislation that would
actually help people.
Trump did quite a few things that
Putin didn't want, but those are always ignored in favor of the
narrative that he was sucking up to Putin. So, no, it isn't pretty
obviously true. Just take a look at the gas pipeline thru Germany for
an example. Biden is fine with it, while Trump was against it. So...
is Biden sucking up to Putin? No, he isn't, just like Trump wasn't.
Just like the walls weren't closing in on Trump every day, despite
what the media organs of the Democratic Party were screeching (MSNBC,
CNN, Politico, WaPo, etc.).
I didn't let Trump's victory turn off
my critical thinking skills, unlike most registered Democrats.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they
did this. (Score:3)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:34PM (#61846349)
What are some things Trump did
that Putin didn't want? I can think of like 1 or 2, but not quite a
lot. And it IS obviously true that Trump sought and welcomed Russia's
help. The evidence that Trump was sucking up to Putin is not
contradicted by the fact that he also did some things that Putin maybe
didn't like. Trump does lots of things that lots of people don't like
because he's a buffoon.
Being for or against a gas
pipeline isn't sucking up to anyone. What I am referring to is
constantly talking about how powerful Putin is. And when asked if
Putin is a killer, he trashes America to defend Putin. He sides with
Putin over our own intelligence services publicly.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that
they did this. (Score:2)
by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:23PM (#61848331) Homepage
Don't confuse words with
actions. The cloud of misinformation and outright lies that spewed
from the media wing of the Democratic Party was constantly making
mountains out of molehills. A dumb reporter asks a dumb President a
dumb question and the dumb answer is trotted out as "evidence" of the
dumb President's subservience. I put such things as "Trump trusts
Russia over our own intelligence services" in the same category as
"Trump puts catsup on his steak." Just a bunch of hot air in a feeble
attempt to insult the person in the White House. Just like criticizing
Obama for wearing a tan suit. Meaningless. Or like AOC issuing sassy
tweets, but not actually doing anything to help people, as she
promised she would when she campaigned for office. Meaningless.
Don't let the theater fool
you. The media organs of the Democratic Party put political gotcha
over truth. The same media organizations that couldn't stop beating
the drums of war when Bush Jr. wanted to invade Iraq. Our fourth
estate has utterly failed us, for over two decades now.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @03:25PM (#61848773) Homepage
It was both.
Russia was certainly sowing disinformation
around the campaign and attempting to put Trump in office. Is it
because he was in league with them or because he was merely a useful
idiot? Probably the latter. Between flattery and insults he's
ridiculously easy to influence. There's no doubt that Russia was
actively trying to influence the election via propaganda, regardless
of whether or not they tried anything more direct.
On the other hand, Democrats assumed there
was no way they could lose to an idiot like Trump. A week-old ham
sandwich would be a better president than he would. They didn't
understand just how much hatred there was for her. Once she lost
Russia was an easy scapegoat for Democrats to avoid introspection.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @05:10PM (#61849143) Homepage
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
[nytimes.com] This article talks about indictments that went nowhere
and hypes IRA's $100,000 spent on advertising, which if you downloaded
the examples provided by Congress, you see that almost all the ads
that were run had nothing to do with elections and everything to do
with trying to gain followers to the accounts that posted the ads.
This article is much ado about nothing and is not evidence of
ANYTHING.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24... [npr.org]
This article builds on the whole idea that the IRA was election
meddling, when again, most of what it did had nothing to do with
elections. As if the IRA accounts posting dumb memes without paying to
boost them is somehow nefarious and further evidence of their election
twerking.
https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com]
This article is about lax regulations when it comes to political
advertising and does not contain any proof of Russian election
twerking.
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com] If
you've seen the incredibly dumb memes that were put out by the IRA,
you would realize how racist it is to say black Americans were
influenced by them.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
[theguardian.com] This is another article that makes a mountain out of
a molehill, claiming that IRA's dumb memes, which mostly weren't about
elections, are somehow evidence of election twerking. Almost like I'm
seeing a theme in the Russiagate conspiracy articles. Just keep
repeating the same wildly exaggerated claims over and over as if that
is evidence for something.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05...
[techcrunch.com] Oh look, another article doing the same thing. They
had to comb through gobs of memes to cherry pick the political ones.
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
This article is about Facebook being haunted by the results of the
2016 election, and is not evidence of anything.
Have you noticed the incredibly large number
of Russiagate stories that have been retracted? I have. And isn't it
funny, how none of the retracted stories are saying Russia didn't
influence the election. All the retracted stories fall on one side of
the fence.
https://greenwald.substack.com...
[substack.com] But then we have one of Hillary's lawyers indicted for
lying to the FBI about Russiagate. Almost like the whole thing is a
bogus conspiracy.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:45PM (#61845263)
You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take the
Trump vaccine [msn.com] but, now that they're in power, it's the most
important thing ever [nbcnews.com]?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:5, Insightful)
by tsqr ( 808554 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:28PM (#61845441)
You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take
the Trump vaccine [msn.com] but, now that they're in power, it's the
most important thing ever [nbcnews.com]?
Get your facts straight. Here's what Kamala Harris
actually said: If Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us we should take it,
I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump
tells me to take it, I’m not taking it. So all she's saying in regard
to Trump is that she wouldn't take him at his word. Given his
demonstrated problems with truthfulness, that's not unreasonable.
The article contains no quote at all from Biden,
so there's nothing to refute.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @08:39PM (#61846529)
isnt it funny the very same broadcast they
where going to push mask they all where standing there without mask
becouse they didn't relise the camera was on.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:06PM (#61845353)
You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take
the Trump vaccine [msn.com]
Hmm, an opinion article backed by tweets from a
random guy I've never heard of. Some great evidence you have there
sir!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:29PM (#61845449)
Thanks for providing yet another example of the
right-wing media being untethered from reality.
First, Biden-Harris didn't say anything close to
what you're claiming. Harris was the one talking about the vaccine in
the quote you're trying to butcher.
Second, what she actually said is she would not
trust the vaccine if Trump said it was good and "the doctors" did not
agree. The big tell that you are being lied to is the article you're
citing doesn't include what she actually said [youtube.com].
But reality doesn't agree with your claims, so
you've jettisoned reality.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:53PM (#61845543)
How are you this dumb? Also Turmp wouldn't even
publicly take the vaccine he claims to have created because he is
scared of his own dumb as shit supporters
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:42PM (#61844945) Journal
The left believes a ton of conspiracy theories, like
there was a grand conspiracy to take out the government on January 6,
or that Russia made Trump win in 2016. Joining a party causes you to
turn your brain off, because you want to go along with a crowd.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:20PM (#61845421)
like there was a grand conspiracy to take out the
government on January 6
This would be an example of being untethered from
reality thanks to the right-wing media ecosystem. Because lying about
what "the left" believes is a lot easier than talking about what "the
left" actually believes.
The other way that this diverges from reality is
"the left" aren't authoritarians. They aren't all marching in
lock-step with the same beliefs. Because unlike the right, they are
not consuming one media ecosystem utterly untethered from reality. But
lying about it and pretending "the left" is a mirror image of the
right is again a lot easier than talking about what various factions
of "the left" actually believe.
"The left" believes there was a
poorly-orchestrated coup attempt on 1/6. So far, the only evidence
against this is claims that are not backed by any of the actual
evidence.
or that Russia made Trump win in 2016
There is plenty of proof they ran operations to
influence it. Were there efforts alone enough to make Trump win? No,
but it helped. The primary source of Trump's win in 2016 is Clinton
ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in modern history. For
example, how the fuck do you keep trusting your analytics when they
get the MI primary wrong by 30 points?
Clinton's bad campaign made it very close, and
then every little nudge helps.
Joining a party causes you to turn your brain off,
because you want to go along with a crowd.
Joining the Republican party does. One only has to
look at the shit we're going through with Manchin, Sinema, and the
idiotic 12 in the House to realize the Democratic party isn't
lock-step organization you're claiming it to be.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:34PM (#61845477) Journal
The lack of self-awareness in your post is
astounding. A confluence of motivated reasoning, intentional
blindness, and decrying party conformity while at the same time you
are conforming to all the conspiracies of your party. You literally
turned your brain off.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:42PM (#61845513)
Again, this is not a both-sides problem,
no matter how much you want to make it a both-sides problem.
Alternatively, put up or shut up. Where's
the evidence the 1/6 events were not as claimed? Or the Russia did not
run an information operation in 2016? 'Cause I've got multiple court
cases, leaked memos, dead cops, and the Muller report saying those
happened.
(I eagerly await you to pretend no proof
of collusion with Russia is no proof of Russia doing anything, as
folks like you always do when asked for proof)
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:11PM (#61845611)
IF you think Russia hasn't run an op
in every election year since 1946 you probably need to check into a
nursing home, or euthanasia clinic. Of course, the CIA are equally as
bad, and probably worse.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:13PM (#61845625) Journal
Again, this is not a both-sides
problem, no matter how much you want to make it a both-sides problem.
You're right, it's a you problem.
You've demonstrated multiple logical fallacies in your post starting
with motivated reasoning.
Don't ever do that again.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they
did this. (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:28PM (#61845703)
You know, it's a lot shorter to
type "I have no proof for any of my claims".
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that
they did this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:02PM (#61845847) Journal
I do have proof for my claims.
Look at your posts. They're entirely motivated reasoning.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:0)
by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @07:57PM (#61846413)
The Russians were clearly involved in
screwing with the 2016 Presidential election. The implication that the
Russian efforts were exclusively anti-Clinton is funny.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:2, Insightful)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:50PM (#61845535)
A conspiracy implies secrecy. Trump spread the big
lie and incited his dumb supporters publicly. He thinks he can do
anything and get away with it as long as it is public. And honestly,
it seems like he is right.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:12PM (#61845621) Journal
He thinks he can do anything and get away with
it as long as it is public. And honestly, it seems like he is right.
Clearly not, is your brain screwed on
backwards? If he could get away with anything, he would still be
president. Or his daughter would.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @06:35PM (#61846159)
Getting away with something usually just
means avoiding punishment, which is how I meant it. I don't consider
not winning an election to be a punishment. It's just something that
happens when someone is very unpopular. He is getting away with
crimes.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Frankablu ( 812139 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @10:06PM (#61846709) Journal
Well January 6 was a coup. Since you don't know
what that word means let me explain it to you. A coup is where the
people storm the rulers' place of governance and the country's
security forces do not respond. The non response of the country's
security forces is what makes something a coup.
Also did the pipebooms spray confetti in your world?
Well in 2015 I had to listen to my co-worker with
a russian wife explain to me in great detail why Trump would be a
great president for Russia. When he got into power he handed over US
military positions to the Russians. Russia put in effort to get him
elected for their own internal interests and Trump repaid the favor
during his time in office. Why do you think Trump gave the US military
positions to Russian?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @10:25PM (#61846743) Journal
Well January 6 was a coup.
Keep on pushing the crazy, because you are crazy.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:58PM (#61845039)
Yes, reality doesn't change based on who is President.
The issue at hand is not about objective reality
itself. To be exceedingly generous it is the interpretation or belief
of what reality is to those with power.
Or to be more realistic objective reality is whatever
those with power say it is.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:15PM (#61845101) Homepage Journal
Please mod this into the stratosphere as Informative.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:32PM (#61846513)
This is not a "both sides" problem. One "side" has
completely untethered themselves from reality thanks to the right-wing
media ecosystem.
O
M
G
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:38PM (#61844925) Journal
No, you have to understand, my ideas are all correct.
Everyone else should be censored.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Troll)
by hallkbrdz ( 896248 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:51AM (#61844305)
Exactly. Either you can openly discuss things and have
different viewpoints allowing individuals to decide for themselves, or
you have state controlled ideas with no allowed opposition. Big media
and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5,
Insightful)
by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:22PM (#61844491)
Would you want to find out the hard way after surgery
from an accident that your humors were excised correctly but your bile
was still imbalanced? There is a reason we use evidence based
medicine, revoke medical licenses for circumventing it, and don’t
except made up BS opinions. It’s not state sponsored censorship, it’s
because science works.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:3, Insightful)
by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:38PM (#61845227) Homepage
Except that "evidence based medicine" is a concept
that's only firmly taken hold in the last few decades [wikipedia.org].
Doctors routinely (and sometimes still) make a lot of gut-based
decisions at odds with evidence, or they're not aware of evidence.
Science does work, but it works mostly by disagreement and upending
long held beliefs. You must fight censorship if you support science.
Remember, most scholarly papers that make it to publication are later
proven to be wrong. We tend to only publish surprising results. So
don't pretend that science has this big "book of truth" that they let
the rest of us peek at from time to time. And that's coming from me,
who is very pro-science. To paraphrase, "Science is the worst way of
discovering things about the world... except for all the others."
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3)
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:42PM (#61845247)
I think a lot of people don't understand that
diagnosis of most diseases isn't done through some sort of actual
biochemical test, or chemical assay - it's literally "you have X out
of Y of these symptoms, so we'll say you have Z".
If we were doing medicine like science,
diagnoses would have clear falsification criteria. Medicine is an art,
practiced by people in white robes.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:14PM (#61845389)
Medicine is only an art because it’s
messing with the only alien technology we have ever found and it’s far
far more advanced than anything humans have ever conceived of yet. Add
to it that every person is different, with different responses to the
same treatments/medications and it does require some “art” but that’s
only because we lack understanding and information and will fade away
as we make progress.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:0, Troll)
by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844613)
Like the science that says the most vaccinated
countries in the world aren't seeing any slowdown in covid cases? Or
that proves over the last 2 years of data that mask mandates and
lockdowns didn't make a difference in overall pandemic trajectory
between countries or states?
You aren't practicing science, you're practicing
religion and calling it science.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this.
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Fatalintent ( 7507602 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:42PM (#61844951)
I think the disagreement here is you have
people that absolutely believe the science they are told is the real
science is the real science. Don't forget, when Trump was in office
most of the climate change information was stripped from the official
website. Was that misinformation then? Now that it is coming back is
considered real information and not misinformation? Remember when
meshes came out for hernias. The science and studies showed they were
safe. Now there are lawsuits galore because they arent. What about
pfizers latest recall their anti smoking drug. Did it not go through
FDA channels and get approved? That means the science said it was
safe. Now it is being recalled because it causes cancer. REAL science
is meant to be questioned. There is a reason why the theory of
relativity, while highly valued is still called a theory and not a
fact is because science needs to have open discussion and the findings
that come out that do not support the current science need to be
analyzed. Desperation to get back to normal does not nullify doing
science correctly.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:39PM (#61845235)
I, for one, welcome our unfalsifiable overlords.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:44PM (#61845515)
There is a reason why the theory of
relativity, while highly valued is still called a theory
Yes, it's because English has multiple
uses for words. Not because there's the doubt you are trying to claim.
Also, all your examples of drugs that
later caused problems are not vaccines. Because vaccines don't stick
around in your system to cause the problems you're trying to link them
to.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @05:43PM (#61845983)
Also, all your examples of drugs that
later caused problems are not vaccines. Because vaccines don't stick
around in your system to cause the problems you're trying to link them
to.
Are you saying we the drug companies
cannot go wrong with vaccines but can with other drugs, that seem
silly there well may be unforeseen side effects. If they are
guaranteed safe and we know what will happen, why even waste our time
testing, just make the vaccine and give it to people. The answer is we
don't know what will happen, the body is complicated. I can't even be
sure what a change to a computer program will do so I always test
every change, and that is far simpler, less variance and we know far
more about it than the human body.
I believe that the current vaccines
are safe to the best of our knowledge, which is the best we can ever
get, but it does not mean we need to ban the questioning of them.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:1)
by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @08:22PM (#61846471)
FYI...
Excerpts from "Scientific Law vs.
Theory: How Are They Different?"
When reviewing scientific research or
information about the world around you, it's important to know how to
separate scientific law from theory. These closely related terms are
similar yet not the same. Discover that both are equally important
components of the scientific method as you explore scientific law vs.
theory.
A scientific law focuses solely on
describing what. A scientific law provides a description of a directly
observable phenomenon. It describes what will or is expected to happen
in a certain set of circumstances.
What is a scientific theory explores
why. A theory is about underlying causes, seeking to explain the
reason the phenomenon occurs. The focus of a theory is to provide a
logical explanation for things that occur in nature. There can be more
than one theory about the same phenomenon.
The law of conservation of energy
states that energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be
changed into a different form or transferred to another object.
This "law" describes a phenomenon, but
does not seek to provide a reason that the phenomenon occurs.
atomic theory - Atomic theory
indicates that all matter is made up of atoms, which are microscopic
particles that cannot be divided, created or destroyed. It explains
why substances composed of one element (such as pure gold) are
different from items that consist of multiple elements (such as a
metal alloy).
This "theory" explains *why*...
This is also pretty good:
https://thehappyscientist.com/...
[thehappyscientist.com]
(answer- never... because given proper
definitions, the question is nonsensical"
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:-1)
by Guildor_sm ( 6446612 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @12:06PM (#61848045)
people have short memories. We've
developed vaccines in the past that have gone on to do unthinkable
damage, and death. Only after the CDC/FDA regulation, distribution
(and drive for profit) does it finally get banned. Here's one example
right from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov]
We're human, we make mistakes. Our
mistakes should not be hidden when it affects the lives of others, and
even more so when you're talking about the public / general
population. Vaccines should not be administered without telling the
truth! In the UK for instance, our Health and Safety Execitive have
admitted that more people have died of Covid after receiveing one or
more jabs, than those who have not had any jabs. Does that sound like
the vaccines work to you? But this fact burried in statistics would
likely be removed from youtube, thanks to this fascist dictatorship by
the powers that be.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @08:37PM (#61846525)
climate change is a natural cycle the
earth has. the misinformation come from agenda based groups who love
to use that as a excuse to push bad policy's.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:0)
by drn8 ( 883816 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @02:59PM (#61848679)
The Chantix recall is for some recent
batches that may have been tainted with an impurity during
manufacturing. The drug is still approved and it has no bearing on the
safety of Chantix over the 15 years it's been on the market.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:15PM (#61844803) Homepage Journal
#BranchCovidians
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:20PM (#61845661) Homepage
Lol your references are ancient.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:39PM (#61845497)
Maybe the most vaccinated countries aren't
seeing a slowdown because their rates are already very low. Only the
countries doing really badly can see huge improvements.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:55PM (#61845025) Journal
But... That's censorship! Give people the "facts"
about blood-letting and let them make their own choice! Big science
wants to run barbershop surgeons out of business. Follow the money,
sheeple! Why do you hate freedom?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @05:52PM (#61846013)
Why not really, do you see a run on people
doing blood letting if that happen, if people are that stupid then
perhaps they deserve what they get. If you cannot convince people that
blood letting is bad then perhaps that is an indicator of how little
people trust you.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @06:40PM (#61846175) Journal
You're putting the blame in the wrong
place. It ought to be on the people spreading the false information!
The reason a lot of these people don't
trust legitimate sources is because they've been told not to trust
them by charismatic conspiracy peddlers. I'm not clear on the
psychology, but I understand that it has something to do with making
the otherwise powerless victim feel like they're important because
they have secret knowledge that others don't have. Evil assholes take
advantage of that vulnerability to build their little misinformation
cults.
Bloodletting isn't that far off the mark.
There are people taking so much livestock dewormer that they're
shedding their intestinal lining. They feel awful but they still keep
eating horse paste. They think they feel like crap because their body
is "getting rid of 'toxins'" and that's just how it feels. They think
the bits of their intestinal lining they're leaving in the commode are
really "rope worms" and see it as a sign that the treatment is
working! (Rope worms aren't even a real parasite!)
Misinformation is very obviously harming
them, but they can't break free because they only trust the guys who
told them to eat poison and trust no one else! Worse, they think that
they're the ones who have a lock on the truth!
I'm not going to accept blame for that.
I've never given them a reason not to trust me and I've always told
them the truth. The only people at fault here are the conspiracy
peddlers and the right-wing media outlets that lend them credibility.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:25PM (#61844505)
Big media and tech have choose to side with the state
instead of the people.
They've sided with their sponsors, who would very much
like to see this pandemic end so they can get back to making money.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:05PM (#61844753)
And the pharmaceutical companies who would be
thrilled with selling a new shot that you're required by The State to
take every six months for the rest of your life.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4,
Insightful)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:21PM (#61844825)
Big media and tech have choose to side with the state
instead of the people.
Big media and big tech side with themselves and their
profits, not the state (spoiler; they hate the state!) And it turns
out that killing your users is terrible for profit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5,
Insightful)
by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @02:18PM (#61845107)
Either you can openly discuss things and have
different viewpoints allowing individuals to decide for themselves
Except that's not what's happening here. Instead of
discussion, we get people being led down gradual, but
increasingly-crazy rabbitholes by algorithms designed to increase
'engagement'. We get whole sections of society so infected by nonsense
they've become immune to any sort of rational argument. Open
discussion is failing to curb this, so sane, rational people are
looking for different avenues to stem this tsunami of bullshit that's
rolling over us.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @02:44PM (#61845257)
What if you're the one infected, and you've become
immune to rational argument? How would you know?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:07PM (#61845359) Homepage Journal
Not in the case of public health. It's one thing if
someone doesn't understand something and it gets them killed, it's
another if their ignorance and rejection of expert advice gets YOU
killed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by Kitkoan ( 1719118 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@06:10PM (#61846085)
The issue here isn't that we aren't talking about
different opinions, we are talking about facts. There aren't different
viewpoints to reality.
You can try to declare that water isn't wet all you
want, but the facts are it is wet, its not someones viewpoint, its not
some state controlled idea, its not some conspiracy theory, or
shadowing group trying to control, etc... Its facts.
And thats what this is about, making sure that people
are given facts and not some rando hearsay that can lead them to no
longer have the real facts to make real decisions.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:02PM (#61844739)
If what Trump says is True then it isn't Disinformation.
However Trump has a habit of lying, or at least saying to his base
what he thinks they want to hear, despite how factual it is.
The thing is, this is verifiable incorrect data that is
being spread, it is not a political opinion, it is just wrong
information meant to deceive us. How do I know, well I work with the
actual raw data, and I personally know and trust the others who
provide such data up. The thing is, Vaccines are Safe and Effective.
Not getting them will put you in much more danger. The Vaccine isn't
new technology pulled out of someones Ass but from 20 years of
research, into the mRNA.
Those who are Vaccinated, are under a 10% chance on
catching Covid (And NOT SPREADING IT OTHERS) of those who catch Covid
have much lighter symptoms on the whole, and are generally much safer
from compilations. This isn't from CNN or MSNBC, but looking at the
Data.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3)
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:49PM (#61845285)
You're confusing group risk with individual risk.
Yes, it is better for the group that 1 in a million
children die from any given vaccine. But for that one child, it's a
pretty shitty outcome.
If you're going to push vaccines, be honest -
"Vaccines might fuck you up, but on average, fucking you up is a price
our society is willing to pay to keep a bunch of other people, who
aren't you, safe".
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by AndThenThereIsThis ( 7314166 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:06PM (#61845355)
DATA is questionable since it was never verified that
the person receiving the treatment didn't already have natural
immunity. Given the way the treatment was administered in most of the
world, there is no way to know if the effectivity of the treatment was
from the treatment or an already existing natural immunity. The bug
was running free, in the wild, for well over a year. Millions acquired
immunity in the traditional manner long before the treatment being
glorified was available; there were also other proven effective
treatments available before emergency use was granted so that whole
fiasco is bogus as well. Any data showing effectiveness of the
treatment is dubious, at best, since the baseline was never verified;
unbelievably sloppy...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:22PM (#61844489)
Once you censor and once you give up or take away
freedoms, you don't get them back.
This has nothing to do with giving up freedoms. Did you
miss the part where this being done by YouTube, not the government?
They can pull your video for any reason, it's being hosted on their
dime. Don't like it? Host your anti-vaxx videos on your own site.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:07PM (#61844771)
Stop pretending that there's a difference between
trillion-dollar oligopolies and the government.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:59PM (#61845043) Journal
They don't understand the simple fact that not all
censorship is nefarious. I'm really glad that we don't let, for
example, food companies lie about their ingredients.
Lying can cause serious harm. I don't see why things
should be any different when it comes to vaccine misinformation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @02:47PM (#61845271)
In california, you can lie about your HIV status,
and have unprotected sex with someone, infect them, and be held
harmless.
So, yes, lying can cause serious harm.
For bonus points, you'll realize that telling the
truth can also cause serious harm :)
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:50PM (#61845301)
They don't understand the simple fact that not all
censorship is nefarious.
Freedom of speech sucks less than the
alternatives. People are inherently shitheads. When you give shitheads
power they turn into even bigger shitheads.
I'm really glad that we don't let, for example,
food companies lie about their ingredients.
0g trans fat
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:25PM (#61846481)
YouTube is for practical purposes a monopoly. If
YouTube prohibits display of a video, it is just as effective as
government-imposed censorship.
YouTube and others have removed well-documented
information regarding COVID, for instance medicines used to treat
COVID in poorer countries.
There are better approaches to handling statements
that YouTube personnel believe to be bad or inappropriate. YouTube
requires proof of age for viewing some sexual material. YouTube could
post warnings on controversial pages or even overlay warnings on the
video. YouTube is handling the issue poorly.
Government may not be imposing censorship, but YouTube
is under continuing pressure from both the public and government to
behave in a restrictive manner.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:40PM (#61846533)
stop pretending the government isnt telling these
company what to do. they have been cought telling Facebook what to
censer.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:01PM (#61845051) Journal
Sounds like the classic slippery-slope fallacy. Both
directions can slippery-slope out of control if managed poorly.
Freedom to troll can also slippery slope into really bad problems.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:36PM (#61845491)
What freedoms are being taken away? Do you have the
freedom to force someone to publish your speech? What about the
freedom to control your own platform? What about Google's freedom of
speech? Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you. It
doesn't mean that everyone has to be your soapbox.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:28PM (#61845937)
Youtube is not everyone they are a major media
organization, that is refusing publish any feedback against government
approved vaccine.
