The media's lab leak fiasco

Post by admax88q » Fri, May 28, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

shaicoleman wrote: post #489

admax88q wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA doesn't tell people what to research, it tells the public what existing research confirms is safe to use. If a bunch of scientists think iverwhatever is viable they can do a proper study on it and get it published and peer reviewed. To "drop everything" would be criminally negligent, there's lots of things that can and should be researched in parallel.

Part of the problem that there is censorship on publishing in the big journals. That said, there are published RCT showing Ivermectin effectiveness. In my second link on my first comment, there's a talk about the overwhelming data, censorship and hindrances for publishing. Sharing evidence on Ivermectin - Dr. Tess Lawrie https://player.vimeo.com/video/554350476?autoplay=1#t=5756

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, May 28, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #673

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I think that politicians have a responsibility to not tell obvious lies. If they do, then I'm going to stop paying attention to the things they say, and I'll tell everyone else to do the same. If they eventually say something insightful, well, that's a shame, but they no longer have my attention.

Because it’s irrelevant and assumes that anyone participating in the discussion was listening to any politician of any kind to begin with. The problem isn’t with ignoring the politicians - something that is nearly always prudent - it’s assuming that we weren’t also completely ignoring Trump. This investigation was happening among scientists regardless of whatever Trump or Biden or Cotton or Paul or whoever else had t…

Post by wpietri » Fri, May 28, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #419

monoideism wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really arguing from an antitrust perspective. My argument is more focused on the central role that Twitter plays in our political process. If you have a better word to use for that concept than "monopoly", I'll edit my post. But I'm sure you disagree with my thesis either way. That said, from an antitrust perspective, there are strong arguments against some social media companies, particularly Facebook. Furth…

You are not entitled to an audience. A monopoly requires an actual barrier, not a social one: i.e. physically limited space in telecommunication conduits in cities, for example.

Post by dang » Fri, May 28, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

3327 wrote: post #631

neither_color wrote: post #34

There’s a question as to why that fake consensus emerged. But I think the more troubling question is: How did people let the original story of what Tom Cotton even said go so badly awry? Essentially Cotton said something that was then transformed into a fake claim of a Chinese bio-attack, then the fake claim was debunked, and then the debunking was applied to the real claim with little attention paid to ongoing disag…

Your post is absolutely rubbish. White washing one wrong with another. If there is no lab leak, its not hard to prove. Why destroy samples and genetic data? What the author wrote and how its interpretation is material is beyond the point. The world is owed an explanation- and hiding facts simply exasperates suspicion. The world is owed an explanation- and if there is no “lab leak” then it can be proven without a doub…

Post by 99_00 » Fri, May 28, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

the_optimist wrote: post #576

99_00 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"everyone is just repeating talking points they read online" The collective narrative has existed in other media for as long as I've been alive. It's now invaded the internet. People have always listened to the radio, watched cable news, read magazines to get talking points so they can repeat them and appear well informed and intelligent. To look good in front of others and convey status. People who counter the narra…

This has been a horrifically sad accepted reality of US higher education for a generation. Students are easily-influenced, naive, and economically vulnerable.