Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion about pandemic censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion about pandemic censorship

    Moved to censorship report list.
    https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...uring-pandemic
    Last edited by Emily; April 17, 2021, 12:06 AM.
    _____________________________________________

    Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

    i love myself. the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever. ---- nayyirah waheed

    (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
    Never forget Excalibur.

  • #2
    I strongly disagree with the contents of this post that gives a nod to denying thesis about the pandemic and its management.

    Comment


    • Emily
      Emily commented
      Editing a comment
      OK. I don't agree with everything you post, either. But this post is about scientific censorship. I hope you don't agree with that.
      One thing for certain is that people who are happy with the way the pandemic is being managed have been happy for a long time now and seem to want to stay that way.

    • tetano
      tetano commented
      Editing a comment
      Researcher in agroponics (it should be aquaponics)? A certainly reliable source

  • #3
    There is a lot here.

    First of all - People really resent the lockdowns. I have never seen a pandemic plan that included such widespread restrictions - in the millions of people - and in large geographical areas. After a year this was bound to cause a lot of societal problems. And now we are seeing this.

    2nd - Some of the most nasty fights are among scientists. We see it in the climate change debate and we see it in the pandemic.

    3rd - The pandemic is real.

    4th - New medical science is saving lives. I am one of them.

    5th - Some medicine is bad. Some is good.

    6th - Some traditional medicine is good. Some does not work quick enough to make a difference in a crisis situation.

    6th - Many opportunists are taking advantage of the pandemic to sell stuff. This happens in every disease crisis - it is not unique now.

    7th - The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Harsh lockdown policies have destroyed millions of small businesses. Violence & suicides are up.

    8th - No one trusts their governments anymore - or any of the "establishment" or "power elite".

    9th - People believe in science but distrust the motivations of the establishments in their countries.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    So how to move forward? Use your critical mind and common sense. Look at all sides of the issues.

    I have spoken to many people in the last couple of weeks about the vaccines for COVID-19. Many people are choosing not to take them. And why? Because they do not trust the system. They wonder what is "really" in the vaccines. They believe this is a "plandemic".

    Sad that we are in this place now. I remember a time when everyone got a tetanus shot without thinking too much about it.

    There was a huge debate here about the drug hydroxychloroquine. One moderator felt that it should not even be mentioned on this site. But that was a mistake. We need to publicly debate all the pros and cons of any pandemic issue. It is the best way to search for the truth. In the end, it was determined that the general scientific consensus is, after many months, hydroxychloroquine is not effective in serious COVID-19 cases. It was not used in President Trump's treatment and he survived well. His treatment included new, "off label", over-the-counter, and traditional medicines.

    We are also debating the vaccines. It is typical that vaccine development has some winners and some losers. I said last summer that it would be about a year for some clarity on vaccines and this appears to be the situation. I am not surprised that some vaccines are being paused for further review. This is part of the process. Maybe they will distributed again, maybe not. In addition, some are questioning the long term consequences of the RNA vaccines. At this point in time they appear effective. We are covering all of these debates.

    As a disclosure - as stated on another thread - I got a Moderna shot. I am high risk and this was my analysis of my situation without any of the emotions that I feel about how the overall US political/medical/governmental/financial systems are (or are not) working for me.

    In the end - it is a risk analysis. What is the risk of not wearing a mask, not getting the vaccine, attending indoor crowded events, etc. vs. the risk of severe COVID-19 illness or death?

    Watch the countries in the world. You can see the information that we have gathered, or look for yourself. It will give you a window into the truth.

    Comment


    • bertrand789
      bertrand789 commented
      Editing a comment
      tetano, I don't regret what I learned or what I wrote. It is a growing crisis of globalization and CDC.

      The CDC had for subject certainly infectious diseases but also obesity, with the results that we know.

      The vitamin D dossier links the two, explaining the sexist, racist and segretationist sides.

      So it is first of all the file to be clarified and settled. Then, there are the choices of public health policies which are more complex subjects.

      But the unenlightened subject from my point of view is:

      why did you choose the intramuscular route?

    • sharon sanders
      sharon sanders commented
      Editing a comment
      I chose intramuscular because it was available. There is no COVID-19 pill or nasal vaccine available to me. I also took vitamin D over the winter as a precaution. I do not think there is any one answer to health. I think it is a combination of new and traditional. I keep my options open and change my actions as events develop.

    • bertrand789
      bertrand789 commented
      Editing a comment
      @Sharon, I read that respecting homeostasis and therefore the vitamin D level, which some believe should be increased, would help prevent 30,000 cancer per year in Germany.
      No other country has made estimates?