Let me make this clear, I have had both doses, I think
everybody that is eligible should get vaccinated, however if people
are stopped from commenting on these platforms I will no longer
believe anything posted that site. They have made their position clear
we don't allow questioning of the information we present, so the the
information you present is useless to me.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @07:38PM (#61846361)
So being a major media organization means you are
obligated to publish everyone's speech, even speech you disagree with?
Fox News is a major media organization. Should they be forced to
publish my content?
Science journals control what they publish. So if
science journals don't publish flat earth conspiracy theories does
that make them useless because their globe earth narratives "are not
allowed to be questioned"?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @10:14PM (#61846727)
Under laws in the EU they would have to
present balanced arguments.
Science journals are well known for rejecting
landmark papers in various fields.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:-1, Troll)
by Oxycontinental ( 6078752 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:33AM (#61844223)
Here in canada, dissinformation is anything that the
establishment do not like. Recently they are muzzling doctors if they
are not towing the covid line.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:40PM (#61845241)
It's not different south of your border.
Flag as Inappropriate
Alberta? No doctors are muzzled there. (Score:2)
by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:28AM (#61846919)
In Alberta they just keep finding coat closets to turn
into ICUs to keep their ICU utilization stats below 100%. Who needs to
muzzle doctors when the provincial governor can just make up new ICU
capacity?
Similar disinformation tactics to Florida, but different.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by usedtobestine ( 7476084 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:43AM (#61844261)
I can't wait until they start applying this to everything
else. Once they apply it to Thalidomide we can all forget the horrible
birth defects it caused in the 1950's.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:05PM (#61844395)
It seems like only a year ago the same "Authorities" were
saying completely opposite things than they do today. Is their
"misinformation" from a year ago being banned? No, back then the
people now proven to be correct were the ones banned.
Shame on you.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:59PM (#61844709)
So give a single example of where the same "Authorities"
were saying completely opposite things about the vaccines than they do
today. A single one.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:22PM (#61844835)
OK:
"Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s leading
infectious-disease expert, told Axios that the public is
misinterpreting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
announcement last week that fully vaccinated people can go without
masks indoors."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:26PM (#61844869)
That is not different information on the vaccine,
that is a difference in policy for masks. Try again.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:34PM (#61844905)
Have you forgotten the experts telling us the
mandates would end once the vaccine arrived? Average people are aware
of 'gaslighting' now, the damage you're doing to your side is
immeasurable.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did
this. (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:45PM (#61844967)
Still zero to do with the vaccine and
everything to do with policies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844839)
Nobody disagrees that disinformation is a public nuisance. Who
do you want to decide what disinformation is?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by Kisai ( 213879 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:49PM (#61844995)
It depends.
There's three tiers of information out there.
1. Public information that is scientifically accurate, and
sometimes just needs to be uncovered.
2. Fictional information that is is intended to mislead
and usually results in someone benefiting from it
3. Fictional information that is not intended to mislead
and obvious to anyone who can speak the language it's written in.
Most public information that is public, will be the same
no matter who talks about it.
Fictional information that is intended to mislead will be
be inaccurate, even when it comes from the same person. Because it
rapidly falls apart as the person trying to mislead doesn't actually
have anything solid.
Fictional information that is not intended to mislead (eg
satire) is plainly obvious and anyone who speaks the same language as
the information can clearly see that it's satire at some level and not
likely cause any confusion.
The problem comes in when people treat vaccine
misinformation the same way the treat flat-earthers, creationists,
young-earthers, where at first it seems like it's the third category,
satire, but turns out the misinformation is extremely misguided,
harmful and no longer satire.
It's that kind of mixing of satire and mistruth that
results in these things persisting for as long as they do.
Vaccines do not cause autism. Autisim is caused entirely
by toxic environments in the prenatal stage to the best of our
knowledge, and that results in changes in genes that favor survival
over typical development. It's not like autism doesn't exist in other
mammals, we just don't know what it looks like in other mammals.
For all we know wolves are "normal" canids and most pet
"dogs" that can be trained are autistic. Meanwhile any other animal
we've domesticated (eg cats, foxes, birds) don't exhibit this desire
to learn. Cats and Foxes in particular can learn to "behave" like a
dog, but they still possess their survival instincts. Pet dogs
however, especially dogs that have been bred to be props (like Pugs,
Chihuahua's and fluffy dogs like Lhasa Apso and Pomeranians) wouldn't
survive a week outside without any humans around.
But I digress, the entire spectrum of neuro-divergency
can't be summed up with a single lone cause. We know toxicity in the
environment plays a part because of how much people smoked up until
the 90's. However you can quite literately find photos and streamers
on the internet who are smoking and drinking while pregnant. Most
children born of parents who smoke or drink experience some level of
ND, because they consumed substances in the time up to conception to
birth.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0)
by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:36PM (#61846523)
Do a search for feral chihuahua. They might not
survive in the wilderness, but they survive as scavengers in cities.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by danda ( 11343 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:40PM (#61845761)
Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people.
So why isn't slashdot banned from the internet long ago then?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Aubz ( 7986666 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:47PM (#61845783)
Moronic. Informed consent requires being informed about the
issue in question. Denying people access to information takes away the
possibility of being informed. Who the f#ck do the pinheads in charge
of YouTube think they are, my mother? Didn't the CEO of YouTube give
herself a free speech award a few months ago? What a joke. The
vaccines are safe, just ask the loved ones of the more than 15000
dead, according to VAERS, in the US and over 25000 dead in the EU,
excluding the UK, according to EU EudraVigilance system. It might be
noted that VAERS figures have been estimated to only record between
one 10% and 1% of actual casualties. Go here for some interesting
links, if you actually want to be informed https://linkfiend.com/
[linkfiend.com] else take the vaccine and good luck to you
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:51PM (#61846009)
Nope, I couldn't disagree with you more. If people want to get
medical advice from GODDAMN YOUTUBE(!!!) when you can go talk to an
actual doctor (or lookup REAL information about vaccines from
reputable sources), then let them. I'm tired of having everything made
super-duper extra safe for the dumb people of this world.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2)
by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:56PM
(#61846033)
I’m so disappointed you were modded 5.
Back in the day, /. Would defend to the death freedom of information.
Censoring turns to tyranny of truth. Don’t send ideas
underground, let them out in the open where they can be challenged.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:34PM (#61846519)
so they better delete every news channel on youtube. the media
has done nothing but lie and had facts about covid. with so called
safety that killed more people then the virus ever could. the fact 80%
of those in hospital now took that so called vaccine.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by a-zA-Z0-9etc ( 6394646 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@08:05AM (#61847429) Homepage
The replies to that simple statement have been informative all
on their own. All sorts of nonsense to read here, including people who
think I'm a Democratic and therefore wouldn't believe in facts if
Trump spoke them, or those who list long debunked nonsense about
"victims" of vaccination, or that doctors are "muzzled" or even those
who decide bring their nonsensical views about not believing in
anthropomorphic climate change as if that will throw light on the
situation with Covid. It's disappointing, frankly. I thought Slashdot
readers had a bit more sense than this.
BTW, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm also not a US
citizen nor a resident of that country, and I would not want to be
one. You literally couldn't pay me enough to move to the US (and yes,
I have turned down offers). So no, this has nothing at all to do with
your partisan politics, nothing to do with "Russiagate" and nothing to
do with whether or not you think there was an attempted coup on
January 6th. It's just to do with facts about a deadly pandemic which
is out there killing people worldwide while it also doesn't care about
your partisan politics.
I'm really really fed up with watching people express belief
in utter nonsense. Misinformation, including here on Slashdot, and
including that which seeks to paint anyone who actually believes in
facts as some kind of partisan troll, is a scourge. Covid is slowly
working its way up the list of most deadly pandemics of all time
(currently its in seventh place [wikipedia.org]) and it has been
helped the entire way by people attempting to argue such utter
nonsense as that it doesn't exists at all. Get a grip, people. We can
end this, but not through misinformation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1)
by Methadras ( 1912048 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@09:59PM (#61849789)
No it doesn't. That's absurd hyperbole. The shouting fire in a
crowded theater argument is wrong, old, tired and a lie. Stop using
it. Also, you is the arbiter of determining what misinformation is vs
disinformation? Are you going to hold people liable for their opinions
whether you like them or not?
Flag as Inappropriate
Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:4, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:44AM (#61844267)
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over
the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Imagine what they might block in pursuit of "The Truth" which will
actually be true.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2, Troll)
by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:50AM
(#61844299)
Ah yes, good that we now know that smoking is good for you;
bacon is good for you; climate change doesn't exist and even if it
exists it will make life better for everyone; and the Earth is flat.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1, Informative)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:07PM (#61844407)
I think he's referring to things like Fauci telling us all
how ineffective masks are, the current Vice-President telling people
to not trust the vaccine, etc, etc.
But you knew that.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:3)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:43PM (#61844609) Homepage
“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump” on
the reliability of a vaccine, Harris said. The California senator,
however, added that she would trust a “credible” source who could
vouch that a vaccine was safe for Americans to receive.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:03PM (#61844745)
Now due the lab leak theory.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:06PM (#61844759)
You're reaching. If Trump was president and not
credible, why would the people he hired have credibility?
She was attacking the entire system with her
comments. And that was her right to do so but stop acting like she was
saying anything different unless you honestly think she was stupid
enough to think Trump was in the labs making the vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845181) Journal
"You're reaching. If Trump was president and
not credible, why would the people he hired have credibility?"
How about because they have advanced degrees
and publications in their respective fields? And decades of
experience?
The only thing a President needs is to win the
correct popularity contest every 4 years. They can then surround
themselves with subject-matter experts in their Cabinet.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by apocalyptic_mystic ( 7890132 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845675)
But they aren't people he hired. Dr. Fauci,
for instance, has had his current position since the Reagan
administration.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:20PM (#61845117) Journal
You're so full of shit.
Harris said nothing of the sort. All she said was that
she wouldn't trust Donnie's word alone, and that we should instead
listen to the experts.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:3)
by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:02PM (#61845843)
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation"
over the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Could you be specific? I only know of one lie (of tens of
thousands) that happened to collide with a possible truth.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:42PM (#61844597) Homepage
So head over to BitChute if you don't like YouTube.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:11PM (#61844785)
Ah, yes. Separate but equal. Now to the back of of the bus
you go - and don't even think about stopping at that water fountain,
the one designated for your kind is hidden away over there....
I think I've seen this movie before...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:19PM (#61844819)
I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the issue
here. If you want to drink from the Youtube fountain you're perfectly
welcome. If you'd like to take a shit in it then you shouldn't really
be surprised when you're kept away from it. Apparently there is a
Bitchute fountain that encourages shitting in it though.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:25PM (#61844851)
There's that Segregationist attitude I was hoping
for! You're so much better than the 'unclean' amirite! Superior, even!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:20PM (#61845121)
There's that Segregationist attitude I was
hoping for! You're so much better than the 'unclean' amirite!
Superior, even!
Dunno about the OP but I'm suppressionist, not
segregationist. I'm definitely much better than the 'unclean'.
Presumably that includes you. Yes, I am better than you. Much better
than you. In every possible way. Deal with it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @03:10PM (#61845373)
Segregation is really only wrong and a problem
when it's based on immutable characteristics, or things that
ultimately are not of concern for a society. People crying about being
suppressed/censored because they are choosing to "go full retard"
deserve no mercy or quarter. Segregation in the USA and elsewhere has
almost always revolved around ancestry. But good job trying to reframe
your self imposed suffering based on deplorable choices, as being on
the level of people persecuted for who their ancestors were.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:39PM (#61844931) Homepage
Brighter individuals would say this is the free market at work.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:48PM (#61844989)
No, only very stupid individuals would say that.
There's no place for trillion-dollar oligopolies controlling speech in
a free-market.
I will continue to champion those folks' right to
be very stupid though. Such is the price of freedom.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:27PM (#61845171) Homepage
Great, I'm looking forward to Parler (or
whatever is left of them) allowing Ilhan Omar and AOC to post on their
platform.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:18PM
(#61845111) Journal
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation"
over the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Who is this "we"? I only remember one crazy old guy shouting
about how the news was 'fake'.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:37PM (#61845225)
So NBC News should be legally required to give air time to
every random conspiracy nut that comes out of the woodwork with a
theory?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:13PM
(#61845385) Homepage Journal
The difference is the harm that is being done here. If there
had been less misinformation spread about COVID then it's likely that
hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive.
If a terrorist organization killed hundreds of thousands of
people you would want something done about it. When it's Tucker
Carlson and Fox News doing it, apparently that's fine. Some of the
prominent anti-vaxxers word's have been far more deadly than any bomb,
any hijacked aircraft.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by Jastiv ( 958017 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@11:22AM (#61847871) Homepage
Again, this is under the assumption that human life =
good. That is a religious argument.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1)
by onefriedrice ( 1171917 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:41PM (#61845979)
The Party members didn't mind censorship.
Censorship makes us feel safe and comfortable. "Please Big
Brother, tell me what I should think. Don't let me see opposing
viewpoints that might confuse me. I love you Big Brother."
I did at one point believe that Americans would always reject
censorship on the scale we're talking about. That was before I
actually read "1984" (it wasn't required reading in my cohort) et al.
and came to better understand the effects that a concerted propaganda
campaign can have on the minds of people. So I'm not surprised to see
many -- probably the majority -- of people here clamoring for more
censorship.
Despite that, I was very surprised how apparently easy it was
for the powers that be to manipulate people to the point we see now.
How quickly they were able to get people to beg corporations to only
allow state-sanctioned speech. Lest they possibly hear ideas or an
argument that makes them feel uncomfortable.
Even people that rightly opposed the Patriot Act which was
enacted under the guise of protecting the public from scary
terrorists, those same people today use the same rationale to justify
censorship. "We have to protect ourselves from the scary virus after
all." Well as dumb or corrupt as the people were who argued for the
Patriot Act, at least they didn't make it their mission to shut down
opposing ideas. This is a level of fascism that AFAIK we haven't seen
in America.
Eventually everyone in America will be in only one of two
camps that don't necessarily align with political parties: people and
sheeple. Those who think for themselves, and those who are conditioned
to bleat for a corporate state to make them feel safe.
PS- I don't mind sharing that I'm vaccinated.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2)
by kwalker ( 1383 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:28PM
(#61846491) Journal
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation"
over the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Imagine what they might block in pursuit of "The Truth" which
will actually be true.
No, no I don't. All what things?
I do remember a boatload of things that were called truth at
the time, but turned out not to be.
Flag as Inappropriate
...after 3 years (Score:5, Insightful)
by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:54AM
(#61844327) Homepage
It's not just about removal, it's about timely removal.
They need to remove these as fast as they remove copyright claims.
Flag as Inappropriate
Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:3, Insightful)
by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:58AM
(#61844347)
When the bullpucky from all this clears in 20 years. I bet no 40
to 60 year old(in 20 years) will admit they were ever on the wrong
side.
Be careful of what you think you agree with. Make sure you are not
being propagandized and just one of the lemmings that thinks they
know(from perceived free will).
Almost all censorship, and agreeing with it, is long term terrible
for a society.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:39PM (#61844583)
You're still free to share whatever bullshit tickles your
fancy, you just have to do it on your own dime. As in, how it used to
work throughout most of human history since the invention of the
written word. It's still free to stand on a street corner and hold up
a sign. That costs nothing but your time (and possibly your dignity).
It's amazing how many people believe they have some sort of
God-given right to put their shit on someone else's privately-owned
computer(s).
Flag as Inappropriate
Ignorant. (Score:3)
by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@09:54PM (#61846683)
This is misleading at best and ignores reality at worst.
When you have just about every single major corporation at every step
of the chain, from the platform providers to the payment processors to
the infrastructure providers to the policy makers, working in tandem
to, in their own words, "deplatform" people whose opinions they don't
like, it's not a simple matter of paying for your own platform. They
literally will not LET you do that. The fact that they are presently
using this power for what seems to be benevolent purposes is not
germane to the problem: they should not have this power.
If you want to talk about street corner analogies, here's
the actual analogous situation: the people who want to silence your
message own the street corner, the materials required to build signs,
the world's leading sign-designers and billions of dollars of research
in making a better and more attractive sign than yours, AND they have
tracking and analytics built into every car passing by so that they
know what people want and how best to appeal to their insecurities.
You, on the other hand, have passion and nowhere to direct it. If they
don't like what you're saying, you won't have the means to make a
sign, let alone a street corner to stand on.
I don't really mind the platform providers having this
power, honestly. It's bad, but it's not the worst. The worst are the
ones further down the chain: payment processors, infrastructure
providers, etc. They should be regulated as backbone providers and
should have no say whatsoever over who can or can't use their services
short of failure to pay or criminal activity.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2)
by Waccoon ( 1186667 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@10:04PM (#61846699)
It's amazing how many people believe they have some sort
of God-given right to put their shit on someone else's privately-owned
computer(s).
Absolutely. Just read an EULA sometime.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2)
by Omega Hacker ( 6676 ) <omega at nosPAM.omegacs.net> on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:46PM (#61844637)
<quote>When the bullpucky from all this clears in 20 years. I
bet no 40 to 60 year old(in 20 years) will admit they were ever on the
wrong side.</quote>
Nope, because if they follow this approach to it's logical
conclusion, between COVID and whatever else happens in the next 20yrs,
they'll be mostly dead anyway and thus unable to admit they were
wrong.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:3)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:48PM (#61844647) Homepage
Plenty of other video hosting sites for you to choose from.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:27PM (#61845695)
Almost all censorship, and agreeing with it, is long term
terrible for a society.
Not being given a platform is not the same thing as being
censored. You're not entitled to force someone to listen to your
bullshit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Why can't denialists claim it was all BS forever? (Score:2)
by UpnAtom ( 551727 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:05PM
(#61846707) Homepage
Unless they actually get a bad case of COVID, can't they just
lie to themselves about it forever?
At this point, their ego is so invested in lies that it's
going to hurt like hell to admit they were wrong. And this isn't like
Brexit where you can't get petrol this week, and you couldn't get a
blood test last week.
Unless something bad happens to you or someone you care about,
why bother with the truth?
Flag as Inappropriate
People use youtube for information? (Score:5, Insightful)
by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:00PM (#61844359)
It's incredible that society has progressed so far that people are
taking medical advice from random people on a video website that was
mainly known for cat videos back in the day.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:22PM (#61844837)
Yout watched the news on the same tv station that showed
funniest home videos... It's not that different.
The problem is critical thinking and education.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:1)
by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @07:28AM (#61847403)
Yout watched the news on the same tv station that showed
funniest home videos... It's not that different.
The problem is critical thinking and education.
There is an enormous difference. It is in fact the same
difference as between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. One of
the sources has a vetting process - on the TV news not everyone can
get air time to spew their lies. Most stories will also have a comment
from the opposing viewpoint - and that comment is provided by an
expert in the field, not some uneducated random person on the street.
On Youtube anyone can publish a video; no vetting process,
no contrary explanations, no requirements on expertise or experience.
Anyone can say anything and pretend to be an expert.
Academic circles do not accept Wikipedia as a source on
anything, and the public should not accept Youtube as a source on
anything. That should be the first result of critical thinking.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @01:17PM (#61848311)
My point was that youtube is just TV and on a TV
channel there were many different types of information. In fact I
believe youtube even coop'ed the term "channel" from this context.
As for vetting. There are youtube channels that do
this with their content, though I think your point about TV news is
disingenuous. There is a lot of TV news then and now that only puts
opposing views as a talking point, how "radical" those views are from
their narrative is limited. News likely was only such in a very
relative context for a very small point of time Be it American,
Russian, or Chinese news, they are all propoganda of a sort.
Likewise even Encyclopaedia Britannica is a rather sad
source of information. Encyclopaedia Britannica is built of the
research of others, just as Wikipedia is, and in both cases if you are
publishing in academia, you do not cite either but instead if you do
cite anything related to them, you cite their sources. This is the
nature of the beast with academia, which I myself have been in and in
that time never saw either referenced.
We agree Youtube should not be accepted as a source
for anything but what my point was about and where we seem to disagree
is that the transition towards youtube being a source is TV. A pattern
was created and people embraced it without question. Now leaders and
educated individuals are asking how to deal with the issue but the
resolution of the problem relies first on understanding how it
developed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:35PM (#61844907)
Hey, I use it for finding out what the election results will
be before the election! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:36PM (#61844919)
Hey, I use it for finding out what the election results
will be before the election! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com]
I hope I don't need to point out this is a joke...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:45PM (#61844965) Journal
Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of informational
things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are plenty of
tutorials.
I say unfortunately because I don't like watching a whole
video when I can read a transcript much faster.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:47PM (#61844983)
Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of informational
things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are plenty of
tutorials.
I say unfortunately because I don't like watching a whole
video when I can read a transcript much faster.
This is my problem with all the video news articles I
chose to ignore these days.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:14PM (#61845095) Journal
Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of
informational things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are
plenty of tutorials...
Even those are sometimes dodgy, as they can give wrong
advice that makes your car crash or poisons your food, like cooking
your food in plastic. I'm surprised there hasn't been more lawsuits.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:34PM
(#61845217)
YouTube is a platform, not a single source of information.
Implying that it's not a credible source is akin to saying the local
library isn't a credible source. This reminds me of the posts one used
to see a lot of back in the day scoffing at Wikipedia.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:28PM (#61845701)
It's incredible that society has progressed so far
What makes you think that people believing quackery is in any
way new or an example of society progressing? This shit is as old as
time itself, the only thing new is we have a platform for people to
share it with the world.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2)
by Micah NC ( 5616634 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:41PM (#61848175)
Thirty years ago people had more confidence in the "experts"
Flag as Inappropriate
we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:00PM (#61844363)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies
deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we
might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice,
but how many times in history can we also point to times when the
minority voice turns out to be right?
there is no 100% solution to many/most complex issues of humanity,
only tradeoffs; so to take a big-picture tack, if I have to choose
between...
empowering and depending upon the common person to decide for
themselves how to best determine their pursuit of happiness
-- or --
empowering 3rd parties -- just as imbued with all the human
failings an individual has -- to decide for others .... for me, I put
my faith in the individual, not some distant and disinterested 3rd
party; is it perfect? no, but that's not a reasonable expectation
anyway; I just have faith that in the long run, it's best
now before some on-the-spectrum pedant starts bashing their
keyboard to set me straight, let me be clear that I'm not an anarchist
or somebody that thinks gov't has no place anywhere; I know it's not
an all-or-nothing proposition, but I do want to make sure we are
careful when we move to disempower the individual, which is what
happens when anybody or anything makes decisions for them
from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a
handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come
to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price
for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price
for the capitulation of personal responsibility
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:3)
by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:53PM
(#61844675)
from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a
handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come
to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price
for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price
for the capitulation of personal responsibility
It's true. What has government ever really done for us? All
right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, public health
(i.e. National Health Systems in every developed country other than
the US), education, public order, roads (the US interstate system),
what has government ever done for us? -- Brought peace (the proportion
of people dying violent deaths has been dropping steadily over the
past millenia, hand in hand with civic structures).
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:06PM (#61844761)
your arguing against a point I never made and don't see
yourself as an on-the-spectrum contrarian obstructionist
yes, you're exceptional, so in your case, some 3rd party
making decisions for you is the way to go
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:56PM (#61844691)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies
deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we
might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice,
but how many times in history can we also point to times when the
minority voice turns out to be right?
No but people forget that YouTube is not a public utility.
YouTube is not part of the government. They are part of Google which
is a for profit company who gets to decide what people can and cannot
do on their platform. That is the nature of capitalism.
Flag as Inappropriate
Jail med trolls, send a message (Score:4, Insightful)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:55PM
(#61845027) Journal
In my opinion medical info is too important to let yahoos lie.
If we need to shore up the medical info evaluation procedure, then so
be it.
A consolation prize is to increase the legal penalties and
enforcement on med liars and context manipulators.
For example, if you present the opinion of an outlier doctor,
you have to clearly state it's an outlier opinion.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Jail med trolls, send a message (Score:1)
by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@10:58AM (#61847793) Homepage Journal
For example, if you present the opinion of an outlier
doctor, you have to clearly state it's an outlier opinion.
Just because a doctor is an outlier doesn't mean that
doctor is wrong.
Ignaz Semmelweis and Louis Pasteur were outliers but they
were also right.
Should they have been jailed?
You're not advocating for science. You're advocating for
totalitarianism and using science as the justification.
LK
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: we have tough choices to make (Score:1)
by knaapie ( 214889 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:59PM
(#61844703) Homepage
I agree with a lot in your comment, but I fail to see what an
on-the-spectrum person has to do with anything you say.
Disrespect to people without any reason doesnâ(TM)t really
help bring across your argument.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:26PM (#61844855)
lol, yes, I thought about that, went with it anyway;
apologies to the unintentionally harmed
however, my point against tangential reponses whose only
intent is to impede based on foolish minutia and pedantics stands;
turns out that in my experience folks on the spectrum do that more
than others; I might be more qualified to know than you think
it's just a way to get my digs in early from some of the
more dipshit replies I'll be getting (not yours)
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:39PM
(#61845237)
Tough choices indeed. Let's say the government chose to
mandate that all these companies allow anything that falls under "free
speech". Well then you can't have some things we take for granted,
like a space for children's content. Heck could you even have curated
lists at all, for any reason? "Free speech, man."
YouTube should be allowed to do this, as painful as that may
be. If we feel their influence is too great, then throw the anti-trust
book at them until that influence is diminished.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:34PM (#61845475)
That's a false dilemma. You can have free speech without
having the right to say it to people who don't want to listen.
What children sees should be controlled by parents. That's
a viewer-side self-restriction, which is different from the platform
blocking all non-child-friendly content even for people who want to
see it.
As an adult, I would be perfectly fine if social media
companies gave us options or filter lists that we can select for
ourselves. I don't want to see gore, so I would enable a filter for
those. However, I'm not concerned about vaccine misinformation, so I
would like to be able to disable the filter for those.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:05PM (#61845857)
That's a viewer-side self-restriction, which is
different from the platform blocking all non-child-friendly content
even for people who want to see it.
