21–30 of 217 posts
Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
I've turned on dead comments for that exact reason. A lot of them seem totally innocuous. You do get the occasional spam though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…
In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.
Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…
I would be very skeptical of any claims around Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in The Guardian, which is a very biased news source. Especially after the recent Rolling Stone mendacity regarding claims of toxicity in Oklahoma, which was a complete fabrication nonetheless amplified on the left media.
The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…
> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…
Pelman v. McDonald's [0] covered that in considerable detail.
Markson, has promoted information that is detrimental to health, as positive for health, and so is not afforded certain protections.
Part of the reason that the tort against McDonald's failed, is that McDonald's was not shown that they had a duty to warn the plaintiff.
However, it is established precedent, that someone in Markson's positions _does_ have a duty to warn their audience.
[0] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852143/Benloulo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…
> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…
Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospitalization only tangentially connects those two medications to toxicity in hospital. It specifically says those drugs were taken among unnamed others and that the source of influence was unnamed online sources. The quoted doctor is very hand-wavy about connecti…
Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence.
She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is…
> Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.