      Regarding the vaccine route, the mucosal route is the route used in animals. We will see the actions of some to know.

      I hope that the Chinese are moving, but it is not too late ...

  • #4
    Sharon, I have nothing against debates and plurality of opinions about lockdowns, vaccines, drugs. What I contest is that people who are not real experts of the subject be mentioned (Goddek is an expert on aquaponics) and cornerstones of scientific research such as the validity of the PCR test be questioned. You might as well question the very existence of the pandemic.

    Comment


    • sharon sanders
      sharon sanders commented
      Editing a comment
      tetano - I agree. We are a great platform to explore the validity of ideas. One way is to examine a professional's credentials. I find many studies in conflict with each other. One way to evaluate each study is to look at the author's affiliations, credentials, funding source, etc. The search for the truth can be frustrating but we owe it to society to reveal what we find. Everyone knows are not owned by anyone and we are not afraid to make our opinions known. With so many institutions doubted now I think this site can provide a real service by addressing some of the "alternative" ideas. It is well known that you are a practicing pediatrician who believes in science and you are not paid to participate here. You are a credible source on many issues.

    • tetano
      tetano commented
      Editing a comment
      The questioned article should be this: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/con...0.25.3.2000045

    • tetano
      tetano commented
      Editing a comment
      On 23 January 2020, Drosten, along with other virologists in Europe and Hong Kong, published a workflow of a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) diagnostic test,which was accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and which sent test kits to affected regions. it was very important to have a validated test quickly.

  • #5
    I agree with Tetano and Sharon here.

    There are some real problems developing out there arising from misinformation and misunderstanding of the situation and the science, giving rise to 'conspiracy theories' that are not grounded in facts, but these viewpoints are taking hold and gaining traction. IMHO these need confronting and discussing. in that way, perhaps we can educate some people, and (for want of a better phrase) stop the rot.

    There are a great many vested interests out there, that come from opposing viewpoints.. From the private individual who is frankly 'scared' and finds it easiest to deny even the existence of the pandemic (these are diminishing in number slowly but surely, as more people are infected and Covid lands closer to home of those who would like to deny its existence) to those with vested business interests that are under threat, both small and large, who instead seek to find data to validate their positions, to those individuals and organisations who are seeking to capitalise on the opportunities that the pandemic presents to them (never let a good crisis go to waste).

    I have refrained from posting some things that are doing the misinformation rounds, as I do not wish to give many of the more ridiculous claims airtime. However, I now wonder if that is the correct tactic or whether it may be a good idea to set up some sort of 'debate' room on this site, where we can look at some of this stuff, and pull it to pieces or explain why some policies are there.. in this instance, why peer review can be accelerated in an emergency. It seems that a lot of mistrust is arising from misinformation and/or a lack of transparency from governments and national and international health body's. There are plenty of examples, where the science changes, but the reasons for changes in communications are not adequately explained. Politics has become far too entwined in science and health policies, and people do notice this.

    I dont know what everyone else feels on this subject, but it seems that the more some things are ignored, the more they gain traction. There is a great deal of scientific illiteracy out there, where very basic stuff is misinterpreted or mis-presented. What to do about it though?

    Comment


    • #6
      Most People Don?t Actively Seek to Share Fake News

      By David Rand, Gordon Pennycook on March 17, 2021

      ... Each of us, as individual citizens, can also help improve the nature of our online discourse. This is twofold: You can pass along the idea that people are often distracted from accuracy, and that it?s important to stop and think about whether something is true before you share it. But, of course, it?s equally important to actually do this ourselves when we?re sharing content with the world.

      We are living in a time where misinformation is a major concern for almost everyone?even many of the people who (accidentally) share it. We ourselves, researchers working on this very topic, have fallen into the trap and shared inaccurate content without thinking. But understanding that this is more a problem of inattention than purposeful bad behavior makes things seem less grim, helps us see past the illusion that everyday citizens on the other side must be either stupid or evil, and leads to concrete solutions.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...are-fake-news/

      Comment


      • #7
        Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online

        Published: 17 March 2021
        Gordon Pennycook, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio A. Arechar, Dean Eckles & David G. Rand