PBS Kids refuses to publish non-child-friendly
content. Should we be upset with them?
Having government say "you MUST allow this content" is
worse than having them say you can't. Much worse.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @05:07PM (#61845867)
Ignore "much worse" for now, as it detracts from
the point. The point is, it's bad.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @06:54PM (#61846231)
PBS Kids is not a generic platform for video
hosting. They don't support 30 million creators and billions of users.
In fact they don't allow user generated content at all.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:46PM (#61845267)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies
deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding?
If by 'we' you mean Americans then I have bad news for you.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided that
for-profit companies get to publish or not publish what other people
give them, entirely at their own discretion. SCOTUS likes private
property rights, especially for for-profit companies. The bigger and
more profitable the better.
sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be
the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to
times when the minority voice turns out to be right?
Cherry pick? The Internet has enabled a vast social
experiment, where all the voices are allowed to be heard, and even
amplified to a degree never before possible in human history. And what
have we learned? That the minority voice is so absurdly wrong all of
the time that it's laughable.
Which we already knew, if you're one of the people who, you
know, talked to people. In person. Before cell phones. Think Hank Hill
standing out by the back fence drinking beers with the neighbors down
the street. Do you know how often the minority in that group is wrong?
Literally every day they talk about something new, one of them says
something wrong. And when his buddies try to correct him and the
obstinate asshole doubles down, well, it doesn't matter that much.
Only two or three people heard him being a moron. Today, two or three
million people can hear him being a moron, because fucking Facebook
promotes that shit as people in his network try to correct him, which
drives 'engagement', which sells ads.
Your problem is your underlying assumption: that dissenting
assertions are not only somehow magically valid, but frequently
correct. You are wrong. Those assertions, expressed as fact, are
constantly wrong. They're wrong all the time. They're wrong every day
of the week and twice on Sundays. And being in the minority while
wrong is not somehow virtuous. It doesn't make them less wrong. It
doesn't make them "good people". On the contrary, when public health
is involved, it makes them bad people. And they're still wrong.
Objective facts do exist, despite post-modernist asshole
philosophies to the contrary. Reality is that which continues to exist
even when you don't believe in it. Making claims that contradict
objective reality is called being wrong. It's a thing that happens.
And now it happens on a massive scale, where everybody can see, and
bandwagon, and otherwise act like emotion-driven tribalist assholes.
This has happened before in human history. It does not end well.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:18PM (#61845409)
not arguing who is right/wrong nor the validity of an
assertion, just that the empowerment to decide is best left to the
individual
based on your statements, it would seem that you think
people with a minority voice wrong all or most of the time and
therefore unfit for self-determination; tyranny and oppression are
founded on the notion that one person/group knows what's best for
everyone else; that's another reality about human history that I
didn't see mentioned in your response but yet deserves far more than a
passing consideration, because it sure doesn't end well either
as imperfect as it is, self-determination and free-will
sure beat the phukk out of some 3rd party deciding right/wrong, health
decisions, morality, etc. for everyone else
Flag as Inappropriate
"put my faith in the individual" (Score:2)
by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:50PM (#61845291)
Yeah well I long stopped putting my faith into individuals.
Individual are ignorant (be it due to lack of education or willful
rejection), cheats, individuals murder and rape, individual tax cheat,
individual mislead other on vaccination (remember the autism kerfufel
? Because a doc which was selling his own alternative pretended to
find a link between autism and some vaccine ? How many kids died
because they skipped that vaccine ? More than zero - just google it),
individual reject sciences, individual do all sort of SHIT because
they are not expert and simply follow anybody convincing enough (see
debate are not won by the most knowledgeable individual on a subject,
but usually by the most charismatic and convincing). Individual think
people stole the 2016 elections and you know the follow up on the 6th
January insurrection. And I pass many others some with lethal
consequences.
Some want to err on the side of allowing individual to do
stuff freely. Some want individual reigned in when the consequences on
innocent third party are strong enough. I am in the second group, I
have seen enough people devastated because of "individuals".
Even in this very thread we have people spreading
misinformation or intentionally (or not) doing false equivocation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"put my faith in the individual" (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:39PM (#61845751)
a fair assessment would include all the benefits of
individual self-determination as well as any negatives; individuals
have also done amazing and unexpected good things, so to leave them
out only because they don't support your view is not honest but in
fact, another way to disingenuously influence others, not much
different than someone *intentionally and knowingly* spreading lies
since the result is the same: decisions made on bad or incomplete info
that being said, our choices do have consequences, whether
meted out by life in general (like dying from not being vaccinated) or
perhaps an entity outside of the individual deems them worthy of
punishment (like jail or an ass-whoopin)
it's all about who gets to decide, the classic individual
vs 'the collective' (in whatever form it takes); the bar for removing
self-determination and free-will should, in my book, be extremely high
and be done on a case-by-case basis when possible, much like when we
have due process to throw someone in jail, which is effectively
removing their right of self-determination and free-will
and that's the biggest difference between some wholesale
censorship or coercion: the aspect of considering the exact
circumstances and facts of a specific 'transgression' aren't part of
the equation; a one-size-fits-all approach has so many downsides it's
hard for me to consider it seriously while giving full import to
individual rights
it's hard nut to crack, and I'm sure your life experiences
make your pov make sense to you.... I would never want to take that
from you; but I also don't want to take it from anybody else, even if
I thought I was 100% objectively right
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:30PM (#61845713)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies
deciding what's right and wrong?
For their own platform, absolutely. You aren't proposing of
depriving a private company the right of association (a right
inseparable from that of speech) are you?
No one is entitled to force another to give them a platform
and a megaphone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:55PM (#61845811)
you are correct: I am not "proposing of depriving a
private company the right of association" and "No one is entitled to
force another to give them a platform and a megaphone."
whether YT's content is right or wrong is best determined
by the individual engaging with it; personal responsibility is what I
advocate; private companies are free to run themselves as they see
fit; and I have to say it, since somebody will assume otherwise....
all are subject to certain baseline norms, like no fraud or murder or
rape, etc
ignorance and foolishness, however, are not crimes and
thankfully so.... we're all guilty of those at many times in life
hope this clears it up
Flag as Inappropriate
Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:5, Informative)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:01PM (#61844375)
This is a terrible idea because it's going to let people with a
vested interest set the "facts", regardless how true or valid they're.
I'm NOT an Anti-vaxxer, I fully support getting vaccines, but I
also support the open expression of information. Can any health
"expert", list every possible side effect of the C Vaccine? I'm sure
they can list the "approved" side effects, and they can list the
"approved" complications, but what if a new complicate or side effect
is discovered they won't accept?
A good example is a lower abdominal issue I developed 1 week after
getting the first shot. It led to 7 ER visits, and a urology visit,
but no doctor is will to say "it's related to the C Vaccine", except
they can't tell me what caused it, and we've isolated virtually all
variables apart from freak occurrence.
I got my second shot yesterday, so if it comes back (and it never
really went away), then we have a correlation, but if Health Canada
won't accept it as a complication, will YouTube allow videos about it?
If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky, because they
don't just hurt at the moment, the fallout can last a year+, which
what I'm going through right now. While it's fine to say it's "Not the
C Vaccine", you then have to give me some options on what caused it,
because if you don't then you're irrationally throwing out possible
correlations.
That's why this is dangerous, it's shutting down the trade of
information, in favour of biased groups from accepting that
information, based solely on their opinion, regardless if that's
medically / scientifically sound.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2, Flamebait)
by amorsen ( 7485 ) <benny+slashdot at amorsen.dk> on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:42PM (#61844595)
If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky
We finally found Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend [gq.com]! Why
didn't you come forward sooner?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by leonbev ( 111395 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:43PM
(#61844607) Journal
Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds a
legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out
there), how do you report that to the public?
It seems like all of the social media platforms are likely
going to set up AI filters flagging everything about vaccines that
isn't coming from the CDC as "fake news", so the warning will likely
go unneeded.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:55PM (#61844683)
Good point!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds at willden.org> on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:02PM (#61844737) Journal
Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds
a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out
there), how do you report that to the public?
Talk to your doctor, who has a channel for reporting to
the CDC. Also, you can call a news reporter, who will be happy to do
an expose if the problem is sufficiently widespread (or sufficiently
serious) and the CDC is not taking action.
You know, the same ways this was done before social media existed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:26PM (#61845687)
But the problem with this is the vaccine has become
political. The narrative is vaccinate everyone, suppress problems,
suppress other options such as diet exercise vitamin D zinc IVM. Give
big pharma complete legal indemnity.
It’s just got a bad smell about it, and making some
billion dollar private Corp arbiter of the truth sets us up for an
Orwellian future.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds at willden.org> on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:55AM (#61847633) Journal
But the problem with this is the vaccine has
become political.
All the more reason to get it off of social media
and handle it through professional scientific channels.
The narrative is vaccinate everyone
As is only sensible.
suppress other options such as diet exercise
vitamin D zinc IVM
Oh, bullshit. Those other "options" aren't
preventions, they're at best weak mitigations of severity. The vaccine
flat out stops the vast majority of infection, and if everyone got
vaccinated that alone would push R below 1 and cause the virus to
fizzle out. And the vaccines do far, far more to reduce the severity
and deadliness of breakthrough infections than all of your "other
options" combined. Also, you forgot Regeneron, HCL and bleach.
It’s just got a bad smell about it, and making
some billion dollar private Corp arbiter of the truth sets us up for
an Orwellian future.
This I agree with, but needs must when the devil
drives. We can always impose regulations to prevent this sort of thing
if it becomes an actual problem. And the big corps know that very well
and will step lightly to avoid their businesses being squashed.
Actually, this action by YouTube has clearly been taken only to
prevent government from stepping in to tell them what to do. Or have
you forgotten all of those congressional hearings? I assure you that
Big Tech has not.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:01PM (#61845335)
Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds
a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out
there), how do you report that to the public?
It seems like all of the social media platforms are likely
going to set up AI filters flagging everything about vaccines that
isn't coming from the CDC as "fake news", so the warning will likely
go unneeded.
Who, exactly, do you believe would be in a position to
find such a legitimate problem with a vaccine, and who would not go to
the government, or publish it in a paper, or go to the news, but would
instead put in on youtube?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:07PM (#61845595)
how do you report that to the public?
Your doctor reports it to the CDC, who then finds out
where remaining doses of the bad batch are, and stops them from being
used. Simultaneously, they notify the people who got injected with the
bad batch so they can get appropriate medical care.
You do not have sufficient information to determine if it
actually was a bad batch, or if your cheating on Nicki's cousin caused
you to get an STD.
Flag as Inappropriate
Who determines? (Score:1)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:55PM (#61844679) Homepage
Doctors and medical professionals you dullard. If 100,000
doctors say the vaccine is safe and 1 does not, what can you gather?
Twitter and social media are not sources of data.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:07PM (#61844765)
Except there's a vested interest in not accepting new
data. Let's assume I'm the only person on earth who suffers from
infected nuts from the C vaccine, and my doctors accepts that, and
reports it. Do you think Health Canada documentation will be updated
overnight? Do you think our Health Care "experts" will even know of
it, or accept it?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:38PM (#61844923) Homepage
Why would big pharma waste all this time and effort
making a vaccine if they already had the cure? Don't give me that
patent excuse either. All they have to do is change the shape and
color of the pill to get a new patent. It's been done before.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:25PM (#61845151)
I think you misunderstood, I'm not suggesting they
had a secret cure, I'm suggesting Health Canada won't forcibly update
all documentation in short order on new information coming in.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @05:06PM (#61845865)
And if you're the only person with infected nuts, does
it make sense running to youtube and convincing everyone that they,
too, will get infected nuts if they get vaccinated?
Cuz that's the kind of crap that is happening...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @10:01AM (#61847661)
Not running to YouTube, but it's worth mentioning.
My point is we shouldn't leave the decision in the hands of single
groups with biased vested interest.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:48PM (#61846553)
nope they will say hes spreading misinformation and
try and revoke his liance.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @10:10AM (#61847689)
They won't revoke his license, that's nonsense.
What they will do, mostly likely, is ignore the single data point
because it's a not trend or statistically relevant.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @12:04PM (#61848031)
oh boy you really dont pay attention do you. i
guess ignoring realty is part of being a lefty. thats excaly what
there doing to doctors who speak agenst the agenda.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:46PM (#61846547)
you know they have been threatening and burying doctors
who spoke about how ineffective it is and its dangers, even people at
the cdc quit aka got forced out if they didn't spout the media lies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines? (Score:1)
by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:32PM (#61848149) Homepage Journal
Doctors and medical professionals you dullard. If 100,000
doctors say the vaccine is safe and 1 does not, what can you gather?
Twitter and social media are not sources of data.
In response to a paper written by "100 Authors Against
Einstein", Albert reportedly said "If I were wrong, then one would
have been enough!"
I'm not likening every kook who touts his personal
conspiracy theory as being in any way similar to Einstein but I am
making the point that it's about what you can prove, not how many
people believe what you believe.
LK
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:09PM (#61844781)
There is no "approved" list of side effects or complications.
They are listed no by acceptance but by their statistical occurrence.
Your abdominal issue is most likely just something that happened to
happen in close proximity time wise by random chance.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:35PM (#61844913)
Yes, and I'm willing to accept that, providing the doctors
can tell me what or why it happened. Now that I'm double vaxxed if it
happens again, then they have no choice.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:43PM (#61844957)
Medicine has not yet reached the point where every
single thing that happens can be explained unfortunately, sometimes
shit just happens. Here's to hoping that it doesn't happen again.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:28PM (#61845177)
Exactly, but let's assume it happens in the next
couple of weeks, then I have 2 occurrences linked to the vaccine
timeframe. If my doctors refuse to give me an answer, and refuse to
link it against the C vaccine, then what?
This is the problem, because if doctors / Health
Canada won't accept new data or aren't willing to throw suspect data
up the chain, even just to be careful, then we have a case where
"facts" might not be accurate.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:51PM (#61846567)
yea im sure my heart issue and iron problems just happend
the day after i got the shot. despite a full workup that very same day
showing i was fine. you better wake up bro not only are we under the
most incompetent government in history there also nothing more then
communist grabbing power threw fear.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@06:17PM (#61849367)
Ah yes, the old communist takeover by giving people
heart issues. More likely that the people doing your full workup
missed something.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:26PM
(#61845161) Journal
Occam's razor here is a "freak occurrence" if there is no
statistical pattern of such a side-effect. Similar per
swollen-balls-gate. [apnews.com]
Do note that if your body is borderline from failing
somewhere, then the immune response from a vaccine may knock it over
the threshold to trigger the fault. But this is a known side-effect of
vaccines in general and one most of society has accepted for decades.
(A mild flu can do the same.) If a few object, tough luck because the
needs of the many often outweigh the needs of a few. If you don't like
it, move in a deserted island. Society requires rules, dammit!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:18PM (#61845405)
I have no problem with that, but even if the vaccine
triggered it the would Health Canada update the information?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:39PM (#61845499) Journal
That sounds like a different problem. If your medical
info systems are that slow, then trolling is only half Canada's
problem.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:52PM (#61846571)
you are aware this approved vaccine is the same one that
killed people and brought back unchanged. so enjoy that blood clot.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:05PM (#61845579)
I'm NOT an Anti-vaxxer, I fully support getting vaccines, but
I also support the open expression of information. Can any health
"expert", list every possible side effect of the C Vaccine? I'm sure
they can list the "approved" side effects, and they can list the
"approved" complications, but what if a new complicate or side effect
is discovered they won't accept?
You're an anti-vaxxer.
There is no "approved" list of side effects. But your belief
in one puts you firmly in the antivaxxer camp.
While it's fine to say it's "Not the C Vaccine", you then have
to give me some options on what caused it
No, you have to give some mechanism by which it could be the
COVID vaccine. The reason your doctors won't say it was the vaccine is
there's no known mechanism by which the vaccine could have caused it.
So, come up with one, prove it, and collect your Nobel.
Or get an STD test, 'cause that's probably what's actually causing it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:48PM (#61845789)
Unless they ran 6 STI tests, and they all came up clean.
Then maybe they ran a bunch of imaging tests (4), blood panels (5) and
urine tests (5), and still couldn't tell me anything. When you run
that many tests and still can't give me an answer, it either means you
don't know, or you're too afraid to throw a label it as a possible
side effect just in case.
You possible side effect from the vaccine?
https://www.canada.ca/en/publi... [canada.ca]
There's plenty, not to mention you could develop a rare
nerve / heart disorder and possibly be fucked for life, so throw that
on top.
When I say we shouldn't trust our health "experts", what I
mean is they can't be trusted. You can't demonstrate an anti-vaxxer,
as I got both shots of the vaccine, which automatically discounts the
anti-vaxxer idea full stop.
The doctors had 7 changes to get me an answer, and
couldn't, so I'm not out of place to link the infections to the only
out-of-place occurrence right around when they happened.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:33PM (#61845727)
but I also support the open expression of information.
I do as well. I support free speech. I support freedom of
association. And I support YouTube's right to choose not to associate
or amplifier bullshit they don't want to be associated with.
If you're a proponent of free speech then you should also be a
proponent of a private company not being forced to carry speech.
Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
If people want to spread bullshit then can do so on their own
platform. You're not entitled to use someone else's megaphone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:52PM (#61845801)
If you don't want to risk seeing "misinformation", then
stick the official health channels, because that would be the same
idea, without the over censoring of possibly correct, but ignored
evidence.
Leave the decision with Health Canada, and they'll pull
down lots of valid medical data, for instance the medical benefits of
THCd8 or THCV, which they've publicly stated are zero, while at the
same time offering access to medical cannabis.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:-1)
by Aisha.Washington ( 4531453 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:05PM (#61846433)
I do as well. I support free speech. I support freedom of
association. And I support YouTube's right to choose not to associate
or amplifier bullshit they don't want to be associated with.
If you're a proponent of free speech then you should also
be a proponent of a private company not being forced to carry speech.
Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
If people want to spread bullshit then can do so on their
own platform. You're not entitled to use someone else's megaphone.
People argued "freedom of association" when they banned
black people from their business, or they didn't want to bake cakes
for gay couples.
You disgust me.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:36PM (#61845741)
You're trying to equate talking about the problem with your
doctor with go on youtube and tell the world something that isn't
necessarily true.
You should tell your doc and the doc should report it to
whatever the canadian equivalent of VAERS is. The canadian equivalent
of the CDC should be reviewing all of those reports and if there looks
like there might be correlation between vaccine and your condition,
then they should review all of the facts (medical records, etc) and
determine if there is causation.
Once it is determined that yes, a certain percentage might get
the side effect you have, then sure it is good to run out on youtube
and tell the world about your painful testicles.
But until that point, you can't have an open expression of
information because you have no real information. You have a guy that
got the vaccine but also has painful testicles. That is it. Disproving
other causes does not imply that the only other option is caused by
vaccine. So giving you a platform where you can go out and just claim
that getting the vaccine causes painful testicles is really a
disservice to everyone everywhere.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:57PM (#61845821)
You're missing the point that our Canadian medical system
is garbage, and we can't trust it. They get some information right,
but they get A LOT of information wrong. If anyone is going to filter
data to fit the tag line, it's Heath Canada, which is why all
information should be allowed, and the person watching / listening
should make up their own mind.
To drive this home, Health Canada told me that THCd8 has
NO MEDICAL BENEFICIAL USES, and they refused to read the research
surrounding it. When they can't get well established cannabis research
down, why should we trust them with a rushed vaccine that skipped
proper testing. They found the heart issue AFTER administering it to
the public, and only declared it a serious issue when 13+ people had
it diagnosed. A proper Health Org would have listed it right away,
without question, and then sought to prove it was.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:22PM (#61845923)
THCd8? Seriously? You're going to pick out an even
more politicized issue of medical marijuana and use that as an
argument?
The rest of your statement all stems from the
misinformation youtube and others need to curb. The vaccine was
properly tested, regardless of what you've read. The heart issue has
an extremely low probability of occurring and is likely connected to
other comorbidity issues, and it is so limited that it is still more
beneficial to get vaccinated than not. Those are truths, regardless
what you might have learned on youtube.
Flag as Inappropriate
The Testimonies Project (Score:-1)
by ackerrj ( 1136479 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:22PM (#61845919)
Tell the people in this video, who's lives are ruined, that
this is disinformation: Israel: The Testimonies Project:
https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:44PM (#61846541)
they whont accept the real side effects because it trashes
this vaccine is totally safe bro. also they hide 80% of new cases are
vaccinated.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2)
by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@10:08AM (#61847681)
I know we've reported record numbers after the vaccine
rollout, but how much of that can be tied against the vaccine it up
for debate. My point is, we shouldn't let single groups with a vested
interest set the "facts", vs being truthful with the "facts".
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:02PM (#61848023)
lefty have no interest in facts or truth. just agendas
and power grabs.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1)
by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:44AM
(#61847977) Homepage Journal
This is a terrible idea because it's going to let people with
a vested interest set the "facts", regardless how true or valid
they're.
Exactly this.
Have you ever had an influential Wikipedia editor decide that
something you have posted and documented isn't in line with their
beliefs? I have. They somehow even have the ability to get your
account suspended despite the fact that you've broken no rules.
That's why this is dangerous, it's shutting down the trade of
information, in favour of biased groups from accepting that
information, based solely on their opinion, regardless if that's
medically / scientifically sound.
Several years ago, I had a respiratory issue. My doctors
diagnosed me with things from COPD/emphysema to asthma. By googling my
symptoms, I found people who had the exact same issue that I did and I
pursued those. It turns out that my respiratory issue was caused by an
h. pylori infection weakening my esophageal sphincter and sleep apnea
causing me to aspirate stomach acid while I slept. I got a course of
antibiotics to treat the h. pylori and a CPAP to treat the apnea. Now,
my lungs are back to normal. No trace of COPD, emphysema or asthma.
What really stands out to me is that when I went to see the
gastroenterologist, I had to argue to even get tested for h. pylori.
The doctor was sure that I didn't have it because a gastroscopy didn't
show any ulcers. I refused to leave his office until he agreed to test
me. Just to get me to shut up, the doctor agreed. 2-3 days later, I
got a telephone call confirming that I did have an h. pylori infection
and a prescription would be called in for me.
I'm not a doctor. The people who shared their experiences
online weren't doctors either but they were right when the trained
medical professionals were wrong. I don't doubt that they would have
eventually found the underlying causes of my issues but only after
endless bouts of trial and error with another year of suffering and
damage being done to my lungs.
LK
Flag as Inappropriate
No fixing this (Score:3)
by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:28PM (#61844517)
The answer to who watches the watcher is the public at large, but
this breaks down when the population reaches a critical mass of poorly
uneducated people who can’t think critically. This is a result of
defunding education for over four decades and it’s not going to get
better for another 40 even if we suddenly fixed it all today. We have
to wait for these people to die off, which is happening a bit faster
than average thanks to the inability to tell what’s real and self harm
through ignorance.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:No fixing this (Score:1)
by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:54PM (#61846573)
at least the courts have been ruling agenst this nonsense as of late.
Flag as Inappropriate
Last time I checked, YouTube is not a researcher. (Score:2)
by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:34PM (#61844557)
Just a condescending cunt, that thinks it knows better, exactly
because it knows so little.
Exactly like those it tries to stop.
And ain't that a typical pattern in stupid assholes!
The only problem here is, who has power over whom.
Anti-vaxxers would not be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else.
YouTube wouldn't be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else.
Solution:
1. Spread more self-thinking and problem solving skills to
children and promote their curiosity so they grow up as individuals
and researchers. Without their stupid brainwashed abusive believer
parents knowing or finding out.
2. Watch them grow up to not obey all the condescending assholes
and dictators and throw out all the morons.
Then anti-vaxxers won't be a thing anymore. And assholes like YT neither.
Flag as Inappropriate
contaminated discourse and general social issues (Score:3)
by doom ( 14564 ) <doom at kzsu.stanford.edu> on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:37PM (#61844571) Homepage Journal
It sure would be nice if I could talk about the actual problem
here-- see, government doesn't regulate speech because First
Ammendment, so instead we pressure Big Tech into doing it for us, and
that's legal because Regulation is Bad.
But if I do try to talk about it, I'm lending support to a bunch
of antivaxxer nutjobs (spare me your cherry-picked Studies guys, I'm
busy watching unvaccinated people overwhelm hospitals in the red
lands).
The idea that we need robust social institutions with reasonable
checks-and-balances built-in and transparent decision making and so
on, that's all irrelevant in the modern world, where I'm supposed to
just go "Oh good, google did the Right Thing. This time."
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:contaminated discourse and general social issue (Score:2)
by doesnothingwell ( 945891 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:09PM (#61845081)
I do not want YouTube, or any other public platform, censoring
people. Who are they to determine the truth?
I agree but govt policy won't save us until people get
educated. After the last forty years I've observed this is not likely.
Most people resist school levies without asking "How stupid do you
want future adults to be?"
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there
has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a
constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural
life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
Flag as Inappropriate
If I had a dime... (Score:5, Insightful)
by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:06PM (#61844755)
If I had a dime for every time a dumbass tried to use VAERS as a
data source, I'd be rich.
VAERS is not a source of data. Anyone can go on there and report
anything they want.
I could go on VAERS and report the vaccine grew back my hair and
made my penis 50% larger. It would mean absolutely nothing, VAERS will
accept the report and include the information, but that wouldn't make
VAERS a source of truth or a source of data on hair restoration or
penis enlargment, VAERS is completely unsubstantiated claims.
Any time you see someone using "data from VAERS", you can
automatically discredit them as trying to manufacture evidence to
support their own twisted arguments and agendas.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845057) Homepage
Wouldn't you say that's a pretty significant problem, then?
That we don't have any way to record adverse vaccination events with
any accuracy or integrity?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:18PM (#61845407)
No, it's not a problem. VAERS exists to allow public
health officials and researchers to identify outliers when compared to
the overall population. Are there more reports of toes falling off
from vaccinated patients vs what would be expected in the general
population? That is how you identify adverse reactions, you report
everything and look for trends. It's why drug trials do the same
thing. I take a drug my doctor was involved with during its clinical
trials. We were discussing the risks and she told me about how they
looked in the insert and what they actually meant. One study
participant drowned in an accident. It was reported as a death in the
study. Why? Well, who can say if his drowning was related to the drug.
If a number of others in the study had also died or been injured in
accidents, above what is expected in their demographic, then hey,
maybe the drug could be causing something that is contributing to the
accidents. Or maybe just one kid got unlucky. But you won't know until
you have enough of a sample size so you report everything. Otherwise
something actually is a problem with a drug or vaccine, but might not
superficially look like it on an individual case by case basis, might
get overlooked.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta'
`ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:38PM (#61845747)
Homepage
Well, either VAERS can't be used to show the risk of
serious adverse reactions to the c19 vaccine OR it can be.
If it can't because the data is unreliable, then that
would mean we have absolutely no facilities in place to measure the
potential adverse reactions to vaccines ( and not just the c19 vaccine
). This would be a huge problem, and in any case undermine any claims
that the vaccine is 100% safe.
If I can be used, then there is a significant issue
with the c19 vaccines, which would undermine any claims that the
vaccine is 100% safe.
In either case, there's absolutely no way to make any
claims as to the safety of the vaccine.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @05:15PM (#61845891)
It cannot be used because the data is unreliable.
This would be a huge problem, and in any case
undermine any claims that the vaccine is 100% safe.
Nobody said it was 100% safe. Nothing is 100%
safe. Even baby aspirin can harm you. If you required 100% safety from
everything, you'd have to stop eating, drinking, breathing, going
outside, staying inside, ...
It is statistically safe, however, and it is
significantly more safe than catching Covid directly.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta'
`ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:40PM (#61845973)
Homepage
How do you know? If you discount the VAERS
data, you have nothing upon which to make such a claim.
Well, ok; you have the data from the company
selling the vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @07:45PM (#61846391)
yeah, there's just that pesky US data of
391 million doses given, 185m fully vaccinated or worldwide 6.2
billion doses and 2.6b fully vaccinated, most without significant side
effect or long term impact (regardless what the anti-vaxers say), and
other than the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, no other serious
interruptions in vaccine delivery. Plus there's FDA approval on
Pfizer, authorizations on boosters, massive and measurable differences
of hospitalization rates and deaths of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated...
There's all kinds of real world data
supporting the benefits of covid vaccinations vs crazy anti-vax
theories that just don't hold up to scrutiny.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by grasshoppa ( 657393 )
<`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:20PM (#61846465) Homepage
So there's no real world data on
adverse c19 vaccine reactions.
Gotcha.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by marka63 ( 1237718 ) <marka at isc.org> on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @07:09PM (#61849491)
No vaccine is 100% safe. Every single one has
risks. They all have benefits too. Taking a vaccine is a risk benefit
analysis.
With COVID-19 vaccines the analysis clearly comes
down on the benefit side. I took AZ just after the reports of TTS
where coming in. I knew that the was about a 1 chance in a million
that I could die from an adverse reaction. I also knew that my chances
of dying from COVID-19 where 1000's of time higher if I didn't have
the vaccine. I also knew that it is inevitable that I would get
COVID-19 if I didn't take the vaccine as none of the vaccines are good
enough to generate herd immunity with 2 doses (the jury is still out
on 3 doses).
Just about everything you do in life has risks and
benefits. Do you drive to the supermarket? There is a risk that you
will die in a car crash on the way there or back. You will get less
exercise. There are also benefits like it takes less time. You can
bring home more goods.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta'
`ydenneks'> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:32PM (#61849529)
Homepage
If we can't use VEARS then there's no database
tracking severe adverse reactions to the vaccine, so how can you say
the analysis clearly comes down on the benefit side?
It's a statement completely untethered from
any data, and therefore reality.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September
30, 2021 @07:56PM (#61849565)
Some lawyers are trying to do the job
about the deaths linked to the usage of remdesivir and every else:
https://rumble.com/vn12v1-atto... [rumble.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by marka63 ( 1237718 ) <marka at isc.org> on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:18PM (#61849613)
VEARS is about reporting POTENTIAL adverse
affects. It takes analysis to extract signal from the noise in VEARS,
to see if the event is statistically different in occurrence to the
background rate of the event being reported. This sort of analysis is
how TTS was discovered for AZ. Similarly myocarditis with Pfizer.
VEARS is a tool. You can use it correctly
or incorrectly. Citing single events being reported there as evidence
that there is a problem is using it incorrectly. Reporting potential
observed side effects is using it correctly, be it I felt really crook
through to a person died and everything in between. Using the data set
as a whole to look for anomalies is correct use.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @08:36PM (#61849647)
VAERS was around 150 deaths by year
before the "vaxxs". Removing the "noise" is trivial.
Here is a specialist:
https://videos.francesoir.fr/?... [francesoir.fr]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:1)
by cecom ( 698048 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:11PM
(#61845091) Journal
OK, VAERS is flawed. So, where do you get your "better" data
from? Oh, you have none? And you are using that to manufacture
evidence to support your twisted arguments and agenda. Brilliant.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:05PM (#61845349)
VAERS represents one piece of the whole process.
Take the J&J vaccine. Reports of adverse effects came into
VAERS. VAERS was not the source of truth that there was a problem or
not, it was only the report of a possible but not corroborated adverse
effect. All reports are medically, scientifically and factually
reviewed and, once correlation was found, J&J was paused until the
data was fully reviewed. The result was to resume J&J with additional
recommendations for those with a higher probability of adverse
effects.
The point is that VAERS is used to accept the reports of
adverse effects, but on their own they are meaningless. It is the
additional medical reviews that will determine if there is a problem
or not, reviews which incorporate all available data including the
full medical record, not just partial details exposed by VAERS.
I could pay a small group of people to open reports on
VAERS claiming that the vaccine caused their testicles to shrink and
they became impotent. VAERS would accept the reports and, probably
within days or hours news stories about vaccine impotence would start
from the anti-vax sites and eventually get pushed into other media and
social media, all without a single basis in truth or fact. The medical
review would disprove and discard these reports, but all of that would
not unring the bell of vaccine impotence that would continue to be
spread although completely discredited.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:12PM (#61845617)
made my penis 50% larger
Didn't someone discover viagra from VAERS?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:34PM (#61845733)
I could go on VAERS and report the vaccine grew back my hair
and made my penis 50% larger.
Balls. The vaccine causes balls to get larger and weddings to
break up. https://www.wired.com/story/ni... [wired.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0)
by ToddInSF ( 765534 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:00PM
(#61849105) Journal
It exists to track problems, you're not an honest person here.
Flag as Inappropriate
do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:26AM (#61844199)
Only one covid vaccine has been recently "approved" in the USA.
Flag as Inappropriate
›
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:27AM (#61844203)
Emergency approval is still an approval.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Informative)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:33AM (#61844219)
Also the main difference between emergency approval and
regular approval: Manufacturers were allowed to make the vaccines
before testing was complete. Distribution was still not authorized
until testing has passed, and yes the vaccines still had to pass
testing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:38AM (#61844235)
Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing
is not approval either. Only one vaccine is approved. That has very
specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have
approval, it's even possible one or more never do.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:3, Insightful)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @11:46AM (#61844281)
Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing
testing is not approval either.
Why do you lie [fda.gov] so much? "Clinical trials
are evaluating investigational COVID-19 vaccines in tens of thousands
of study participants to generate the scientific data and other
information needed by FDA to determine safety and effectiveness. These
clinical trials are being conducted according to the rigorous
standards set forth by the FDA. For an EUA to be issued for a vaccine,
for which there is adequate manufacturing information to ensure
quality and consistency, FDA must determine that the known and
potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the
vaccine. An EUA request for a COVID-19 vaccine can be submitted to FDA
based on a final analysis of a phase 3 clinical efficacy trial or an
interim analysis of such trial, i.e., an analysis performed before the
planned end of the trial once the data have met the pre-specified
success criteria for the study’s primary efficacy endpoint."
Before an EUA application can be started, phase 3
clinical trials must be complete and be successful.
Only one vaccine is approved. That has very
specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have
approval, it's even possible one or more never do.
That you do not seem to know. Basically your
ignorance [contagionlive.com] drives all of your points.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:-1, Troll)
by kick6 ( 1081615 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:02PM (#61844379) Homepage
Before an EAU application can be started,
phase 3 clinical trials must be complete and successful.
From the bolded portion of your quote
or an interim analysis of such trial, i.e., an
analysis performed before the planned end of the trial once the data
have met the pre-specified success criteria
So, no they don't have to be complete and
successful. They just have to have started, and seem to be making
antibodies and not really killing that many people. That's a severely
different stand than approved if you're one of the people that has
suffered side effects from one of these vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:10PM (#61844417)
So, no they don't have to be complete and
successful. They just have to have started, and seem to be making
antibodies and not really killing that many people. That's a severely
different stand than approved if you're one of the people that has
suffered side effects from one of these vaccines.
Bahahahahahaah. Do you know what phase 3
clinical trials mean and what it takes to not only get to but pass
phase 3? I suggest you read about that first.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:30PM (#61844531)
Arrogance and ignorance go
hand-in-hand... ugh...
Quit pretending you know "what phase 3
clinical trials mean". You're about as far from an expert as a person
can get.
Yes, it's a big deal, but that's all
an ignorant fool like you should feel comfortable saying. Even then,
you should back that up with an real experts opinion.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:36PM (#61844567)
The poster literally said
something that 1) was not factually true 2) based on ignorance of the
subject area 3) all of my points are backed by experts which in this
case is the FDA. His post would be saying the equivalent of saying an
All-in-one computer is not a a "real" computer because it does not
have a graphics chip.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:0, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @11:59AM (#61844351)
You stupidly repeat misinformation even when
told the difference.
"Approved" vaccine has had clinical trial
people followed for six months or more, EUA vaccines have not.
"Approved" vaccine has had detailed
manufacturing plans and procedures submitted, EUA vaccines have not.
"Approved" vaccine has high level of FDA
presence and inspection during manufacturing, EUA vaccine have not.
"Approved" vaccine has the decision based on
above, EUA vaccines don't
You are just "virtue signalling", imagining
you have the proper and right view but not based on any facts. You
just keep spewing misinformation.
Only one vaccine is "approved" and that has
the very specific differences I listed above.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:3)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:13PM (#61844449)
You stupidly repeat misinformation even
when told the difference.
Both EUA and regulatory require passing
clinical trials. That is the point you refuse to admit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:00PM (#61844719)
Shifting the goalposts. You are not
worth the time, or you are a paid troll.
Comirnaty (which sounds like
"community" spoken like one of the victims with Bell's Palsy) is not
even available in the USA and is the only "approved" vax here.
This whole thing reeks and is rotten.
There is no mandate from OSHA from the government to the public, yet
Biden made some sort of decree on television, and the propagandist
mainstream media would have you think that your company has to fire
you for not having it.
At the end of the day when 90% of the
US population has been injected with this toxic nightmare, they will
be able to point and say that they never really made anyone get it.
Our healthcare system will be riddled with WHO KNOWS WHAT once the
long-term effects manifest themselves.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#61844769)
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/johnson-and-johnson-children-dont-need-the-f-cking-covid-vaccine-because/
[projectveritas.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 )
on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:19PM (#61845647)
If you get your medical advice
from Project Veritas, you might just be qualified to host the Darwin
Awards.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845671)
Enjoy your embolisms.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 )
on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:30PM (#61845945)
Pass the horse paste.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by prof_robinson ( 2632705 )
on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:10PM (#61846081)
All you prove with that
comment is your total ignorance of the subject at hand, and that you
get your opinions from highly propagandistic sources
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 )
on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:15PM (#61846293)
Neigh!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by hankcooper ( 1931836 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:44PM (#61849045) Homepage
What a moron brainwashed fool ðY'
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:03PM (#61849335)
You know we're laughing AT
you, and not laughing WITH you, correct?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:20PM (#61844823)
Our healthcare system will be
riddled with WHO KNOWS WHAT once the long-term effects manifest
themselves.
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [wikipedia.org]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:56PM (#61845815)
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii
ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii
iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii
iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii
tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii
jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii iitcii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com]
ii tKMWSii ii
iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com]
itQMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com]
iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii
cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com]
ii YNMMNMMNMN5
cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com]
ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH
MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com]
ii ii
i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii
6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii
iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii
iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii
ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii
ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii
iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com]
ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii
ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:08PM (#61849695)
What long-term effects?
The vaccine doesn't stay in
the body long. Once it is gone, so is any "danger" you fucking numpty.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @08:09PM (#61849589)
Comirnaty IS the name of the
Pfizer vaccine that is approved here and what has been given to people
since the EUA.
What the fuck is wrong with covidiots?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:02PM (#61849683)
Comirnaty is BioNTech, this
product is not official the same as the Pfizer one.
The covid cultists are not
smart enough to understand the history behind covid vaccines; Now we
have all the data and they can't understand that the virus is safer
than the vaccines: https://videos.francesoir.fr/?... [francesoir.fr]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:33PM (#61844551)
Emergency approval IS approval you fucking idiot.
Flag as Inappropriate
No. UR mom. (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844615)
No. UR mom is.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by mennucc1 ( 568756 )
<d9slash at mennucc1.debian.net> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:56PM
(#61848225) Homepage Journal
you have a broken link, the correct one should
be https://www.contagionlive.com/... [contagionlive.com] there is an
extra - at the end
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:4, Informative)
by MatthiasF ( 1853064 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @11:46AM (#61844285)
Three vaccines are allowed for use against COVID-19.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-... [fda.gov]
It would be illegal to treat people with a vaccine
openly without FDA authorization.
And no, I'm not going to get into a pedantic
battle about how the words "authorized" and "approved" are different,
all that matters is that the FDA has given the OK for use of those
three vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @11:49AM (#61844297)
No he wants to rely on the specific
terminology that only one vaccine is "approved" without realizing or
admitting what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval.
But as you pointed out, EUA does not mean that any medication can be
given without the FDA allowing it. EUA does not mean there has been no
testing done.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:31PM (#61844545) Journal
No he wants to rely on the specific
terminology that only one vaccine is "approved" without realizing or
admitting what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval.
It's like the moron on Twitter who was
complaining the government could force you to get vaccinated, and when
asked if he had a shot for measles replied (to the effect), "Yeah. I
was immunized. I didn't get vaccinated."
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:49PM (#61844651)
Care to mention all the problems with
the measles vaccine when it was initially introduced or would that
just prove that fictional twitter person you invented correct?
https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-... [nvic.org]
"At the time of vaccine approval, a
single dose of the live attenuated Rubeovax was reported to be 95
percent effective at preventing measles, and protection from measles
infection lasted at least 3 years and eight months. However, 30 to 40
percent of children who received Rubeovax experienced fever of 103
degrees or higher beginning on or around the sixth day following
vaccination, lasting between 2 to 5 days. 30 to 60 percent of
individuals who received Rubeovax also developed a “modified measles
rash”. Due to the high number of side effects, public health and Merck
officials recommended that Rubeovax be administered in conjunction
with measles immune globulin, as co-administration significantly
reduced vaccine reactions."
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:3)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:00PM (#61844711)
Yeah, vaccines containing live
attenuated viruses are pretty terrible; they are still better than the
disease but have many issues. Which is why we almost never use those
anymore.
I think what you are saying is
"wow, vaccine science works, we moved away from these dangerous
vaccines to our current very-safe vaccines." And I agree with you;
excellent point!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:20PM (#61844821)
Now tell us about the
lessons-learned from previous coronavirus vaccines. Oh right, none
have ever existed before.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:50PM (#61844999)
Actually, we've been testing
vaccines for different coronavirus for about a decade (including mRNA
vaccines), ever since SARS. They haven't been in wide use until the
COVID-19 vaccine, because most coronaviruses are not deadly, but yeah,
we have a lot of lessons learned. And we've learned a lot more since
we started wide-spread vaccinations last winter, including "fewer
major side effects than most medicines" and "very effective at keeping
people alive and out of the ICU".
Anything else that you don't
know and want me to tell you about? I'd think that Google would be a
faster way of learning, but to each their own.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:58PM (#61845037)
Are you sure it's not because
no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because
of that!
Pretty soon we won't even be
able to find that fact online and then people like you will be
shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!"
That's the real goal of information suppression.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:3)
by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:32PM (#61845203) Homepage Journal
Are you sure it's not because
no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because
of that!
Pretty soon we won't even be
able to find that fact online and then people like you will be
shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!"
Lots of coronavirus vaccines
in animals have worked. Anyone spending three minutes with a search
engine can find links proving that what you're saying is NOT true.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:10PM (#61845085)
Are you sure it's not because
no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because
of that!
And why do you think that is?
It could not possibly be that the rate of corona virus infection
before 2020 was so low that priority and funding for such a vaccine
was also low. Because researchers and pharmaceutical companies like
spending millions of dollars on diseases that affect few people. No
that cannot be it at all.
Pretty soon we won't even be
able to find that fact online and then people like you will be
shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!"
That's the real goal of information suppression.
Yes because YouTube is the
only site you can go on the Internet. The only one that has ever
existed too.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:22PM (#61845125)
"Yes because YouTube is the
only site you can go on the Internet. The only one that has ever
existed too."
"... because those white
schools are the only schools your kid can go to..." - Gov. George
Wallace (D), 1964
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:03AM (#61847811)
Bahahaha. That is an idiotic
comparison and you know it. Since the early days of the Internet,
people have thought that anonymous means they are entitled to post
whatever they want on someone else's forum. That has never true. The
fact that you would compare a private company making policy changes
means that your civil rights have been infringed only underscores your
sense of entitlement.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by baristabrian ( 1635747 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:26PM (#61849007)
Personally, I feel very
strongly that NOBODY should be able to post ANYTHING on the internet
without being registered using foolproof biometrics and SSN.
And EVERY website and domain
and server would have to be registered to at least one HUMAN, also by
using verifiable certifications.
That shut up a LOT of cowardly
pussies here on Huffpost for nerds.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1)
by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:29PM (#61844521) Homepage Journal
Ok, so we have these vaccines in the pipeline.
I consider that a good thing.
My concern is...WHERE is the money, trials and
development of therapeutics to treat people that HAVE covid?
I mean, with all the breakthrough cases we're
seeing, it would appear we still need to actually treat the
disease...both for the vaccinated and the unvacinnated.
I see no news...no push and almost nothing
mentioned in the media about therapeutics to actually treat people
that HAVE the disease.
They have plenty to tell about proposed past
treatments that they say are not effective, but nothing to say about
work on those that are being looked at that ARE possible tx vectors.
With the growing number of breakthrough cases, and looking down the
road at potential future variants , shouldn't therapeutics be the next
great hill to conquer? The vaccines aren't really working, IMHO, in
the sense that other vaccines of the past have done.
Vaccines for polio, smallpox, etc....you get
the vaccine, you almost never hear of a breakthrough case there.
These covid vaccines, while they seem to work
GREAT to help lower your chances or serious illness, hospitalization
and death, do not seem to prevent you from getting the disease. So,
where are the treatments to go along with this?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:4, Interesting)
by Captain Segfault ( 686912 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:08PM (#61845075) Homepage Journal
If you're not hearing about this stuff
you're living under a rock.
First off, -- you probably understand this
but it is worth calling out explicitly -- the vaccines *do* have a
very real preventative effect. The problem is that the "prevention" is
far from 100%, for various reasons. We know obvious factors: how good
is the early immune response triggered by the vaccine, to what extent
to variants reduce that, how much does it drop over time, how large is
the incoming viral dose at initial exposure. As far as I know we don't
understand the relative importance of these factors, on a spectrum
from "most fully vaccinated people are mostly immune but breakthrough
cases happen, more frequently during a major surge" to "most people
will eventually get exposed to a large enough viral dose to have a
breakthrough infection".
It isn't that clear that a hypothetical
attempt to vaccinate a largely immunologically naive population
against polio or measles wouldn't have the same issues with
breakthrough cases we're having with SARS-CoV-2. On top of that,
measles *did* have outbreak levels of breakthrough cases until they
added a second dose to the standard regimen after the 1989 Chicago
measles outbreak. Even then breakthrough measles is still a thing --
it's just rare and almost always really mild when it happens. It may
well be that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines similarly need an extra dose, or need
the two doses to be further spaced than 3-4 weeks to provide robust
long lasting immunity.
Still, regarding treatments: the biggest
problem with respect to treatment is that by the time you know that a
case is serious you're past the point where antivirals help that much
-- at that point you're dealing as much with the immune system
destroying the body. Dexamethazone was a big deal in improving the
situation there, and came with something like a 1/3 reduction in
chance of death.
On the other hand, there are a number of
existing antiviral treatments that improve the situation if applied
early on -- remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibodies -- but
they don't help *that* much unless they come early and they all
require hospitalization level treatment. If hospital systems are
overwhelmed, treatments that require hospitalization of likely
otherwise sub-hospitalization cases cases are not that helpful except
for high risk patients.
There are two game changers here:
1. There's a fair bit of news about an
oral covid treatment that Pfizer just launched phase 2/3 trials for.
That has the same "needs to be early to be helpful" issues that
existing antiviral treatments do, except that it would actually be
viable to take them far more early -- at first positive test or even
after known exposure.
2. In an environment where hospital
systems are not overwhelmed with covid cases among the immunologically
naive, even those more intensive early treatments would be far more
helpful than they are now.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0, Troll)
by Twinbee ( 767046 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:36PM (#61845743)
the vaccines *do* have a very real
preventative effect.
Not always:
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Also, imperfect vaccination can make
things worse: https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:11PM (#61844787)
What the hell are you talking about?
There are lots of studies on things like
monoclonal antibodies (successful with limits), remdesivir (successful
with limits), ivermectin (not successful) and HCQ (not successful);
the successful therapies have emergency use authorizations and are
being used now. The problem is that treating viruses is REALLY REALLY
HARD and we don't have any generic agents which we can use or modify
to attack covid. There is lots of funding and lots of research, but it
all comes up empty. That's why crap like HCQ becomes so popular;
because when there is nothing truly effective, scared people make up
ineffective stuff. See also "cats during the Black Death".
Also, no vaccine is 100% effective, and no
vaccine keeps you from being infected by the disease. Vaccines mean
that when you are infected, your body has a much better chance of
destroying the infection before it becomes a problem. This is true for
the covid vaccine, and the polio vaccine, and every other vaccine.
I'll be infected by flu viruses a dozen times this winter; some of the
time my body will destroy the infection on its own, some of the time
the flu vaccine I just got will make the difference, and if I'm
unlucky then one of those infections will bring me down for a week.
And same thing with COVID.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845179)
There are lots of studies on things
like monoclonal antibodies (successful with limits), remdesivir
(successful with limits),
The world health organization
disagrees or is unaware of evidence supporting efficacy of remdesivir.
https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int]
I'm in the same boat. The only studies
I'm aware of including remdesivir conclude that no positive health
outcomes were observed.
" Remdesivir therapy for five days did
not produce improvement in clinical outcomes in moderate to severe
COVID-19 cases."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
The problem is that treating viruses
is REALLY REALLY HARD and we don't have any generic agents which we
can use or modify to attack covid. There is lots of funding and lots
of research, but it all comes up empty.
Is this why Oxford PRINCIPAL trial is
currently including Ivermectin in late 2021 after all this time?
Is this why the NIH is still saying
"There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of
ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately
powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed
to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of
ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."?
What doesn't stand to turn a profit
seems to be left up to academic and clinician side projects to
scrounge up resources in their spare time and sometimes on their own
dime.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:01PM (#61845341)
You may be right about remdesivir;
I haven't paid enough attention lately, and I apologize for not
double-checking my memory.
What doesn't stand to turn a
profit seems to be left up to academic and clinician side projects to
scrounge up resources in their spare time and sometimes on their own
dime.
Merc sells ivermectin and would
happily bump the prices of the human-usable versions if they thought
they could make a profit (and not lose it all in lawsuits). Unless you
think that their accountants are polically motivated?
I'm glad that people are doing
ivermectin (and HCQ) studies; we need them. Nobody wants to stop
research. We just don't want to encourage people to use it without
some proof of efficacy. The experts have families at risk of COVID
too; they want effective treatments as much or more than we do.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:30PM (#61845455)
Merc sells ivermectin and
would happily bump the prices of the human-usable versions if they
thought they could make a profit (and not lose it all in lawsuits).
Unless you think that their accountants are polically motivated?
From what I understand Merc is
also working on a treatment for Covid-19 and this drug is off patent
and being mass produced by other manufacturers.
I personally don't see a
financial incentive for Merc to pursuit a trial for an off patent dirt
cheap drug.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:-1)
by prof_robinson ( 2632705 )
on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:14PM (#61846099)
That's why Pfizer is creating
their own version of ivermectin, tweaked just enough to put it back
under patent. Its going to be a daily pill. This way, Pfizer can still
make money, and you can still make horse jokes and look down on those
Indian rubes
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:58PM (#61846787)
Ivermectin is normally given
ONCE, as in "one time". Sometimes twice in patients with compromised
immunity. When it's used for its intended purpose, it's ridiculously
effective.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @09:20PM (#61846625)
Remdesivir works best before
symptoms show up.
Best defense? Get vaccinated or
stay in your home when you get infected and don't overwhelm the
hospitals.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:33PM (#61845731)
Ivermectin is very effective. You just
choose to followed be wilfully blind. There are now plenty of small
high quality double blind studies showing it’s effectiveness. Many
countries have now rolled it out as preventative treatment with great
success.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Major_Disorder ( 5019363 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:52PM (#61846011)
Ivermectin is very effective. You
just choose to followed be wilfully blind. There are now plenty of
small high quality double blind studies showing it’s effectiveness.
Many countries have now rolled it out as preventative treatment with
great success.
Link to these "studies" or I am
calling you out as full of something warm and brown. Hint, some guys
blog is not going to cut it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @09:36PM (#61846655)
Lying covidiot.
Keep taking your horse paste, it
will end well for humanity.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by aRTeeNLCH ( 6256058 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:51PM (#61845307)
Just search and you shall find. For
instance this article on measles breakthrough:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @09:18PM (#61846623)
Almost anyone who gets covid today and
nearly all of them that choke to death do so because they are
fucktarded.
How is that a concern?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:-1, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:05PM (#61844397)
Not a "pedantic battle" at all, very specific
differences.
Approval means major things EUA does not. The
observation of clinical trial participants is six months or more, the
detailed plans and procedures of manufacturing have to be submitted,
presence and high level of oversight by FDA in plants, and of course
the decision for approval itself. EUA has none of the above.
That said, I had moderna shots, but it's a lie
to say it was FDA approved and there are risks assumed and shortcuts
taken for EUA that most vaccines we get have, because of the virulent
nature and death and maiming toll of covid.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:12PM (#61844433)
Again you seem to be side stepping your
main argument: The vaccines had to pass clinical trials. Are you
willing to admit that, yes, the vaccines passed clinical trials?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:46PM (#61844635)
No, you seem to be side stepping major
differences. For example, for EUA only *half* the cinical trial
subjects had to be followed for only 2 months. that the vaccines
passed a quick and limited type of "clinical trials" for EUA?
Are you wiling to admit your folly in
not seeing for example the HUGE difference the clinical trial followup
for approval takes compared to the very rushed trial analysis EUA
takes? Are you aware that most vaccines we have had subjects followed
for *years*?
You seem to be just making things up
without even during cursory research on the topic.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844975)
No, you seem to be side stepping
major differences. For example, for EUA only *half* the cinical trial
subjects had to be followed for only 2 months. that the vaccines
passed a quick and limited type of "clinical trials" for EUA?
What the hell are you talking
about? A drug either passes all 3 phases clinical trials or it does
not. And it must pass to be allowed to be distributed. That is it. The
time of the clinical trials has never been instituted as a
requirement. Please show me where the FDA or any regulatory body has
mandates: “Clinical trials must last six months"
Are you wiling to admit your folly
in not seeing for example the HUGE difference the clinical trial
followup for approval takes compared to the very rushed trial analysis
EUA takes? Are you aware that most vaccines we have had subjects
followed for *years*?
Again what the fuck are you
talking about? To be allowed to be distributed, it must pass phase 3.
You are adding additional requirements that DO NOT EXIST. By your
logic, nothing can be released without years of testing before
release. Have you thought about that? That is as idiotic as saying
Ford should not release a car this year that has not passed
requirements that have yet to be passed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:35PM (#61844559)
Pedantic yes, and you continue to be a fucking idiot
Flag as Inappropriate
No. UR mom is (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:51PM (#61845003)
No. UR mom.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by chrism238 ( 657741 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @05:50PM (#61846005)
Three vaccines are allowed for use against COVID-19.
Such a US-centric belief. More pedantics.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:18PM (#61844467) Homepage
Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing
testing is not approval either. Only one vaccine is approved. That has
very specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not
have approval, it's even possible one or more never do.
The post you are replying to was accurate.
Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson covid-19 vaccines all have been
approved by the FDA. Pfizer has been fully approved for people age 16
and over; Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have been approved for
emergency use. The statement by @jeff4747 was accurate:
Emergency approval is still an approval.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:0, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:52PM (#61844665)
Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have only EUA
not approval and the differences are HUGE.
EUA means only half of clinical subjects
followed for only two months. Approved vaccines have all subjects
followed for six months or more (most vaccines we have are with
subjects followed for years)
EUA means manufacturer did not have to submit
detailed plans and procedures for making. Approved vaccines require
that.
EUA means FDA does not have high level
manufacturing site oversight and inspection, approved vaccines do.
EUA means FDA never approved the vaccine and
did the above requirements, "approved" means just that, based on the
above.
You need to stop your misconceptions and
posting based only on your ignorance of the subject, you are a source
of misinformation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:30PM (#61844889) Homepage
Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have only
EUA not approval
Yes. And that is a form of approval; they
are approved for emergency use.
Stop trying to redefine the English language.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:19PM (#61845413)
Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have
only EUA not approval
Yes. And that is a form of approval;
they are approved for emergency use.
Stop trying to redefine the English language.
He's not trying to redefine the
English Language. He's providing examples of Legal definitions. FDA
Approval for drugs in the U.S. has a very specific meaning legally,
and any lesser "approval" is called something different, like "EUA".
We're currently talking about laws, approval, and consequences of
such, and thus the proper terms should be used, not colloquial
English.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:33PM (#61844899)
You've posted this same thing at least 3
times in this article that I've seen so far but you've provided no
sources, nor given any support for why you're a credible source for
information. Just saying, that would go a long way.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:36PM (#61845223)
What does the "A" in EUA stand for again?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:08PM (#61845365)
What does the "A" in EUA stand for again?
I honestly don't understand this
thread. There is a clear meaning even for laypersons what an approved
drug is. It means the FDA approved it. There is no other credible
interpretation of an FDA approved drug.
Emergency use authorization is
explicitly not FDA approval. You are free to argue the merits of Covid
vaccines or make educated guesses as to the difference if any yet
there is no factual basis to the idea that EUA = approval when it most
certainly does not.
The questioning of motives is
pointless. If there are questions about someone's position or what
something means you ask for clarification or provide additional
context. It is not acceptable to assume EUA = FDA approval. You can
think its in the bag / inevitable / assured yet the definition and
processes exist independent of ones assumptions.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845673)
Cool. Good luck with your horse paste.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @09:43PM (#61846669)
EUA is approval by the FDA. It is
in the name.
Where you are going wrong is that
you are a covidiot and as such, mentally retarded.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by dagarath ( 33684 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @05:13PM (#61845883)
EUA means only half of clinical subjects
followed for only two months.
I find no support for this claim from the
FDA's documents on Emergency Use Authorization processes.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by Major_Disorder ( 5019363 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @05:55PM (#61846023)
Approved vaccines have all subjects
followed for six months or more (most vaccines we have are with
subjects followed for years)
Since a new flu vaccine is released EVERY
SINGLE YEAR. I say you are full of shit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Troll)
by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:52AM (#61844315)
Emergency approval is still an approval.
It is an emergency use authorization. That is NOT the same
thing as "FDA approved". Not even close.
My understanding is this is also the reason they want to
discredit and destroy anyone claiming that therapeutics are effective,
because they likely would not be able to retain the justification for
"emergency use" authorization.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:06PM (#61844403)
It is an emergency use authorization. That is NOT the
same thing as "FDA approved"
And no one is claiming it is.
Emergency use authorization is a form of approval.
This is an article in "regular" media talking about the concept of
approval, not attempting to turn words into magic tokens.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by MooseTick ( 895855 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:53PM (#61844671) Homepage
Am I the only one who thinks too many people here
are hung up on their personal precise definition of the word
"approval", and missing the big picture?
The FDA hasn't done any giant studies on whether
Cheetos cause cancer or if drinking Mountain Dew causes blindness but
I don't see anyone hesitating consuming those products because they
weren't "approved".
Anti-vaxers let fear control their lives about as
those 250lb white guys who have to take their guns everywhere because
of the 1 in 1000000 chance they could be victimized.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:1, Troll)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:58PM (#61844701)
Words have meanings. More importantly words
have powerful meanings in Law.
Orwell is rolling over in his grave. He warned
us all about folks like you.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by Dynedain ( 141758 ) <`moc.nilcmynohtna'
`ta' `2todhsals'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:33PM (#61844901)
Homepage
And no-one on this thread is qualified to
debate the legal definitions of the terminology being used.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844971)
Really? We aren't qualified to think
for ourselves? And worse you want YouTube neckbeards to be the
ultimate arbiter?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by Dynedain ( 141758 )
<`moc.nilcmynohtna' `ta' `2todhsals'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:53PM (#61845019) Homepage
This is what happens when there
are threats to remove Section 230 protections. Content hosting
platforms are going to take proactive action to squash controversial
content that could otherwise leave them legally liable to serve.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:35PM (#61845483)
Words have meanings.
Meanings. Plural.
When the FDA gives "emergency use
authorization", that is an approval. It is not "FDA Approved", because
that's a different meaning of the word approve.
Words are not the magic tokens you want
them to be. Actual language is complex.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:15PM (#61844801)
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the
facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have
neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -old legal adage
Complaining about the precise definition of
"approval" is "pounding the table"; it's what you do when you know
you're wrong.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:06PM (#61845587)
"If you have the facts on your side, pound
the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you
have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -old legal adage
Complaining about the precise definition
of "approval" is "pounding the table"; it's what you do when you know
you're wrong.
Definitions are facts. The law uses those
facts. To ignore definitions when talking about law is to pound the
table, which is what you know you're doing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:35AM (#61844229)
False, the two phrases have very different legal and
health/risk meanings. Only one vaccine has approval, the rest have
"emergency use authorization." It could even be none of the other
vaccines ever get approved and the emergency use revoked. Learn about
the process, reasoning, risks and meanings, it's quite interesting.
And by the way, the two doses I received were not
approved, only had an authorization. "Emergeny use authorization" is
NOT approval.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @11:52AM (#61844307)
On the legal level, you are correct. In a more regular
use of the word "approval", I think most people would think that
"emergency use authorization" is a form of approval.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:2, Insightful)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:01PM (#61844367)
That's the problem though. You're misleading
people by your use of the word 'Approved' and there are legal and
possible health consequences for the people who believe your lie. Why
are you afraid of just telling people the truth and letting them
decide for themselves?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:4, Insightful)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:57PM (#61844693) Journal
Why are you afraid of just telling people the
truth and letting them decide for themselves?
They are telling the truth. The message is
just simplified. See, most people aren't capable of understanding the
difference between EUA and full approval. Most people aren't medical
researchers. It's complicated and nuanced and difficult to understand
how those differences affect risk. The whole message is noisy, and
that noise is what dishonest actors are exploiting.
People like you want to split hairs over the
legal vs the common use of the word 'approved' to make people think
that EUA means completely untested. That's what I'd call a lie.
As for trusting people to make informed
decisions about the vaccine, I should remind you that there are people
who believe that:
- Covid is a hoax created by the liberal media
- the vaccine contains 'microchips' for some reason.
- vaccinated people are dangerous because
the vaccine was engineered to make people spread a different, more
deadly, disease.
- the vaccine is designed to kill anyone
who gets it inside three years.
- the vaccine is significantly more deadly
than the virus
- a lot of nonsense about blood clots
- Dr. Fauci refused to take the vaccine
and the world leaders are getting saline injections
- Dr. Fauci was tried and executed in
Guantanamo Bay and we're seeing a "body double"
- Bill Gates created the vaccine has been
arrested by the military.
This is just a small sample of the insanity
people are spreading about the virus and vaccine. These people are not
capable of making informed decisions. They "did their own research"
and this is what they came away believing.
We need a simple message that's easy to
understand if we want to save people's lives. You want to needlessly
complicate that message for reasons I dare not speculate about.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1, Flamebait)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @01:18PM (#61844815)
That's really the root of the
disagreement. You believe you're smarter than everyone else and should
be able to forcibly inject your lessors whereas I believe people
should be able to make their own informed decisions. To be able to
make that informed decision requires all available information which
can be hard to do when one side is being actively suppressed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:4, Insightful)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:59PM (#61845325) Journal
I believe people should be able to
make their own informed decisions.
This is the lie the libertarians tell
themselves: People magically have access to perfect information and
will always act in their own rational self-interest.
That's pure fantasy. People, even with
easy access to reliable information, will go out of their way to make
choices harmful to themselves and others.
But that's the best-case. As I've
demonstrated, they're also incapable of separating legitimate
information for insane conspiracies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:1)
by Jastiv ( 958017 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @11:29AM (#61847909) Homepage
That is assuming that protecting
people from themselves is a noble goal rather than a vice to be
avoided at all costs.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:37AM (#61847935)
Australia takes "seriously" to
protect this women from COVID, this should be a noble goal:
https://twitter.com/MichaelPSe... [twitter.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:14PM (#61848965) Journal
You must be new to this whole
'civilization' thing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:1)
by cthulhu11 ( 842924 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:34PM (#61848809)
These are the fundamental lies of
"libertarians". Time and again we see that a significant fraction of
people -- and especially businesses -- will NOT act reasonably without
regulation. With regard to vaccines, "people" are not immunologists
for the most part, so we rationally rely on experts. The GP's
"informed decision" sophistry is also a key part of the "libertarian"
lie, their denial that elitism is the driver of their whole
philosophy.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:52PM (#61845541) Homepage Journal
That's really the root of the
disagreement. You believe you're smarter than everyone else and should
be able to forcibly inject your lessors whereas I believe people
should be able to make their own informed decisions. To be able to
make that informed decision requires all available information which
can be hard to do when one side is being actively suppressed.
Not all issues have more than one
side. The very notion that you have to present a contrary view for
everything, no matter how wacky, is exactly how we ended up with this
insanity to begin with.
It is provably impossible to become
more informed by adding provably incorrect data to a collection of
proven facts. You can only become less informed and more confused. And
for the most part, this is also true for adding grossly misleading
information, thanks to the human tendency to latch onto ideas and not
change their opinions even when proven wrong. When lives are on the
line, it is vitally important that factually correct information be
the first thing that people are exposed to.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @09:53PM (#61846679)
SCOTUS has disagreed with you for over
100 years.
George Washington disagrees with you.
Why? You are fucktarded, that's why.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:10AM (#61847367)
No side is being suppressed, but one
side is being blocked and banned due to spreading lies and
misinformation intentionally. There are no "informed" decisions to be
made there. If you belong in the 2% of the population that has
increased risk of side effects from vaccination that is one thing, but
what we are seeing is that 20-25% of the population refuse the vaccine
on emotional grounds.
Second, he is not smarter than
everyone else, just smarter than the anti-vaxxers, which is not that
difficult. And he is absolutely right to "forcibly inject" the lessors
- not because his freedoms are greater than theirs, but because public
health affects everyone; you are not a hermit living alone in the
woods. There is no "freedom" to risk the lives of others any more than
there is a freedom to drive drunk and risk hitting someone with your
car. Or do you believe that driving drunk is also an informed
decision?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @11:43PM (#61846863)
The blood clots were a real thing, with
AstraZenaca. Killed 3 Canadians and its use was discontinued. For
Americans, they never had access to that vaccine so have to settle for
the 1 in 4 chance of Covid giving a blood clot instead of the 1 in a
100,000 (60,000?) chance with AstraZenaca.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @12:52AM (#61846953) Journal
Ah, you don't know. Two things then:
The crazies think that "the vaccine"
is causing blood clots in women at an alarming rate and the media is
keeping it a secret. This is often tied in with the "killing more
people than the virus" claims from the same idiots.
As for Astrazenica, Canada allows it
for 18 and older [canada.ca]. I think the only country that actually
discontinued its use was Norway. Most of the EU allows it, as does
Australia.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:2)
by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @01:20AM (#61846983)
OK, I haven't kept up with the
crazies. As for AstraZenaca, while it is still allowed, we did stop
using it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by cthulhu11 ( 842924 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @03:36PM (#61848813)
Notably, if YouTube is only just now
starting to do this, they're eight months too late for it to make a
difference.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:44PM (#61844617)
Because you're a fucking moron
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:56PM (#61844689)
People have the right to be morons though.
You don't have the right to forcibly inject them with anything no
matter how much you want that power over everyone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:14PM (#61845627)
The Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by dumb_jedi ( 955432 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:20PM (#61845659)
While people DO have the right to be
morons, they don't have the right to put other people at risk. That's
the reason we have speed limits when driving. People refusing to get
vaccinated because of bogus reasons not only puts themselves in risk,
with others as well:
- Risk of transmitting COVID to
someone vulnerable (even indirectly)
- Risk of breeding mutations
- Risk of overwhelming the heath care
system which denies care for other people.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:53AM (#61844321)
It could even be none of the other vaccines ever get
approved and the emergency use revoked. Learn about the process,
reasoning, risks and meanings, it's quite interesting.
We do. You seem to construct all of your arguments on
terminology that makes little difference. For example, you would argue
that seedless grapes are not technically fruit as they have no seeds.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:05PM (#61844399)
This is an article in regular media, talking about the
concept of "approval".
Words are not the magic you want them to be. Emergency
use authorization is a form of approval.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:2, Insightful)
by FuegoFuerte ( 247200 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @02:00PM (#61845049)
When talking about compliance-related topics,
words have specific meanings and it's rather disingenuous to imply
otherwise. In the context of the FDA (which is what we're specifically
talking about when talking about vaccines and medications),
"Authorization" is not a form of "Approval". Emergency Use
Authorization is, by its very definition, authorization to use a
non-approved medicine or in this case vaccine due to some extenuating
circumstance, based on early evidence that it is likely to be
effective.
This is very similar to dealing with a much more
computer-nerd-centric topic of federal compliance - if I sell "FIPS
140-2 compliant" hardware, it means it should do everything FIPS 140-2
requires, but if I'm building an environment that's going to host IL4
or IL5 data and is subject to FEDRAMP or similar, I can't use that
hardware (at least, not without a whole lot of additional paperwork).
I have to use FIPS 140-2 (and soon, 140-3) validated hardware, which
means it's been submitted to NIST and fully tested to meet the FIPS
140-2 (or -3) criteria, and has gone through the entire process to get
the government's stamp of approval. If I have a legitimate need to use
specific hardware that is undergoing the validation process and is
likely to pass, I may be able to get an AOR (acceptance of risk)
allowing me to use that hardware pre-validation.
Vaccines are the same, it's just the FDA instead
of NIST, and the words used are different. If this were NIST, we would
currently have an AOR to use the vaccine, pre-validation. We could
call the vaccine compliant, but that's a weasel-word as it doesn't
have a solid legal meaning in this context. We could still use it
because we went through the process to get an AOR though, as we
believe it to be useful where nothing else is, and it is going through
the official validation process and likely to pass.
So, words have meaning, and in a legal/regulatory
context such as this they have very specific meanings, and one can not
simply pick from a thesaurus to say they're the same thing. They
aren't, and to say otherwise is either ignorant or intentionally
deceitful.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:16PM (#61845631)
"The FDA approved the vaccine for emergency
use" is factually correct. "Approve" is not the magic token you are
trying to make it. It's a word with multiple definitions.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by FuegoFuerte ( 247200 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @04:29PM (#61845709)
It is NOT factually correct. The FDA
*authorized* the vaccine for emergency use. Words have meanings, and
when dealing with regulatory topics they are very specific meanings,
and are NOT interchangeable, like you seem to believe. Don't believe
me? Maybe you should ask the FDA if they "approved" any vaccine for
emergency use. And then, you can try telling an auditor for an IL5
environment that you're using FIPS 140-2 compliant hardware too, and
see what they say. For bonus laughs, when they ask if it's validated,
tell them you validated it by checking with the manufacturer that it
was compliant.
Let us all know how far that gets you.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @10:05PM (#61846705)
Covidiots are like sovcits using
"travelling" as if it is a magic word that exempts them from drivers
licenses and car registration.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@07:17PM (#61846303)
Emergency approval is still an approval.
Sure, and an emergency exit is still an exit.
What?
Well it is, my logic is unassailable,
See it meets a lower standard of approval, and it makes no
sense to wag fingers are normal citizens for being scared of the
vaccine if the FDA doesnâ(TM)t even feel that the merit full approval.
If emergency approval and regular approval were the same, there would
be no distinction made
The FDA website openly admits that they do not know about
the long-term effects, but some random people on the Internet sweat
itâ(TM)s safe long-term.
Why the random people donâ(TM)t share their research with
the FDA, so the FDA can be as sure, is a mystery.
In the 50s a 60â(TM)s people received polio vaccines
contaminated with a virus that was known to cause cancer. Until very
recently, the FDA and CDC had a section about this on their websites.
They were recently deleted.
If you made a video about this, it would be banned.
And the party which claims to loathe big pharma suddenly
realizes that big pharma is beyond reproach! It sure sounds like they
care about you. With that kind of integrity, how could they not?
The elite will determine what you should worry about, and
the conformists will turn you in if they catch you worrying about
unapproved things. Trust the Party, they say.
In any event, whatever, nothing can be done. You cannot
help people are tell them anything. Read your history and you will see
the same thing, ad-nauseum. Moral-panic, government salvation,
government abuse, backlash, rinse and repeat. You deserve the world
that you are helping to create and when you get it, there will be
nobody to help you. Nobody. Oh sure, it seems like utopia, it always
does.
But it never is. The psychopaths in the ruling class are
good at what they do. So good that the people cheer as itâ(TM)s being
done,
Then, once it is too late ⦠well, I am sure it will be
fine. After all, you are you, the special one. I am sure that this
time it will different. And if not, it will be someone else fault. At
least that is while you will think. Others. Those other people.
Probably those smelly people in the working class. Or minorities, they
have much lower vaccination rates than good affluent white people.
Yeah, it is those damn minorities, as usual.
Fucking minorities not getting their vaccinations. Maybe
we should round them up and put them in some kind of camp. Someplace
where they can concentrate without the constant barrage of
misinformation they currently receive.
I mean it has never been done before. Someone should try it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:31AM (#61844213)
That is a lie as all CoVID vaccines required approval prior to
being administered. But way to prove YouTube's point as your post
includes misinformation that is easily debunked.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3)
by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:12PM (#61844435)
That is a lie as all CoVID vaccines required approval
prior to being administered.
They require permission/authorization from the FDA - which
in this case is done by the EUA, not by Clearance / Approval; The
CoVID Vaccines were reviewed and are authorized by the FDA for use due
to the emergency situation.
Which is just as good and important as approval. It Does
seem deceptive when people cite only that they have not been approved
as if it indicate some kind of problem while also omitting the fact
that they have in-fact been reviewed carefully, and authorized and
recommended for use by the federal government agencies.
See the FDA's website [fda.gov]
the FDA can issue an EUA to provide access to medical
products that may potentially be used when there are no adequate,
approved, and available options.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:32AM (#61844217)
no, you are the liar.
Most vaccines have "emergency use authorization", not
approval. Only one vaccine has approval. Big difference.
Educate your ignorant self before making accusations.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:40AM (#61844249)
Most vaccines have "emergency use authorization", not
approval. Only one vaccine has approval. Big difference.
By saying that only one vaccine has been "approved",
you want to obscure the fact that none of the vaccines cannot be
administered unless the FDA says they can be under EUA or regulatory
approval. In other words, you are being blatantly dishonest.
Educate your ignorant self before making accusations.
And what is the difference between EUA and regulatory
approval? If you know what difference is, then you are dishonest with
your first statement. If you don't know, it is ironic that you call
others "ignorant".
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:57AM (#61844341) Journal
At the end of the day the normal process for a
radical new medical technology using genetic modification takes years
to decades and not just because it takes that long to jump through the
hoops but because many year trials to establish safety over time are
required first in animals and then in humans.
That process wasn't followed. The safety it
establishes isn't established and the reasons it exists were
disregarded. Saying something was FDA approved is normally synonymous
with saying it was rigorously vetted for safety. Your argument is that
all people should care about is that the portion of our staff we
charge with testing medical treatments signed off permitting someone
to offer the treatment. That is a far cry from silencing anyone who
disagrees with the call or people not having the right to disagree.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:2, Informative)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:09PM (#61844413)
At the end of the day the normal process for a
radical new medical technology using genetic modification takes years
to decades and not just because it takes that long to jump through the
hoops but because many year trials to establish safety over time are
required first in animals and then in humans.
By "radical new", you mean decades old
[nature.com], then yes. The first animal trials were of a mRNA vaccine
was in 1995 with mRNA being suggested as a drug back in 1988. So
decades old.
That process wasn't followed.
What part was not followed that meets your criteria?
The safety it establishes isn't established
and the reasons it exists were disregarded.
That is factually false. There is an
established protocol for EUA. The main difference is that
manufacturers are allowed to start making something before testing is
complete. That is the main difference. The drug/vaccine still has to
pass clinical trials.
Your argument is that all people should care
about is that the portion of our staff we charge with testing medical
treatments signed off permitting someone to offer the treatment.
Please cite when I said that. I never said
that. That is a strawman argument at best.
That is a far cry from silencing anyone who
disagrees with the call or people not having the right to disagree.
He can disagree but I can calling him out for
posting misinformation and outright lies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:31PM (#61844539) Journal
"He can disagree but I can calling him out
for posting misinformation and outright lies."
In my world communicating the underlying
picture accurately is primary and literally correct statements are of
secondary importance. If someone is doing so in good faith it isn't a
lie. Factual statements delivered in a manner that detracts from
accurate portrayal of the underlying picture are misinformation and
lies.
"Please cite when I said that. I never
said that. That is a strawman argument at best."
No, it is a far characterization of your
position, in the context in which you are expressing it (in support of
actions taken by Youtube to suppress opinions and communications in
disagreement with our staff aka the FDA).
"By "radical new", you mean decades old
[nature.com], then yes. The first animal trials were of a mRNA vaccine
was in 1995 with mRNA being suggested as a drug back in 1988. So
decades old."
Again, misleading. There are hundreds if
not thousands of treatments about which you could make similar claims
that we haven't even gotten to work in animal trials. These vaccines
have undergone no long term clinical trials and the only trial of
significant scale that has been conducted has been the public release.
Even that is highly suspect with a strong
bias against reporting complications. I had a close relative die of
heart complications within 72hrs of taking the Pfizer vaccine with no
history of heart issues. She was in remission and the coroner ruled
the death unknown and her doctor listed it as cancer. They refused to
report the vaccine related death even though it was in the mandatory
window for automatic reporting 'don't even go there' the coroner said
when we mentioned it. I had to report it manually.
"What part was not followed that meets
your criteria?"
Duration. Reduced duration or skipped
clinical trials on populations which are not statistically significant
prevent establishing the safety that clinical trials are intended to
establish.
Basic Research/Drug Development and
Pre-Clinical/Translational Research (combined) 3 to 6 years
Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 Clinical
Trials (combined) 6 to 7 years
FDA Review/Manufacturing 0.5 to 2 years
Phase 4 Clinical Trial/Post-Market
Surveillance/Report Adverse Events 0.5 to 10 years (at least as long
as the drug is on the market)
*
https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-trials-work/phases-clinical-trials
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:52PM (#61844669)
No, it is a far characterization of
your position, in the context in which you are expressing it (in
support of actions taken by Youtube to suppress opinions and
communications in disagreement with our staff aka the FDA).
So no I did not say what you accused
me of saying. How is that not dishonest on your part? So you are
admitting you used a strawman argument.
Again, misleading. There are hundreds
if not thousands of treatments about which you could make similar
claims that we haven't even gotten to work in animal trials.
Your assertion is the technology is
"radical new" when it is in fact decades old. Factually you are wrong.
These vaccines have undergone no long
term clinical trials and the only trial of significant scale that has
been conducted has been the public release.
This is another dishonest tactic
called shifting the goals. This was not your initial objection. But by
your standard, no medication would ever be released as you would
requite decades long testing before release. Your assertion is silly
and illogical.
Even that is highly suspect with a
strong bias against reporting complications.
What do you mean "bias"? There is a
separate reporting system just for vaccines in addition to the general
FDA monitoring system. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I had a close relative die of heart
complications within 72hrs of taking the Pfizer vaccine with no
history of heart issues. She was in remission and the coroner ruled
the death unknown and her doctor listed it as cancer. They refused to
report the vaccine related death even though it was in the mandatory
window for automatic reporting 'don't even go there' the coroner said
when we mentioned it. I had to report it manually.
So your cousin died of cancer but you
want to blame it on the vaccine. Logical fallacy: Correlation is not
causation.
Duration. Reduced duration or skipped
clinical trials on populations which are not statistically significant
prevent establishing the safety that clinical trials are intended to
establish.
Citation needed.
Basic Research/Drug Development and
Pre-Clinical/Translational Research (combined) 3 to 6 years Phase 1,
Phase 2, and Phase 3 Clinical Trials (combined) 6 to 7 years FDA
Review/Manufacturing 0.5 to 2 years Phase 4 Clinical Trial/Post-Market
Surveillance/Report Adverse Events 0.5 to 10 years (at least as long
as the drug is on the market)
You do understand that the "average"
time of an approval is not the required time? You do understand that,
right?
In this post alone, you have at least
3 logical fallacies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by dagarath ( 33684 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:36PM (#61845737)
Since none of the vaccines
(pfizer/moderna/J&J) in question involve genetic modification your
point fails. Check your biology before posting.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @10:31PM (#61846755)
mRNA doesn't modify genes.
Your entire argument is based on a lie and
total ignorance.
Fuck off, covidiot.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:50AM (#61844303)
You just keep spewing your ignorance, talking out
of your ass without doing a shred of research or attempt at educating
yourself. You are the one who doesn't know what the difference is. You
are the one being dishonest.
Full approval requires longer observation of those
in clinical study with more data gathered. Manufacturers have to
provide details of procedure plans and process, and have more
oversight of production. Then decision for approval made That has NOT
happened yet with the other vaccines, and it could be some fail in
this more rigorous review.
"Approval" by FDA has very specific definition.
Only one vaccine thus far has it. it could be one or more other covid
vaccines never gets it for a myriad of reasons.
Stop the virtual signalling and talking out of
your ass, this is specific legal thing that hasn't happened for most
vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @12:16PM (#61844453)
Does EUA require passing clinical trials or
not? By saying only one vaccine has been "approved" you want to create
a narrative that does not exist and at the same time create false
narratives about what others are doing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:30PM (#61844891) Journal
Why split this hair? One vaccine is fully
approved, the others are approved for emergency use. No one is
claiming that full approval and approval for emergency use are the
same.
I think you're playing silly semantic games
because you want people to erroneously think that "approved for
emergency use" means "untested" so that you can imply the vaccine is
"unsafe".
What I don't know is why anyone would want to
discourage others from getting the vaccine.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:38PM (#61844577) Homepage
What a hill to die on.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:45AM (#61844271)
Youtube targets a worldwide audience. It couldn't care less
whether the USA has 2 different types of approval (EUA and regular).
Also, other countries including Canada fully approved Moderna
and other vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:06PM (#61844401) Homepage
The European Medicines Agency also has a Conditional
Marketing Authorisation [europa.eu] process that is separate from the
usual long-term marketing authorization. The former was used for
fast-track authorization of Covid vaccines.
I won't claim that every country has a fast track for
emergency authorization, but I suspect most do for exactly the same
reason that the US does, and so YouTube should think about how to
handle the differences.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:53PM (#61845017)
Of course a lot of countries probably have 2 or more
ways to approve a vaccine. But Youtube shouldn't care about that. Are
you saying videos saying Moderna vaccine causes autism should be
allowed but not those who say the same of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine?
And should those videos concerning Moderna be only available in the
USA and other countries where the vaccine is not fully approved?
Canada also has some sort of EUA (altough the
procedure is different) but Moderna is now fully approved, just like
Pfizer-BioNTech. The approval for both was given on the same day, in a
semi-automatic manner because the previous "temporary" authorization
expired. So yes, it varies by jurisdiction.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @09:32PM (#61846649) Homepage
"Youtube shouldn't care about that." And then
what? YouTube treats a conditional or emergency use approval from Niue
the same as a full approval from the FDA, for the purposes of policing
disinformation? They have a country-specific list of banned videos for
medical disinformation, election misinformation, press freedom
violations, memory-holed truths, inconvenient protests, and so on?
I assume you have a brain. Use it. Follow your
argument to its logical conclusion.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @09:21AM (#61847547)
"Youtube shouldn't care about that." And then
what? YouTube treats a conditional or emergency use approval from Niue
the same as a full approval from the FDA, for the purposes of policing
disinformation?
I never said that. I just don't see any case
where YouTube should make a difference between EUA and "full" approval
by the FDA.
They have a country-specific list of banned
videos for medical disinformation, election misinformation, press
freedom violations, memory-holed truths, inconvenient protests, and so
on?
I don't know. You tell me. I guess they are
free to do it as it pleases them. Not that I really care, but I don't
think they do it for every country, maybe only the major ones.
I assume you have a brain. Use it. Follow your
argument to its logical conclusion.
The only logical conclusion here is that you
are an idiot. Look, it seems you didn't get my point at all. The
distinction between an EUA and a full approval is futile when comes
the time to decide whether to block or allow misinformation on
vaccines on an online video sharing platform.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @09:30AM (#61847565) Homepage
Why should YouTube ignore the distinction
that the drug regulatory agency itself makes? Because you really,
really want them to allow misinformation about colloidal silver or St
John's Wort or whatever other snake oil isn't approved by the FDA?
Look, if YouTube wanted to be consistent,
they should have this rule about medical misinformation or
disinformation more generally. They shouldn't be stricter about it
just because the person is talking about the BioNTech vaccine rather
than about the 5G brain control microchips that the government is
supposedly forcing people to inject.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @12:58PM (#61848235)
Why should YouTube ignore the
distinction that the drug regulatory agency itself makes?
Because the distinction is futile when
it comes to deciding wether to allow or deny misinformation.
Anyways, if you think the distinction
is important, how do you suggest Youtube behave differently? Are you
suggesting they allow misinformation against vaccines under EUA but
not fully approved ones?
Because you really, really want them
to allow misinformation about colloidal silver or St John's Wort or
whatever other snake oil isn't approved by the FDA?
I'd prefer if there were no
disinformation at all. However I understand YouTube can't get rid of
all of it, and anyways is not in a position to determine what is the
truth.
But in some cases, the disinformation
is so blatantly obvious that it can be safely taken out, especially
when it's doing a lot of harm. Flat earthers are just funny, I don't
think it's worth it to try to remove them from YouTube. Anti-vax,
however, are a concern. So I understand YouTube wants to do something
about it. I wouldn't want to be the platform of choice of anti-vax
either. So given that YouTube can't fight all the misinformation, they
should start with what is worth it. Approved vaccines is a good start,
and it doesn't matter if it's EUA or not.
And yes, misinformation on snake oil
does less harm, because I can just say look: this thing doesn't work,
otherwise they'd get it approved by the FDA. So again, if YouTube
wants to start with something, vaccine is a good topic. It would be
stupid to ban only misinformation on COVID-19 vaccines (and would only
fuel conspiracy theories) so all vaccines is a good idea.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:03PM (#61844387)
We will all rue the day when Big Tech gets to decide which
subjective opinions are "misinformation" or not. It's baffling to me
how many bootlickers there are on this site cheering them on.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:33PM (#61844553) Journal
We will all rue the day when Big Tech gets to decide
which subjective opinions are "misinformation" or not. It's baffling
to me how many bootlickers there are on this site cheering them on.
Just wait until they start taking down those who tell
people they can use arsenic as a way to mitigate covid symptoms.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:18PM (#61844811)
Just wait until they start taking down those who
tell people they can use arsenic as a way to mitigate covid symptoms.
Shhh, Big Pharma and George Soros don't want
people to know that! Didn't you get the memo?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:48AM (#61844291)
You are part of the problem. Please get off the Internet.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Interesting)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:54AM (#61844333)
You are in the wrong.
"Approval" has very specific meaning including monitoring
of clinical trial participants for six months or more. It includes
manufacturer submittnig detailed plans and procedures that were not
required for EUA. It includes high level of oversight during
manufacturing that wasn't present for EUA.
Only one vaccine has had all that and been granted "approval"
Stop spreading misinformation and misconceptions. Educate
yourself, learn why only one vaccine approved thus far.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:03PM (#61844385)
No, FDA Approved means that. The article does not say
FDA Approved, it just says 'approved'. The second paragraph further
clarifies it as 'any vaccine health authorities consider effective.
The EUAs were given precisely because they were considered effective.
For YouTubes purposes, FDA Approved and EUA are the same thing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:00PM (#61844713)
That's where you are wrong, the vaccines in
question have zero approval of any kind in the USA. The differences
between EUA and "approval" are massive. Seeming effective only based
on half the clinical subjects, only watching for two months, isn't
normally the proper criteria for a vaccine, only an EUA one get that
very low bar. A vaccine could be proved to be very dangerous after
half a year monitoring that "approved" ones get, just as example.
"Approved" implies a massive amount of additional things and much
lower risk, and it is very bad to claim EUA things have anything of
the sort, they do not.
The other vaccines might be found too
dangerous to administer and even EUA revoked, that's what the real
process has in scope.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845063)
I don't know if you keep up with current
events, but the Pfizer vaccine got full approval several weeks ago.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @06:54PM (#61846229)
Maybe that's the problem you keep up with
current events by reading propaganda. The Pfizer vaccine has not been
approved. Comirnity has been approved; unfortunately no one can get
Comirnity as it is not available anywhere.
https://www.fda.gov/media/1503... [fda.gov] ---- All descriptive
printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the
use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously
shall state that: This product has not been approved or licensed by
FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to
prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12
years of age and older; and ---- The licensed vaccine has the same
formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used
interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting
any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally
distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness. ---- One comes with liability from the manufacturer.
One does not. It's just a label change... but they keep selling us the
old un-approved crap. I refuse to take any experimental gene therapy
the manufacturer refuses to take responsibility for until the
experimental group has had a few years to fester. Especially any gene
therapy that has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity
or infertility. -- I'll take my chances with COVID, thanks!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:1)
by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @11:25PM (#61846831)
You're confused, I explicitly said one
vaccine was approved in USA. I was pointing out the rest were not and
that there is HUGE difference in criteria between EUA and approval.
Hopefully more get approved, but facts are our friends. Sad so many
here think they are being some kind of defender of righteousness and
then dispute facts conflictling with made up nonsense, feel good vibes
and propaganda they wish were true.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on
Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:40PM (#61849945)
I was pointing out the rest were not
and that there is HUGE difference in criteria between EUA and
approval. Hopefully more get approved, but facts are our friends.
So what point are you trying to make?
That everything is bad until some specific criteria is met? Sorry, but
that's just not how it works. The vaccine that existed before approval
is the same one that exists after. After the initial clinical data was
in, there really wasn't any good reason not to go with emergency use
authorization. It was that good.
defender of righteousness and then
dispute facts conflictling with made up nonsense, feel good vibes and
propaganda they wish were true.
It is righteous, and it's not
propaganda. It's hard data.
Because I work for the health care
sector, I'm actually privy to a bit of data that the general public
may not be (at least, the presentation I was shown was marked for
internal use only, so I can't share specifics.) What I can tell you
(or rather, confirm) is that, despite the majority of the population
being vaccinated, the majority of patients in the ICU's do not have
the vaccine. In fact it's in the single digits of numbers that are
vaccinated that are in a given ICU for COVID-19, compared to the other
several hundred that are not vaccinated.
You're probably going to argue at this
point that the vaccine is unsafe just because it doesn't have the
stamp of approval. Well, let's put it this way: Serious side effects
of any kind from the vaccines (as opposed to say, just a sore arm or
mild nausea) are so rare that most hospitals haven't ever encountered
even one patient with them.
That is the truth of it all.
What's "sad" here is what you're
doing. By pretending to be an expert at the subject (you're not) and
telling people to avoid the vaccines based on anecdotes (not data)
that you've no doubt cherry picked from facebook and twitter, you're
actually killing them. It has also probably caused permanent harm to
several others who survive serious reactions to the virus. While it
may not be the case that somebody who listened directly to you has
died, it's very likely that you've contributed to somebody else
telling somebody else to avoid the vaccines, who have died, which
basically makes you an accessory to their suicide. If it's any
consolation though, you're only killing your own. That is, the people
dying from your advice are more likely to be people who think like you
and agree with you on a range of topics. Which, thankfully, puts your
viewpoint and your advice on a self-correcting path.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:49PM (#61844657)
Educate yourself
LOL, from the fuckwit who can't read a fucking dictionary
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:48PM (#61844985) Journal
One has full FDA Approval, the others have been
approved for emergency use.
You want people to think that the other vaccines are
completely untested and therefore unsafe. You're the one spreading
misinformation and misconceptions.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @04:19PM (#61845651)
"Approval" has very specific meaning including
monitoring of clinical trial participants for six months or more.
Indeed. And it is the *first* phase trials which
needed to go through those six months. Which was done. Completely.
Emergency authorisation sets exactly the same bar for
testing as full approval, it merely allows all steps to happen in
parallel rather than sequentially.
Stop spreading misinformation you dangerous moron.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:30PM (#61845715)
"Educate yourself."
The amateur doctor who does his own medical research
has a fool for a patient.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:56AM (#61844337) Homepage Journal
True, and if the higher bar of FDA approval is important to
you then you should have scheduled your first Pfizer jab (Comirnaty)
at the end of August. There is no need to wait any longer.
Most of the population was satisfied with the lower bar of an
emergency authorization, because well it was an emergency. Having some
unknown consequences in the future, as rare as they seemed from the
testing done over the last 18 months, was a risk people were willing
to take to avoid putting family members or themselves at risk of
hospitalization or long COVID.
So far vaccination with an authorized by unapproved vaccine
was a personal choice. Now we will shift in the phase where a vaccine
is a requirement for participation in certain social activities.
Expect by next year that if you want to board a plane you'll need a
REAL ID and a vaccine card.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:18PM (#61844463)
" Now we will shift in the phase where a vaccine is a
requirement for participation in certain social activities."
We'll see how that works out as the effectiveness of the
vaccine continues to fade. They're already banning any discussion of
that so we know it's real. That's the problem with propaganda, it
doesn't take long for people to just assume the opposite of what you
say is true and then nobody will ever believe anything you ever say
again.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:43PM (#61844605) Journal
We'll see how that works out as the effectiveness of
the vaccine continues to fade. They're already banning any discussion
of that so we know it's real.
The reason we know effectiveness fades with these
current vacciens is precisely because it's being discussed. No one is
banning anything or else you wouldn't have heard about this.
That's the problem with propaganda, it doesn't take
long for people to just assume the opposite of what you say is true
and then nobody will ever believe anything you ever say again.
Says the person spouting propaganda. Congratulations
to you, the con artist, and the Republican party for putting the
American people on par with the morons in Russia who believe the same
shit. "The media can't be trusted" (because they expose the truth and
crimes). "There are countless people who question the election
results" (no, there isn't because all they're doing is repeating the
propaganda). "There were millions of illegals voting (and yet, not one
case has been shown). "Vote fraud was rampant in this election (16
cases out of millions of votes, and almost all were from Republicans).
Now, I could go on, but I'm sure you'll come up with
some excuse how everything I said, all of which is factual in nature,
isn't true and how I''m just a "sheep" for believing it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:03PM (#61844743)
You mean it WAS being discussed, at least until
all traces of those discussion are deleted and further discussion is
prohibited by people like you because facts are inconvenient. That's
what the topic of this post is about.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means?
(Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:13PM (#61844791) Homepage Journal
No. The media can't be trusted because they lie.
"Mostly peaceful protests" while buildings burn
and people are being beaten to death in the background.
How, depending on who is sitting in the oval
office, the vaccine cannot be trusted.
Then, with that one small change, YOU CANNOT QUESTION THIS!
Major news networks casually ignoring the
authoritarian takeover in Australia.
Pushing Trump-Russia for years when they knew it
wasn't true.
If it makes you happy to believe the pablum
they're puking out...fine. Go ahead.
Everyone else is just going to sit back and laugh at you.
Especially the people benefitting from your useful idiocy.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:51PM (#61845009) Journal
Always with the unspecified "they".
You're probably one of those anti-vaxxers that belive
that the Clintons were executed by the military and that the deep
state has replaced them with body doubles.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845061)
And there it is everybody! You are smarter than
everyone and even when you get tripped up it must because 'You
probably voted for Trump!" Narcissist segregationists are too
predictable.
PSSST: I participated in the original Moderna trial.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:00PM (#61845333) Journal
I participated in the original Moderna trial.
You're lying.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @11:29PM (#61846843)
The people you think are snobby because they
act like they're smarter than you act that way because they're smarter
than you and you're so dense that you're not worth reasoning with. The
one time Clinton was truly honest was when she called you POSes "a
basket of deplorables." Your inner troll has consumed you and you've
become such an argumentative jackass that you can't distinguish
between reality and fiction.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:17PM (#61845635)
Most of the population was satisfied with the lower bar of
an emergency authorization
Emergency authorization did *NOT* set a lower bar. Not at
all. 100% of the testing that went through for normal approval still
had to be done for emergency authorization. The only thing the
emergency approval allowed was for the tests to be done in parallel
and for manufacture to begin before testing was concluded.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@09:38PM (#61846657)
Vaccines have to go through ~10 years of testing
before approval (and no 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month before
you even go there). So unless the Chinese are correct and the US made
covid-19 in a lab in 2011 and has been testing the vaccines in secret
since then the vaccines are not properly tested :p. That said a lethal
common cold (covid-19) is not the same thing as the flu. Unlike the
flu it causes internal organ damage via blood clotting and you don't
even have to show symptoms for that happen (You know that whole long
covid thing). Covid-19 is a lot more dangerous than the vaccines, both
in the short and long term. But claiming the vaccines are safe is a
massive distortion of the truth. They aren't safe it's just that
covid-19 is 100x times worse in every way imaginable.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:19PM (#61845655)
So far vaccination with an authorized by unapproved
vaccine was a personal choice
This isn't actually true.
The case where the SCOTUS ruled vaccine mandates are legal
happened before the FDA existed. So obviously, the vaccines in
question were not FDA approved.
Also, the plaintiff and his family had suffered severe
side-effects, so they had actual harm from the vaccine in question.
They still lost the case.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1)
by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@06:59PM (#61846247)
The Pfizer jab is not approved.
https://www.fda.gov/media/1503... [fda.gov]
All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and
promotional material relating to the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state that: This
product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been
authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of
age and older; and
Comirnaty is approved.
One comes may come manufacturer liability; one does not.
Can't find this "Comirnaty" anywhere.. wonder why.
I refuse to take any experimental gene therapy the
manufacturer refuses to take responsibility for until the experimental
group has had a few years to fester.
Especially any gene therapy that has not been evaluated
for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or infertility. -- I'll take my
chances with COVID, thanks!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September 30,
2021 @11:25AM (#61847885) Homepage Journal
The reason I mentioned Comirnaty in parenthesis is
because of that difference. The ingredients are the same, the process
is different. For the tiny fraction of Americans where process is
important, they now have a vaccine option available to them.
experimental gene therapy
I don't blame you. I wouldn't take experimental gene
therapy. I'd hesitate to take any sort of "gene therapy". Thankfully
an mRNA vaccine is not gene therapy.
- I'll take my chances with COVID, thanks!
Society may have to put restrictions on you for your
personal choice. You may not be able to roam as freely as you once
were. The story of Typhoid Mary has repeated itself thousands of times
during the pandemic. Eventually people are going to put their own
safety at a higher priority than your perceived freedom.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021
@11:34AM (#61847925)
I don't blame you. I wouldn't take experimental
gene therapy. I'd hesitate to take any sort of "gene therapy".
Thankfully an mRNA vaccine is not gene therapy.
You are almost right, this was previously
experimented on advanced cancerous patient, and the result was not
really successful.
Anyway, this is good to have these products to
fight a virus as harmful as influenza (or as harmless...). If you look
at Australia, this how the fighting against covid is really done:
https://twitter.com/MichaelPSe... [twitter.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September
30, 2021 @11:39AM (#61847951) Homepage Journal
as harmful as influenza (or as harmless...).
Agreed, COVID-19 has been less harmful than
the 1918 flu over a similar period. Although more harmful over the
longer period it has endured.
this was previously experimented on advanced
cancerous patient, and the result was not really successful.
what? did you slip off topic or is this some
kind of submarine strawman.
honestly, I've changed my mind. I don't want
to hear it. I'm sure it's insane.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September
30, 2021 @11:55AM (#61848009)
Agreed, COVID-19 has been less harmful
than the 1918 flu over a similar period. Although more harmful over
the longer period it has endured.
The 1918 flu was really deadly. COVID-19
is less harmful than common flu for people of working age. For people
at risk, early treatments are very effective:
https://twitter.com/MichaelRoe... [twitter.com]
Here is the official COVID survival rate
from the CDC: https://twitter.com/MdTeryn/st... [twitter.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what "approved"
means? (Score:2)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @12:07PM (#61848053) Homepage Journal
1918 Flu was also less harmful to
working age people. It killed the very young and very old at a much
higher rate. In total killing about 50 million out of 1.7 billion
people. Or around 3% of total population, and around 10% of those
infected. Easily the leading cause of death during 1918-1918. While
COVID-19 is merely the third leading cause of death in 2020-2021.
(seriously, you're insane)
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:do they even know what
"approved" means? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday
September 30, 2021 @12:32PM (#61848145)
If you open your eyes, you would
find, it is almost impossible to find one covid related death
happening in Hollywood and the medias combined. COVID is not the 1918
flu, COVID is the common flu.
Flag as Inappropriate
It's really hard to say.... (Score:-1, Troll)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:42AM
(#61844259) Homepage Journal
2 weeks ago Veritas released a video taken by a nurse who works
for HHS showing a doctor slamming the vaccines for side effects.
https://riotimesonline.com/bra... [riotimesonline.com]
Even the CDC's own VAERS site has data to support what's being
claimed in the video. We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in
treating COVID from Japanese studies.
https://trialsitenews.com/kita... [trialsitenews.com]
As a normal nerd on the news for nerds site, I've always learned
look at the source, that security through obscurity is bad. That being
a "nerd" means to look at problems from all facets and not just "Do
what Micro$oft tells you"
and for the record I've had 2 shots of Pfizer.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:00PM (#61844357)
2 weeks ago Veritas released a video taken by a nurse who
works for HHS showing a doctor slamming the vaccines for side
effects.,
No one has ever said that vaccines have zero side effects.
There are side effects to every medication. These videos start with
the outrage that there are side effects "they do not tell you about."
When I got my vaccine, I got a multiple page pamphlet about the
possible side effects of my vaccine. The two side effects that
affected me: my arm hurt and I was sleepy for about a day.
We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in treating
COVID from Japanese studies.
And that study would be? Most of the studies done on
Ivermectin has shown little benefit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:24PM (#61844501) Homepage Journal
UnknowingFool on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:00AM (#61844357)
And that study would be? Most of the studies done on
Ivermectin has shown little benefit.
If you had read the link I included, but since you're too
lazy to click a link, I'll copypasta here.
Morimasa Yagisawa, visiting professor at Kitasato
University, Omura Satoshi Memorial Institute in Tokyo, went on the
record that the World Health Organization, drug regulators, and health
policy makers shouldn’t ignore anymore the growing data that
ivermectin can be an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for
COVID-19. Citing accumulating clinical trials data, including many
doctor-initiated studies, the professor cited in a virtual interview
that 105 studies of ivermectin associated with the coronavirus across
32 nations have been registered, of which 24 have been completed and
published. The professor declared that “ivermectin is almighty for
prophylaxis, for treatment of early and late stage, and also for long
COVID-19 (or) post-acute sequelae (of SARS-CoV-2).”
Yagisawa is one of four authors that produced a report
titled “Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19”
published in March in the “Japanese Journal of Antibiotics.” He was
joined in that report by Satoshi Omura, the biochemist, along with
William Campbell who was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine associated with the discovery of avermectin, the derivative
of which ivermectin ...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:27PM (#61844877)
You do realize that ivermectin also has side effects,
right? Some of them can be quite severe.
Some studies have shown that ivermectin can help. Most have not.
The professor declared that “ivermectin is almighty
for prophylaxis, for treatment of early and late stage, and also for
long COVID-19 (or) post-acute sequelae (of SARS-CoV-2).”
Yeah, when something sounds too good to be true, it
usually is. This sentence is exactly the thing which will make be want
a lot more proof. "It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:49PM (#61844991) Homepage Journal
It's more than just some studies, a lot of
studies. India has done a lot of studies, as has africa. Both
countries have high populations of poor people.
>Ivermectin can make up for the low use of
vaccination. However, vaccination cannot make up for the low use of
Ivermectin.
https://www.thedesertreview.co... [thedesertreview.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:50PM (#61845289)
I see your "Desert Review" and raise you "my
cousin's girlfriend heard this from a friend who is a real good
doctor"...
I mean, you can believe poitically biased big
media, or you can believe the consensus of virologists. Ivermectin may
have some use in areas where parasites are a semi-common covid
complication (like India and Africa). But that's not the case in the
USA.
I suppose you could look at the covid deaths
in states where people use ivermectin (via a doctor or self-dose) vs
the covid deaths in areas where ivermectin is rarely used. But, um,
that doesn't look good at all for ivermectin.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:0)
by AndThenThereIsThis ( 7314166 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:15PM (#61845395)
Actual study citations available? I've seen
several studies were they used parasite protocol rather than
virus/bacteria/fungus protocol and, unsurprisingly, showed low
effectivity. Other studies waited too long before administering
treatment. If you wait till the person is in ICU on a ventilator it
will only have slight effect on inflammation issues; other treatments
need to be used at that point. If you administer in the first few days
of infection then its virus/bacteria/fungus life cycle interference,
much like monoclonal antibodies and the medicine that shall not be
named, will have a far more pronounced impact on assisting the immune
system and keeping the immune system from getting so angry it puts its
host in the ICU...
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:06PM (#61845071)
If you had read the link I included, but since you're
too lazy to click a link, I'll copypasta here.
You do know I asked for the study that proves you
claim, right? Your claim: "We've also heard that Ivermectin is
effective in treating COVID from Japanese studies." Your link does not
1) link the study at all because there is no study. It is an article.
2) at best in your article, there are lots of ongoing studies on the
use of Ivermectin for treating COVID. 3) the article from March, the
Japanese doctors argues in an article that Ivermectin should be
studied based on the number of global studies Since March numerous
studies have concluded that there is little effect. That is a long way
from our claim that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:22PM
(#61844493)
Even the CDC's own VAERS site has data to support what's being
claimed in the video.
Here's a problem with policies like Youtube.. Ultimately the
expected result is videos get taken down and possibly channels may be
even blocked or banned based on categorical assumptions that anything
which says there may be concerns with X vaccines - Must be
misinformation.
But there's no way to separate from this a newsworthy video
somebody might post some day based on actual evidence - that say
something bad that's Not misinformation, If today or tomorrow, or some
time down the road legitimate
compelling evidence of a problem with an approved vaccine
actually materializes and does not get noticed or paid attention to
timely by the authorities. There's no algorithm Youtube is going to be
able to create that can realize it's not misinformation and exclude it
from the censor.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:31PM (#61844543) Homepage Journal
You make an excellent point, and here's a correlation that
supports what you're saying. I forgot her name, but there was a
virologist from China that was the first to speak out that this was a
lab leak based on genetic signatures CRISPR editing leaves behind. It
wasn't long before facebook memory holed all videos related to her,
then a few months later we found it was a lab leak.
Even when there's some fairly substantiated evidence from
an SME the way the digital censoring is going about it is all wrong,
there will be some babies thrown out with the bathwater.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:3)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:41PM (#61844591) Homepage
Even the manufacturer of ivermectin says it doesn't work on
covid. https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com]
I think they should know the capabilities of their product.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:07PM (#61844763) Homepage Journal
That was released February 4, 2021, and their statement
wasn't based on clinical studies.
>No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect
against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
Notice the use of "Pre-clinical" yet they don't mention
clinical. Odd choice of words.
At least one of the Japanese clinical studies was in
progress when this was announced.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
And this is a summary of all the worldwide clinical
studies the Japanese looked at.
http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com... [wdc-jp.com]
One excerpt in the above comes from here.
https://covid19criticalcare.co... [covid19criticalcare.com]
Controlled trials studying the prevention of COVID-19 (8
trials completed)
3 RCT’s with large statistically significant reductions
in transmission rates, a total of 774 patients
5 OCT’s with large statistically significant reductions
in transmission rates, a total of 2,052 patients
Controlled trials in the treatment of both early and
hospitalized COVID-19 patients (19 trials completed)
5 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in time to
recovery or hospital length of stay, a total of 774 patients
1 RCT with a large, statistically significant reduction
in rate of deterioration/hospitalization, total of 363 patients
2 RCT’s with significant decreases in viral load, days
of anosmia, cough, or time to recovery, a total of 85 patients
3 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in mortality,
a total of 695 patients
3 OCT’s with large, statistically significant reductions
in mortality, a total of 1,688 patients
Number of Studies and Patients Among the Existing Clinical
Trials of Ivermectin in COVID-19
27 controlled trials, including a total of 6,612
patients have been completed using well-matched control groups
16 trials, including over 2,500 patients, are
prospective, randomized, controlled studies
11 of the 27 trials have been published in peer-reviewed
journals, 3,900 patients, remainder are in pre-print
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:35PM (#61844911) Homepage
From your Japan study...
The effective concentration of ivermectin against
SARS-CoV-2 in an in vitro experiment72)
by Caly et al. is as high as 2 M; in clinical
practice, it is necessary to administer tens of times the
normal dose in order to obtain such a blood
concentration. Therefore, there are opinions from the
IDSA98) and others that the therapeutic effect of
COVID-19 cannot be expected by the administration of the normal dose
of ivermectin.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:41PM (#61844943) Homepage Journal
Plenty of medicines work differently based on
dosage. Take aspirin for example. Low doses daily are good for cardiac
health. High dosages it's a pain killer. High enough dosage, in soviet
russia aspirin kills you! (couldn't help myself, been too long since
we had soviet russia jokes on slash)
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:15PM (#61845391)
3 RCT’s with large statistically significant
reductions in transmission rates, a total of 774 patients
5 OCT’s with large statistically significant
reductions in transmission rates, a total of 2,052 patients
Controlled trials in the treatment of both early and
hospitalized COVID-19 patients (19 trials completed)
5 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in time to
recovery or hospital length of stay, a total of 774 patients
Oh good. Can you link us to some of those studies?
Your article seems to have forgotten to do that.
P.S. I have 200 RCTs that says you're full of shit.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:4, Informative)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:02PM (#61844741)
VAERS is not what you think/claim that it is.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:08PM (#61844779) Homepage Journal
It's where health care systems are supposed to report
adverse reactions to vaccines, am I mistaken? Please elaborate.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:5, Informative)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:21PM (#61844829)
No, its a register where every one, including joe
public, can report anything that happens post vaccinations without any
regard to if it's connected to the vaccine or not so that scientists
later can see if there are trends in the data. That is why you e.g can
find children in VAERS that have died in a car accident one week after
getting the MMR.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @01:45PM (#61844969) Homepage Journal
There's also been plenty of evidence that people
have died from things other than covid, but were labeled as covid.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:54PM (#61845023)
Not in any significant numbers no and the
number of excess deaths for 2019-2021 for the US shows that if
anything the covid deaths are far far under-counted. Over here in my
country where death registrations are done much more thoroughly the
number matches the excess deaths.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:22PM (#61845665)
There's also been plenty of evidence that
people have died from things other than covid, but were labeled as
covid.
And yet the actual statistics of excess
mortality show that even when covid deaths are counted that there's
still a huge number of deaths unaccounted for. Two scenarios: Magical
pixies decided to whisk away the souls of people while we were in a
pandemic, or more people are dying due to covid than are being
reported.
Hint: epidemiologists have concluded it was
the latter and have yet to prove the magical pixie theory.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @04:26PM (#61845681)
[Citation Required]
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2)
by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:48PM (#61845277)
Yep. You can get the vaccine, walk out and get hit
by a bus. If the coroner finds your vax card they can report it to
VAERS. VAERS exists to allow public health researchers spot anomalies
and investigate if there is a cause relationship to the vaccine. 20%
more people vaccinated than non-vaccinated got hit on the head with
anvils in the past 6 months? Need to check to see if there is a reason
or just bad luck.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:34PM (#61846157)
Veritas ? Really ?
The only thing you should do when seeing the their name is
laugh and move on.
They should really change their name, maybe Pravda ? Pravdas ?
Flag as Inappropriate
"Truth" (Score:-1, Troll)
by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:01PM (#61844365)
I can think of eight things we now think are true which previously
the government and officials previously said were conspiracy theories
and misinformation.
Here's a list of these contradictions:
1. "You can't make vaccines for coronaviruses, they mutate too
quickly" vs. "you can make vaccines for coronaviruses, you have
protection even if they mutate"
2. "There is no novel coronavirus in China. It's nothing. It'll
never spread here. They're not welding people into homes. Go out and
hug a person in Chinatown like me and other politicians."
3. "The government should absolutely not close the borders with
these countries. To do so is racist and xenophobic. There's no
indication of a threat from them."
4. "Get a grippe, America. nCov-2019 is just a flu."
5. "Masks do nothing to stop respiratory illnesses and you
absolutely shouldn't buy any. Do not use them. They're dangerous." vs.
"You all need to start wearing masks yesterday. We could've beat this
if you all worse masks."
6. "We need two weeks of altered behavior to flatten the curve."
7. "Large public gatherings are killing people" vs. "it turns out
the massive public gatherings for this specific political cause
actually reduced COVID-19 transmission"
8. "A vaccine is something that gives you immunity to a disease"
vs. "A vaccine is something that helps you fight a disease"
etc. etc.
So am I to take it that YouTube will constantly be analyzing how
much the chocolate ration increased and punishing anyone who dared to
say it only increased by 3g yesterday when it was 5g tomorrow?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:3, Insightful)
by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:04PM (#61844389)
Gosh, how could I have forgotten the biggest one, which I was
leaving for the end?
9. "A lab-leak hypothesis is absolute insanity and a
conspiracy theory. SARS-CoV-2 could only have mutated in the wild.
Trust Peter Daszak and other experts in the Lancent. Over 100 of us
signed this paper saying so!" vs. "Peter Daszak from EcoHealth
Alliance and others shopped a grant proposal around to DARPA and other
places that sought to modify the cleavage site of SARS-CoVr in bats in
China and fuse it with proteins that can bind to human ACE2 receptors.
They then wanted to spray this virus into caves in China, collect
samples, and send them to labs in Wuhan to study them. It was rejected
on safety and ethics grounds and said they had no information on its
dangerous to the local population or the ability for new viruses to
spread."
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:59PM (#61845047) Journal
They then wanted to spray this virus into caves in China
What?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @02:49PM (#61845281)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
(archive: https://archive.is/Hc2q8 [archive.is])
>Wuhan scientists planned to release coronavirus
particles into cave bats, leaked papers reveal ...
>New documents show that just 18 months before the
first Covid-19 cases appeared, researchers had submitted plans to
release skin-penetrating nanoparticles and aerosols containing “novel
chimeric spike proteins” of bat coronaviruses into cave bats in
Yunnan, China.
Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Shi Zghengli
(the "bat coronavirus queen" of China) and others
Flag as Inappropriate
The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2)
by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:29PM (#61844525)
channels that don't traffic in misinformation stopped
reporting those things as correct. The Anti-vaxxers repeat the same
baseless lies ad nauseum.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:3,
Insightful)
by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:40PM (#61844589)
You seem to not understand the point that there were
people who *were* correct, but who under these rules would've been
censored and banned for stating their case.
Do you think truth comes down from on High like manna from
heaven? It's insanely dangerous to only allow the official narrative
to ever be shared or discussed. And I've provided you with examples
showing the official narrative being wrong and misleading in ways that
*killed people*. In all those cases there were voices of reason that
saw through the lies, and who now would be punished for daring to try
and help people.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2)
by Omega Hacker ( 6676 ) <omega at nosPAM.omegacs.net> on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:53PM (#61844673)
You're equating statements that were made primarily by
politicians with those made later by scientists with significant
research, deliberation, and peer review. Sorry, the two are not the
same, and nobody's ever claimed that YouTube would be removing false
content because the *politicians* said so (though there's debate on
that regarding other topics). YouTube is removing false content
because decades of science (no, the COVID vaccines didn't just
magically appear from nowhere in the last year, they built on
literally multiple decades of research) have proven that the content
is false, not because the government said so.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2)
by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:25PM (#61845433)
The politicians have literally admitted that they
do this. [msn.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
It generally takes repeat offenses to get banned (Score:2)
by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @03:04PM (#61845345)
and while there have been instances of individual
videos getting demonetized or taken down the appeals process, while
slow, does work. This isn't to say that those instances aren't an
issue (when a vids taken down or demonetized and put back up a week
later the damage is already done from a monetization standpoint), but
they're isolated enough that it's not a major issue, and better
algorithms exist now. e.g. I no longer hear my YouTubers avoiding the
"v" and "c" words (except Beau of The Fifth Column, but he does it for
completely different reasons that he explained in a recent video).
But if your videos keep getting flagged, well, YouTube
will ban you for repeat violations. That's fine. a) it's their
platform and b) misinformation and lies are killing people. Meanwhile
there's no issue with reporting on what the CDC says so long as if
when the science changes you don't keep pushing old, now debunked
data. And if you're doing that you need to stop playing science
communicator on YouTube. You're either dangerously bad at it or you're
actively spreading lies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:It generally takes repeat offenses to get banne (Score:2)
by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday
September 29, 2021 @03:10PM (#61845375)
But you yourself are playing science communicator
right now. Your opinion is that the CDC conveys truth. This is false.
They MAY convey truth, but they have and do convey falsehoods. E.g.,
they literally told people to not wear masks for COVID-19. Fauci then
admitted that this was a lie intended to help mask availability for
HCWs.
Truth is determined by a mediation between
competing points of view and numerous people who are all vying to
present the best possible evidence to support their side. This
mediation is impossible without open discussion.
Your argument is essentially an appeal to
authority. The CDC and other US institutions don't have a monopoly on
the truth and it's sort of mind-blowing that people would argue that
literal censorship is desirable to open discussion and people being
allowed to choose for themselves what to think about.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:4,
Informative)
by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @12:48PM (#61844643)
Making a lie frontpage headline news for months and then
silently issuing a retraction on the back of a bubblegum wrapper in
the bottom of a dumpster IS trafficking disinformation. It's just a
different tactic.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2)
by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@08:01PM (#61846425)
Of course the anti-vaxxers repeat the same baseless lies
endlessly. They have no facts in their side and o understanding of
science. Hence everything they could add or change would be obviously
ridiculous. So what they do is they stick to the same crap and hope
repetition will somehow make it true.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:5, Insightful)
by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk at one.net> on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:44PM (#61844619) Homepage
The problem is none of that is facts, it is things people have
said. And even then, the list itself is not correct. For example, no
one ever said "Masks do nothing to stop respiratory illnesses and you
absolutely shouldn't buy any.". At the beginning when Covid was
thought to spread mainly through contact, people were told not to use
masks. This was both because of the belief that contact was the main
spread and to avoid people hording masks so that medical workers could
get some (which was still an issue).
You seem to have confused things people have said and things
we have evidence to back up. Misinformation is where people say things
with no evidence to back it up or the evidence says it isn't true,
such as vaccines cause autism, Covid vaccine will make you magnetic,
Covid is just the flu, people are not dying from Covid those numbers
are fake, etc. The fact that this is modded as insightful is really
sad, since it is basically misinformation as well.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@07:23PM (#61846325)
"Masks do something": misinformation.
"N95 masks do something and cloth masks basically don't do
anything": backed by all available peer reviewed scientific studies.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:04PM (#61844747)
How about
"Vaccines cause autism and inject microchips into you" vs
"fuck off the autism study was a fraud, get your shots you idiot".
Like this nonsense is literally killing hundreds of thousands
of people. There are things that aren't a weird grey area and youtube
has no reasons to host or promote.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:1)
by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@07:06PM (#61846267)
How about this from today's news:
New clues hint that young boys who get serious viral
infections might be more likely to develop autism [yahoo.com]
Scientists may be a step closer to understanding what
causes autism and how to treat it. A study released this month offers
evidence that severe infections in childhood might make a future
diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder more likely in men who are
genetically predisposed to the condition.
Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles
performed the study on mice, so it's too early to say what its
implications are for humans. But other research hints at a similar
association: Data collected by researchers at the University of
Chicago and used in the same new study found that boys diagnosed with
autism were more commonly hospitalized with infections between the
ages of 1.5 and 4 than boys who didn't have autism. (That dataset
included more than 3.6 million children with a host of different
infections, though the UCLA study didn't explore whether any
particular virus was associated with autism.)
The only thing missing from the article is pointing out to
people of your level of intelligence that children's vaccines work by
priming the immune system by.. get this - exposing them to viral
infections.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:44PM
(#61844961)
I can think of eight things we now think are true which
previously the government and officials previously said were
conspiracy theories and misinformation.... Here's a list of these
contradictions: ... "The government should absolutely not close the
borders with these countries. To do so is racist and xenophobic.
There's no indication of a threat from them."
I think you're failing to distinguish "it's a conspiracy and
misinformation" from "I have a different political opinion on this".
So I'll ask you very specifically: what was the predominant
government/official message that there was a CONSPIRACY around the
idea of closing borders?
(I'm asking you for a *predominant* government/official
message because everyone can and will come up with isolated examples,
but those are worthless; for the sake of this discussion, about
censorship or blocking videos, only mainstream opinions have weight.
I'm asking you for *conspiracy* because you specifically said
conspiracy.)
I think you have an underlying true point, and once you make
it more rigorously then (1) it will be considerably toned down and (2)
most everyone will agree with it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by mark-t ( 151149 ) <{moc.talfdren} {ta} {tkram}> on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844979) Journal
A vaccine *IS* something that gives you immunity to a disease,
to the limit that the vaccine is effective. With diseases for which we
have had vaccines for a long time, there is also level of herd
immunity that picks up the slack, and helps keep the virus from
propagating through a population even for the occasional person for
whom the vaccine did not take.
The thing with covid19 is that it's novel, so there's a large
number of people out there without any prior exposure or immunity to
it whatoever, so if the vaccine didn't take for someone (roughly 10%
of the time) and they contract covid19, it can look like the vaccine
didn't help reduce its spread.
When 40% or perhaps even more of the population has no
immunity to the disease whatsoever, it is going to run rampant, and
the severity with which it affects one person is not reflective of the
severity of the illness in someone that they pass it on to.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by suss ( 158993 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:58PM (#61845041)
Have fun with the up-and downvotes on this one. Reminding
people of stuff they would rather not remember, even if this info was
from official sources, who now say something different, makes them
anxious/upset/angry.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:"Truth" (Score:2)
by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:33PM (#61845209) Journal
You're mistaken; Youtube insists that we are at war with Eurasia.
We've ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, Mr Smith.
Flag as Inappropriate
Pure Evil (Score:0)
by itiswhatitiwijgalt ( 6848512 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:19PM (#61844471)
When you look through history, has the side threatening the masses
livelihood to do something against their will ever been on the good
side? When in history have those restricting free speech and censoring
the masses have been the good guys? This never ends well for those who
do and for those who support it.
WHAT SIDE OF HISTORY WILL YOU BE A PART OF???
Will you be able to live with yourself once you WAKE UP after the
fact(hindsight) and find you sided with the Nazis of today?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Pure Evil (Score:2)
by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@12:40PM (#61844585)
Yes, that's precisely the problem: It's done against their will.
Instead of just not being a dick, and making sure everyone is
allowed to actually understand the world and come to his own
conclusions, namely that those vaccines are a pretty good idea. (Note:
I understand enough of how they work, to know they are. And in the
case of Biontech, I also know the creators are good people.)
Not being a dick also solves the trust issue.
Also, ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY complete and utter UNPEOPLE morons
on a level that is worse than mental disability, EVER even consider
even PONDERING the concept of "SIDES" in this context of meaning.
I'm not "siding" with anyone. Nor against anyone. Because both
mean harm. And I'm not harming. Period.
I'm just not allowing anything to harm me or my friends or my
world. That's where the freedom of others ends.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Pure Evil (Score:1)
by itiswhatitiwijgalt ( 6848512 ) on Wednesday September
29, 2021 @01:17PM (#61844809)
This was never about covid or the vaccines. If it wasn't
covid, it would be climate change or something else. Just wait for it
and remember this in the future.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Pure Evil (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:27PM (#61845691)
When you look through history, has the side threatening the
masses livelihood to do something against their will ever been on the
good side?
Yes. Smallpox is gone and polio is almost gone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Censorship strikes again (Score:1, Insightful)
by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:13PM
(#61844447) Homepage
I detest people who spout nonsense as much as anyone. I like
science. The mRNA vaccines are genius, and I was vaccinated as soon as
it was possible.
However.
I do not want YouTube, or any other public platform, censoring
people. Who are they to determine the truth? There have been many,
many times in human history when conventional wisdom, and even
scientific thought, turned out to be wrong.
Further, it's not like YouTube is going to have qualified people
evaluating what correct, what is valid questioning, and what is
nonsense. No, they're going to hand a checklist to a bunch of
underpaid, utterly unqualified, massively overworked peons. If a video
contains a bad word, it will be censored. For example, put up a video
about vaccinating autistic children - odds are the combination of
"vaccination" and "autism" will cause the video to be removed. There
will be little or no recourse.
I don't want to hear people claiming "oh, they're a private
organization, they can do what they want.". No, they cannot. YouTube,
FaceBook, and others are far too big. They have become the de facto
public forums. It's time and past time for governments to recognize
this and regulate them accordingly. In the meantime, we - as their
audience - must apply what pressure we can to prevent censorship.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:41PM (#61844593)
good points, good post
do you think gov't intervention is the answer, though? it's
just another organization, with similar failings as YT, in which we're
to entrust personal health decisions?
I can see gov't regulating transparency around any censorship,
but not much more
what kind of gov't intervention are you thinking?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:-1)
by Aisha.Washington ( 4531453 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @08:13PM (#61846453)
do you think gov't intervention is the answer, though?
it's just another organization, with similar failings as YT, in which
we're to entrust personal health decisions?
Good point, plus government was responsible for the whole
Civil Rights thing, and the last thing we need is them telling YouTube
that they are free to ban black people from the channe. Not directly,
of course, they just ban people who cannot conjugate the verb "be"
correctly, but we know what they mean, wink wink.
Similarity, if we can ban all the anti-vaxxers, we can
finally have the affluent, white community we always wanted. I mean,
it's the poor white trash, beaners, and nignogs that don't get
vaccinated, but we'll just call it a "pro-science" bias to avoid the
negative PR.
I'm with you!
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:3)
by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:24PM (#61845431)
I don't want to hear people claiming "oh, they're a private
organization, they can do what they want.".
It isn't 'people' claiming that. It's the Supreme Court of the
United States ruling that. And it's not going to change in your
lifetime. The Trump Supreme Court adores private property rights,
especially the private property rights of giant corporations. YouTube
will do exactly as they like, and when they get sued for it in Federal
court they will cite their private property rights and win, then do it
again before the appeals court, and the Supreme Court will never hear
about it.
And if Congress somehow swings radically to one party or the
other by +10% and they pass a law saying YouTube and Facebook have to
publish everything given to them, both YouTube and Facebook will get
injunctions so fast it'll make your head spin, and then get the law
thrown out as unconstitutional 5 years later.
And no, you're not censored when you can't post on YouTube.
You can still put whatever you want up on the Internet. Conservepedia
exists and they publish all sorts of batshit crazy nonsense and no one
makes them stop. Otis Eugene Ray published his literally crazy
paranoid schizophrenic rants on the Internet for 20 years. That only
thing that stopped him was his death in 2015, at the age of 87. The
Western Internet is almost totally uncensored, with only a handful of
exceptions. You just don't get to use other people's property to post
whatever you want. Use your own property and you're fine.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:17PM (#61845637) Journal
And why would the Supreme Court take the case.? It's
Congress job to update Section 230 that would give web companies
common sense protection while protecting free speech.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:55PM (#61845031)
Further, it's not like YouTube is going to have qualified
people evaluating what correct, what is valid questioning, and what is
nonsense. No, they're going to hand a checklist to a bunch of
underpaid, utterly unqualified, massively overworked peons.
More so, as YouTube offices are predominantly in deep blue
areas, even randomly selected job candidates will be heavily skewed
left. This means that moderation will be not just uninformed, but
heavily biased in one political direction.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @02:54PM (#61845313)
More so, as YouTube offices are predominantly in deep blue
areas, even randomly selected job candidates will be heavily skewed
left. This means that moderation will be not just uninformed, but
heavily biased in one political direction.
Apropos of nothing. The peons the OP was referring to are
not Americans. Most of them come from Third World countries, get paid
pennies per hour, and have a poor grasp of the English language.
When the removal isn't just done by machine, which is the
most common case on YouTube today.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:09PM
(#61845083) Journal
mRNA vaccines do have some unknown future risk, but so does
the virus itself. Those who scare people by saying vaxxers are "mRNA
guinea pigs" because it hasn't been tested long term on large
populations should also point out that getting infected with
Coronavirus itself has unknown long-term risks.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1)
by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:24PM
(#61845139)
The mRNA vaccines are genius
The mRNA vaccines don't work. I had it in April/May (two doses
of Pfizer) and I caught COVID last week; took nearly 5 days to get
over the fever.
So if you think you're immunized think again. There are new
'breakthrough' variants all the time and your mRMA vaccine is already
obsolete.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:09PM (#61845605)
Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me
you don't understand statistics.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1)
by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@02:06PM (#61848487)
The statistics show the vaccines don't work.
Peak vaccine in the US was in April. Right now 13K a
week a dying due to variants that appeared after most people (over
50%) got vaccinated. That's as bad as it was in past peaks such as in
April, 2020 and about 65% of the mortality rate that happened at the
highest rate in Jan, 2021.
They don't work. I know what you're been trained to
believe. But the data shows it's false. New variants blow right past
these useless vaccines.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2)
by TheNameOfNick ( 7286618 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:28PM (#61845175)
Not erasing factually wrong "information" is like not picking
up trash. Removing factually wrong videos is basic hygiene and good
citizenship. If you want to collect and host that garbage, you can do
so, but don't be surprised if the stink rubs off on you. People forget
that having a different opinion and being wrong are not synonymous. If
you say something that is demonstrably false, you will not be treated
the same as a person who has a different opinion on something that
intelligent people can disagree about.
That stuff is toxic. It rots people's brains. We're in an
information war and that is their weapon.
Flag as Inappropriate
Who watches the watchers? (Score:0, Troll)
by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@11:46AM (#61844279)
Are cases of viral vector vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia
misinformation? My wife had the good luck to have one of these people
end up as one of her patients. It scared the shit out of her to the
point where she didn't get vaxxed until after she gave birth.
Are cases of myocarditis from mrna vaccines misinformation? My
mother in law went to the hospital with heart problems a month or so
after getting vaxxed, and at first they thought it was some medicine
she was taking but she started it again without ill effects so now
they think it might have been the vaccine.
Yes it's better to have a mild case of myocarditis than a bad case
of covid, but if you treat the real side effects as misinformation
you're just going to fuel underground conspiracy theories.
Is the fact that smaller children may have a higher risk of
myocarditis than ill effects from covid misinformation or is it an
honest accounting of the present state of medical knowledge?
Is the fact that natural immunity to covid, and chickenpox, and
rsv comparable in effectiveness to vaccine induced immunity a medical
fact or misinformation?
Is the fact that getting vaxxed is better than getting infected
*if you have not yet been infected* misinformation or a serious point
of uncertainty or debate?
Is the fact that no federal law or constitutional article or
amendment empowers the federal government to mandate vaccination of
private citizens misinformation or a serious legal opinion?
Y'all do this once with the best of intentions and watch how in
ten or twenty years the "misinformation" problem blows up by 20 or 30
dB once people get the idea that establishment media will suppress
scientific and medical information, not just opinions they don't like.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:47PM (#61844641)
Cool story bro. You have some more anecdotes?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Who watches the watchers? (Score:2)
by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @12:49PM (#61844653)
My arm hurt when I got my flu shot last week. Clearly it
was giving me misinformation. Gotta hop on the next flight to Kabul
for a punitive amputation so it won't tell me nonsense about flu shots
again.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:2)
by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:55PM (#61845555)
Are cases of viral vector vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia
misinformation? [...] Are cases of myocarditis from mrna vaccines
misinformation?
Is anyone claiming either one is?
'Cause claiming the vaccines are "safe" is not the same as
claiming the vaccines have never recorded any side effect. In fact,
the two conditions you're citing are treatable, and we have yet to
actually kill anyone with a vaccine after about 6 billion doses.
(Any death in the US shortly after a vaccine has to be
reported to VERS, even if it's obvious the vaccine didn't cause the
death. If you die from getting hit by a bus, that wasn't caused by the
vaccine but it goes to VERS. So there's deaths in VERS, but so far
there's only one that is being investigated as possibly connected to a
vaccine, but the investigation isn't done yet)
So, it seems to me the misinformation here is your claims
about other people.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: Who watches the watchers? (Score:2)
by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29,
2021 @04:30PM (#61845721)
In fact, the two conditions you're citing are treatable,
and we have yet to actually kill anyone with a vaccine after about 6
billion doses.
This is inaccurate. Several dozen people in the US and
Europe have died from VITT. I have no data for myocarditis.
First link that comes up for "vitt deaths" on duckduckgo:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/1... [cnbc.com]
I think there may have been a few deaths from J&J in the US.
Pro tip: don't tell lies ("no deaths") in the service of truth.
Flag as Inappropriate
The Sad Part About Misinformation (Score:0, Offtopic)
by Eldaar ( 5056619 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:38AM (#61844239)
The sad part about misinformation about vaccines causing autism is
that it hides the true causes. From everything I've read and watched,
one of the most meaningful connections scientists have made with
autism is the gut microbiome. Which is to say, it seems very possible
that the cause of autism is a lack of good gut bacteria allowing bad
bacteria to flourish. Some bad bacteria seem to produce toxins, which
then make their way to the brain and damage it/alter the way it
functions.
I believe it's something like 80-90% of people who are autistic
also suffer from gastro-intestinal issues.
With a steady increase in c-sections, many babies never pass
through the birth canal. Passage through this canal exposes babies to
many beneficial strains of bacteria, colonating their body with these
strains. Failure to pass through this canal means these babies may
lack many of these beneficial strains.
Furthermore, antibiotic usage in the US has steadily increased,
and antibiotics are often prescribed in cases where they're really not
necessary. This may contribute to kids not having the good bacteria
that humans have traditionally had.
All of which is to say that if the public understood this
connection, there would be more impetus to fund further research into
the connection. Perhaps if we start giving all kids probiotics from
birth through the first few years of their lives, we can ensure their
guts are colonized with beneficial bacteria, and avoid setting up
their body to be host to bad bacteria which might be contributing to
or causing conditions like autism.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The Sad Part About Misinformation (Score:3)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@01:01PM (#61844727)
Don't fall for that kind of hype and misinformation. The
changes to the brain in people with Autism happens when they are still
in their mothers womb, which is also one of the main reasons why the
whole vaccine debate where so stupid.
Flag as Inappropriate
Misinformation (Score:0)
by hallkbrdz ( 896248 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:48AM (#61844289)
Google along with most big tech and media has been bought off by
the government. Only the official stance is approved, anything that
questions that no matter how much data there is to back it up is
immediately labeled misinformation. No healthy discussion of ideas is
to permitted.
We are now China
Flag as Inappropriate
I, for one... (Score:1)
by Fworg64 ( 6172828 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:54AM (#61844325)
"We can imagine viewers then potentially extrapolating to
Covid-19," Halprin said in an interview. "We wanted to make sure that
we're covering the whole gamut."
Google forbid people reach their own conclusions. Too bad there is
no way for people to consider and evaluate sources and facts on their
own. (Sarcasm aside, it seems that many crowds have proven this to be
actually true).
All I can really hope is that there is a slow revolution of
critical thought development and that I find some spare time to make a
better YouTube..
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:I, for one... (Score:2)
by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:17PM (#61844807)
Google forbid people reach their own conclusions.
Many (not all) of the anti-vaxers base their decisions on
faith. "God will protect me."* Critical thinking doesn't enter into
the decision because that's anathema to systems of belief. The harder
you push your point of view, the more they think it's an attack on
their faith. It never gets to the point of discussing the facts.
*Story: There's a guy living in a town that is suffering a
major flood. Pretty soon, his house is surrounded by water and he
can't leave. After a time, the sheriff's department comes up to his
front door in a boat, offering rescue. He says, "No thanks. God will
save me."
As the water level rises, he climbs onto his roof. Soon, a
coast guard helicopter arrives and drops a basket. "No thanks. God
will save me."
Next thing he knows, he's standing at the gates to Heaven. He
calls in, "God, why didn't you save me?"
God replies, "I sent a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
The believers will have to convince me that vaccines are not a
gift from God. And that the occasional case of myocarditis is not just
a test of faith. Those that think God works by reaching down and
touching them individually are suffering from the sin of pride and are
destined to burn in hell for it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:I, for one... (Score:2)
by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:55PM
(#61845319)
Most people are not qualified to draw their own conclusions on
something like the safety of a vaccine. They lack education in the
sciences involved to understand the subject deeply enough, and to know
how to interpret the literature on it. So, reasonably, they rely on
others to inform them. If those they rely on are feeding them garbage,
it can in this case cause actual harm.
But hey, I'm all for these prayer warriors going on to join
the thousands of others who have won Herman Cain awards and removed
themselves from social media and the voting pool, so I say have at it.
Flag as Inappropriate
^F 5G (Score:0, Troll)
by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:59AM (#61844353)
Well at least the mind control/infections from 5G cellular service
hasn't appeared in the comments (yet)
If you don't want to be vaccinated, perhaps you should use the
Trump approved bleach treatment.
I'd recommend drinking a gallon or so to minimize chances of
infection. (Yes I'm talking about you, every idiot in Florida and
Texas)I returned a few moments later with a plastic bottle that bore
the likene
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:^F 5G (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844841)
Here, have a conspiracy theory: that bullshit was spread by
telecom corps as a distraction from ACTUAL issues with 5G.
Flag as Inappropriate
Cry havoc and loose the censors (Score:1)
by zkiwi34 ( 974563 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:04PM (#61844391)
What an epic waste of time.
Flag as Inappropriate
It's About Time... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:12PM (#61844427)
How nice of them to jump on this important topic... a year after
letting the damage accumulate uncontrolled.
Flag as Inappropriate
Long Term (Score:0)
by NobodyGood ( 5481616 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:18PM
(#61844469)
No one knows anything about any possible long term issues, if any
with the vaccines as there hasn't been enough time for any long term
studies to have been completed and no amount of money or expertise can
predict speed that up.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Long Term (Score:2)
by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:27PM
(#61845167) Homepage
Short term, 700,000 people have died from Covid. Your chance
of dying when you catch covid unvaccinated is greater than 1 in 100.
How much time do you need, when 180,000,000 people have
already safely taken a vaccine?
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Long Term (Score:2)
by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@04:32PM (#61849015)
1 in 5000.
Flag as Inappropriate
If only (Score:2)
by bferrell ( 253291 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:55PM
(#61844685) Homepage Journal
we could get linkedin to do this
It's become a hotbed of anti-covid vax posts
Flag as Inappropriate
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:19PM (#61844817)
... Twitter, Facebook and other social media allows COVID
misinformation to run rampant despite policies that supposedly ban it.
Twitter doesn't even offer a way to report it which is probably why
there are very prominent antivaxxers spouting misinfo day in day out.
YouTube seems to be one of the few social media sites making any
effort to clean this shit up.
Flag as Inappropriate
They will get their anti vax propaganda elseware (Score:1)
by Malays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@02:01PM (#61845053)
At most, this might stop some wayward kid from stumbling on an
anti vax piece, and keep Google/Youtube's hands clean of it.
But it won't stop the torrent of anti vax propaganda that has
already saturated the public.
Flag as Inappropriate
Misinformation is murder (Score:1)
by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:19PM
(#61845115) Homepage
Over 180,000,000 Americans have safely taken the vaccines. They're
statistically proven to greatly reduce hospitalization and death and
recommended by every reasonable medical professional.
If you encourage people to avoid or delay vaccination, some of
them will die.
It's a moral duty to get vaccinated and make the social
environment safer for everyone.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:32PM (#61845207)
Statistics are not proof.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:06PM (#61845357)
Of course you can prove things with statistical data,
empiricism wouldn't work otherwise. What a solipsist nonsense
statement.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:2)
by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@04:46PM (#61845779) Homepage
Epidemiology isn't a yes/no mathematical certainty. But
the statistics are very powerful if you can see them.
Get vaccinated and expect to be 100% immune? Never, with
no disease, ever.
Get vaccinated and expect your chances of contracting this
deadly disease will go down by *a lot* ? Absolutely. Statistically, by
about 1,000 now.
Expect your chances of dying of it to go down,
statistically by 100,000. Unless you're severely immunocompromised,
then you're dependent on those around you getting vaccinated to keep
the virus from getting to you.
Get vaccinated and expect to spread the disease a lot less
around your community, among your friends and coworkers and any
elderly people or from any kids you know.
Get your geographical area mostly vaccinated and expect
the prevalence of this deadly disease to nearly (but not entirely)
disappear? Absolutely,
Encouraging enough people to not get vaccinated will kill
some of them. Of Covid.
Flag as Inappropriate
Who gets to decide what "misinformation" is? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:31PM (#61845195)
Okay, fine... but who gets to decide what "misinformation" is? are
they going to remove videos that talk about the documented deaths that
are associated with the vaccine? How about videos that talk about
heart damage the vaccines can cause in teenagers? Or the ones that
talk about the documented cases of blood clotting and strokes?
Just curious if these are going to be labeled "misinformation" and removed.
Flag as Inappropriate
Time to move to BitChute? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:50PM (#61845293)
I'm already seeing all the anti-vaxxers high-tail it to BitChute
and other video sites. If they head there, great... less crap to wade
through that isn't worth watching.
Flag as Inappropriate
Ok, and to get around this ban (Score:1)
by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:28PM (#61845443) Journal
A new code word will be invented to replace "vaccine".
Whatever, let's hope that more alternatives to youtube pop up.
Censorship for any reason is always evil, it won't be an issue if
there are enough channels to tune in.
Flag as Inappropriate
Questioning authority != misinformation (Score:1)
by K. S. Van Horn ( 1355653 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@03:55PM (#61845547) Homepage
Whoever wrote that headline has a warped epistemology and does not
understand how science works. What brought about the scientific
revolution? It wasn't the creation of authoritative bodies charged
with deciding The Truth on certain topics. Those had existed for
millennia. It was the scientific method and, crucially, the open
interchange of information. Without the freedom to openly challenge
any scientific claim made by anyone, science cannot advance.
It can take a long time for the science to be truly settled, and
official bodies, influenced by politics and personal biases of the top
leadership, can easily get it wrong. For decades the FDA wrongly
promoted low-fat diets that ended up increasing obesity and heart
disease, because of the views of one influential person, despite a
lack of quality evidence for those views. Government officials wrongly
told Americans that masks were of no use in preventing the spread of
Covid, and insinuated they were even harmful. We were told that it was
absolutely impossible that the Covid pandemic could have originated in
a lab leak, and now that is a leading hypothesis for its origin.
Worse yet, officialdom often peddles indisputable misinformation
itself. Consider this article on the CDC website: New CDC Study:
Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection
[cdc.gov]. The headline is a lie. The study does not compare the
protection provided by natural immunity from previous infection to the
protection provided by vaccination. It only evaluates the additional
protection vaccination may provide to those who already have natural
immunity. Both groups of subjects in the study are people who had
previously recovered from Covid.
In contradiction of the CDC's misinformation, there are several
studies that show natural immunity to be at least as good as
vaccine-induced immunity, maybe better:
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity
[medrxiv.org]
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer
lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease
and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2,
compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
Reinfection Rates Among Patients Who Previously Tested Positive
for Coronavirus Disease 2019 [oup.com]
"Prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective
against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased
over time"
Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of
BNT162b2 vaccine protection [medrxiv.org]
"Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior
SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 948% (CI:[944, 951]);
hospitalization 941% (CI:[919, 957]); and severe illness 964%
(CI:[925, 983]). Our results question the need to vaccinate
previously-infected individuals.”
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected
individuals [medrxiv.org]
"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to
benefit from COVID-19 vaccination”
Flag as Inappropriate
Verified licenses for professional YT channels (Score:1)
by Derelict65 ( 8781359 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:18PM
(#61845639)
If you want to post videos of cats, music, entertainment: go for
it. If you want to talk about medicine, health, or other professional
advice, verify your credentials. You wouldn't go to a car repair shop
to find out how to treat gout. Why give the car technician a How To
Cure Gout YT channel that could influence millions? He'll still have
the freedom of speech to preach from his car shop and on street
corners. If he wants, he can make a gout website and upload and host
his own videos. But fuck giving worldwide amplification to those who
only have charisma and conspiracy to drive views. Their aims are not
to help, but usually to promote their own ad revenue since lies are
being monetized currently.
Flag as Inappropriate
Guess what people (Score:1)
by danda ( 11343 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:48PM (#61845785)
Not everyone agrees about any given topic.
Your *misinformation* is my truth. And vice-versa.
Intelligent people can agree to disagree.
What everyone thinks they know today can and usually does change tomorrow.
Censors have pretty much never been on the right side of history.
I don't see that changing now.
Those armed with truth and correctness never need to censor others
because eventually people recognize truth and correctness.
Youtube, and any apologists here on slashdot, should be ashamed of
themselves and go sit in a corner to think about their mis-deeds for a
while.
The main information I get out of this article is not support
YouTube in any fashion and to support their competitors instead.
Flag as Inappropriate
I bet this will work. (Score:1)
by EmoryM ( 2726097 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:04PM (#61845853)
Problem: people are more willing to believe what you have
classified as lies than what you have classified as truth. Solution:
remove their ability to express what you classify as lies.
Flag as Inappropriate
YouTube is the new Catholic Church (Score:2)
by srichard25 ( 221590 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:21PM
(#61845909)
In 1633 the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest because
he wouldn't recant the belief that the earth revolved around the sun.
They called it "heresy" at the time to justify arresting him. It
wasn't until 1758 that the Catholic Church finally admitted that it
wasn't heretical to say the earth revolves around the sun.
Newton's theory of gravity was considered valid until Albert
Einstein's theory of general relativity better described gravity over
200 years later. Note that even after all this time, it's still
considered a "theory" that could be overridden by a better theory in
the future.
Anyone who says something is "settled science" doesn't understand
how science works. We're always striving to better understand the
world around us, and that process often takes decades (or even
centuries).
We've been dealing with COVID-19 and the COVID-19 Vaccines for
less than 2 years. There's still a ton that we don't know about them
and it will take some serious time and research to sort it all out.
Stifling any ideas that go against the conventional wisdom will only
slow scientific discovery and result in more human pain.
Like the Catholic Church, YouTube should not be an arbiter of
truth or science.
Flag as Inappropriate
If you don't believe in vaccines (Score:2)
by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@05:21PM (#61845911)
you should not believe in ventilators either, so stay the fuck out
of our hospitals. Thanks in advance.
Flag as Inappropriate
The Testimonies Project (Score:0)
by ackerrj ( 1136479 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:24PM (#61845925)
Tell the people, who's lives are ruined, that their experience is
disinformation. Israel: The Testimonies Project:
https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Censorship (Score:2)
by imcdona ( 806563 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:56PM (#61846031)
I miss the old days when everyone on Slashdot agreed censorship
was a bad thing.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Censorship (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:48PM (#61846397)
agreed.
I actually blocked slashdot (at home), as it was a bad habit
and has slashdot has changed principals over the years.
Not just slashdot. I blocked most all news sources. As
unfortunately independent reporting no longer exists. And blocked most
all social media for the same reason.
Try it, you will not miss it.
I blocked slashdot on my router, but somehow I still go there
when connected to work vpn... But I did quit, mostly, I swear.
Flag as Inappropriate
what is mis-information (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:44PM (#61846193)
Without guidelines defining what mis-information is, this is
likely to be abused for politics and profit.
Is misleading information about other things considered mis-information?
foreign policy: Though I am sure all that we are told about
Afghanistan is true.
domestic policy: We should trust a congress member whenever they
state that a bill "pays for itself"
Flag as Inappropriate
Question Everything (Score:1)
by XArtur0 ( 5079833 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:01PM (#61846253)
I support their right as a private company to only host the
content they want.
But don't tell me that the moderators on a user video streaming
site are experts on every field.
You could argue they base decisions on official advice from expert
sources...
But how do they deem something as misinformation given the
official advice from those experts?
And, more controversially, that the experts are right?
If I say, "the vaxxine is a self-destruct device they can trigger
with 5G magnetz!!!"
Obviously is misinformation, but what rules do they use to deem it
misinformation?
If I say "you can still get blood clots 6 months after being
vaccinated" (I'm not claiming its true, its just an example).
Is that misinformation?
Do they know?
Do their expert sources know?
Besides, there is deeper issue with what they are doing.
The truth is that the internet is quickly becoming a dystopian
authoritarian platform.
The next big leak will all be deemed a conspiracy and
misinformation and removed from everywhere.
I believe they are pushing stupid conspiracy theories (such as
flat earth, 5G) in order to condition people to label conspiracy
theorists loonies.
Its just the elite protecting themselves.
I' myself, I tough with Big Tech, and Big Media.
Whatever happened to QUESTION EVERYTHING?
Flag as Inappropriate
Any criticism of big pharma will be deleted (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:49PM (#61846401)
Protecting you from misinformation is the calling card of Facism.
Do not believe me, read your history books.
You are educated, remember?
You know that history repeats, remember?
You just always figured that it would arrive with blood dripping
from it fangs. You figured you would know when it happened l
You did not know it would arrive providing salvation, and
protection from the terrible, awful others.
No itâ(TM)s okay, you are in the good group. You are a hall
monitor. You are righteous. A good one. They are not coming for you.
No, you are safe. They are coming for the others. YOU KNOW WHO THEY
ARE! You know that they deserve to die, and if they do, you will not
feel bad for them. No, they deserved it. What sane rational person
would oppose the party? Who, I ask you, would be so insane?
The THEMs, that os who, and we will soon have them silenced so
your ears no longer needs to bear the indignity of their shrill
ignorant voices. We love you, and are doing this for you. You, oh
precious one. You who went to college, not the military, not to
Walmart, you are good, affluent, and white. One of US, not one of
them. Your opinions are correct, while thems are INCORRECT! WRONG!
They drink horse urine and think it will help them! The inject
alligator semen and think itâ(TM)s a cure! Heretics! Ignorami! The
THEMs must be brought to heel! They must be brought under our control!
Our god Big Pharma who knows the truth shall be the ruler undisputed
and we shall singeth with glee from the highest mountain!
Trolls! They are TROLLS! Mod them as such wherever you see them as
a declaration of subservience and obedience to our true masters, they
of truth and benevolence to whom we swear our allegiance! Go forth and
mod them in the name of the divine experts, the martyrs of wholesome
truth!
If you have nothing to hide, if you believe what your told and
encourage others to do the same, then you have nothing to worry about.
We will always work in your interests. You can trust us.
CONFORM!
CONFORM!
CONFORM!
Flag as Inappropriate
I hope Matt Halprin & GOOG get the settings ri (Score:2)
by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <`sonamc' `at' `gmail.com'> on
Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:30PM (#61846501) Journal
The ban will include any media that claims vaccines are dangerous
or lead to chronic health outcomes ...
Vaccines _are_ dangerous to a _small_ proportion of people. From
'De Novo and Relapsing Glomerular Diseases After COVID-19 Vaccination:
What Do We Know So Far?' [nih.gov]:
"nephrologists are faced with a small but growing literature of
case reports linking COVID-19 vaccines with heightened off-target
immune responses leading to the sudden development of de novo or
relapsing glomerular diseases"
I hope Google apply their brains when banning and don't ban videos
that accurately portray the situation and allow people to estimate
risk themselves without undue pressure.
More links:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Flag as Inappropriate
Finally, tech censorship does some good (Score:2)
by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021
@09:15PM (#61846613)
I don't like the idea of corporations censoring political speeech
"because they can," but at the same time nobody should get away with
lying about known scientific facts, especially where human lives are
being lost because of their outpourings. I would like to see Joe
Mercola and that Kennedy grandson sent to PMITA prison for negligent
homicide.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Finally, tech censorship does some good (Score:1)
by nessman ( 1163349 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:13PM
(#61849357)
Show up to work some day and try some of that "political
speech". Let us know how quickly you're escorted out the door by
security.
Flag as Inappropriate
YouMad? (Score:1)
by space_spaghetti ( 8158346 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@12:49AM (#61846945)
YouTube used to block some cannabis videos because of the drug
war. It was their right, it was not cool, but it was their right. So
now people are gonna get super mad and try to debate if YouTube can
further "censor" their own website RE vaccinations? Get a grip and
check out that 'bit' place to realize a lack of censorship is a
garbage dump.
Flag as Inappropriate
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021
@02:30AM (#61847035) Journal
YouTube continues to run adverts for medical scams. Did you know
that declining eye sight has nothing to do with your eyes? Apparently
that's the case according to an advert I saw yesterday.
And then there is the current crop of get rich with Amazon scans.
Whether it's spending just $250 on stock for a passive income of
thousands per month or some more esoteric free course in getting rich,
this is what YouTube peddles.
Flag as Inappropriate
Vaccine Safety Record (Score:0)
by sarku ( 2047704 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:52AM (#61847777)
https://www.facebook.com/80221... [facebook.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
Corporate monopoly censorship and propaganda (Score:0)
by ToddInSF ( 765534 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:26PM
(#61848779) Journal
The USA is really a shit hole nation.
Flag as Inappropriate
Banning misinformation is misguided (Score:1)
by iamamish ( 1308725 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:04PM (#61848923)
A few points in response:
1. I think the typical model is of misinformation driving vaccine
hesitancy, but I think a large part the causality runs in the order
direction. People who are nervous about vaccines search out
information to make them feel better about the decision. I doubt
whether restricting misinformation is going to help with these folks.
2. The folks who share made-up concerns about vaccines often
promote conspiracy theories. These types of blanket video bans feed
directly into those conspiracies. The people who share them will
simply switch channels.
I strongly support vaccines and I understand the desire to
restrict misinformation. I also am not questioning YouTube's *right*
to do this, I simply think it is a bad idea.
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Banning misinformation is misguided (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:07PM (#61849133)
1. Using the word "vaccines" for products which are in a phase
3 experimental trials is already misinformation.
2. Are you implying that making a video about "vaxxs"
injuries, which is censored by MSM and bigtech, is misinformation?
https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
iVErMeCtIN!!! Derp derp!! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:11PM (#61849349)
To all the anti-vaxxers out there, you deserve whatever comes your way.
700,000 dead Americans, 2,000 dying daily, and you're holding up
progress towards eradicating the virus (or at least getting us to herd
immunity). Why? Because you're stupid, ignorant, gullible and
brainwashed. Fuck all of you!!
Compare that to 405,000 dead US soldiers in all of World War II.
More mandates are coming and expect penalties to come along with it.
Flag as Inappropriate
Dumbness tested by your TV! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:01PM (#61849571)
To the scum dumb enough to believe every word your TV says;
Here is the result for a virus as harmful as the common flu:
https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
YouTube execs are as foolish as Farcebook ones! (Score:1)
by iq145 ( 2720165 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:36PM (#61849747)
Exactly WHO is to decide what is information and what is
misinformation? That's headed toward fascism!
Flag as Inappropriate
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list