        Abstract

        In recent years, there has been a great deal of concern about the proliferation of false and misleading news on social media1,2,3,4. Academics and practitioners alike have asked why people share such misinformation, and sought solutions to reduce the sharing of misinformation5,6,7. Here, we attempt to address both of these questions. First, we find that the veracity of headlines has little effect on sharing intentions, despite having a large effect on judgments of accuracy. This dissociation suggests that sharing does not necessarily indicate belief. Nonetheless, most participants say it is important to share only accurate news. To shed light on this apparent contradiction, we carried out four survey experiments and a field experiment on Twitter; the results show that subtly shifting attention to accuracy increases the quality of news that people subsequently share. Together with additional computational analyses, these findings indicate that people often share misinformation because their attention is focused on factors other than accuracy?and therefore they fail to implement a strongly held preference for accurate sharing. Our results challenge the popular claim that people value partisanship over accuracy8,9, and provide evidence for scalable attention-based interventions that social media platforms could easily implement to counter misinformation online.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03344-2

        Comment


        • #8
          The topic here is supposed to be about censorship of scientists. It is not about 'fake news', 'conspiracy theories', etc. I'll start another thread about that topic and clearly label it.

          Feel free to debate whatever you like here.
          _____________________________________________

          Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

          i love myself. the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever. ---- nayyirah waheed

          (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
          Never forget Excalibur.

          Comment


          • Emily
            Emily commented
            Editing a comment
            ?Conspiracy theory? is the most hackneyed phrase in the English language right now. That and ?fake news? are linguistic piddle, IMO, splashed about by bullies and manipulators and parroted by their blind followers. I?ll be glad when the fad expires.

            Goddek is in this department:
            https://www.researchgate.net/institu...ethods/members

            Last time I checked, universities have math courses and statistics courses that translate across all scientific areas. I think he can count.

          • JJackson
            JJackson commented
            Editing a comment
            I also looked up his bio and he is a well qualified mathematician but does that make him any better able to judge the merits of a PCR protocol than you or I. However if you look at the authors of paper the Tetano linked to they include 24 scientists who do work in the field including three I immediately recognised from their papers Marion Koopmans, Malik Peiris & Christian Drosten all virologists at the top of their field. If I read papers on hydroponics I may of known his name and been very skeptical of Koopmans if she had wondered into his specialty.
            Last edited by JJackson; April 17, 2021, 06:26 AM.

          • Emily
            Emily commented
            Editing a comment
            JJackson, I took the time to listen to the Goddek interview and he clearly stated he had no background in virology. He would not even define the term PCR. He didn't judge the paper on the PCR science. He simply had been asked on Twitter whether the length of time the paper was peer reviewed was customary. He used his math skills and background editing journals to find that the peer review was only 2 days or less, when normally it would be much longer (172 days)
            https://twitter.com/goddeketal/statu...809543/photo/1

            It seems odd he was met with attacks rather than an explanation. The paper seems to be presented as peer-reviewed. I think it should have been presented as preliminary peer-reviewed pending full review.

        • #9
          I have re-named this forum to "Comments, Discussion, & Not Proven Science Ideas"

          I am strongly against scientific censorship. I think if an "expert" proposes an opinion, we should be able to investigate this. It is a huge public service. It might be our greatest public service yet.

          We are one of the only free media in the world. People know this.

          For instance, JJackson and I argued for the last year about the origin of the pandemic. I did not censor him. It would have been easy. A click of a button. But I did not. Why? It was a great public value to see all sides.

          Same for other theories out there. People are confused. The CDC says "xyz"....then they reverse themselves...same with many governmental departments around the world. Politics gets involved...the public is screwed.

          As to many "experts"...well...they need funding...so that is always a situation to be considered...

          Let's say, hypothetically, a well known expert in biology says that eating walnuts* will cure severe COVID-19. And his/her quotes are carried in many main stream newspapers and alternative news sites. This assertion is carried onto facebook, twitter, and youtube who try to ban this topic as fast as it gets posted by thousands of people. The CDC comes out and says this idea is ridiculous.

          This idea will automatically get traction. Doesn't everyone realize that a banning by facebook, twitter, youtube is a badge of honor? Instant credibility and a new conspiracy theory is born.

          It is a false concept that ignoring or banning ideas that are not endorsed by established science is a public service. On the contrary - it gives birth to even more bizarre theories.

          In the above case I would start a thread in this forum...."Walnuts - an effective treatment for COVID-19?" Then we can honestly debate this idea. When we do this we always find the truth. We analyze the backgrounds of supporters of proposed therapies. We look for other supportive research. We debate the merits. We post the reactions of opposing scientists/researchers.

          This is very valuable work and the only way to reach many segments of our populations who no longer trust "the powers that be".

          If you really want to knock down "conspiracy" theories that have gained wide distribution, the best venue for that is here.



          *(Eating walnuts is NOT a treatment for COVID-19. If you are sick consult a medical professional.)

          Comment


          • Emily
            Emily commented
            Editing a comment
            "This idea will automatically get traction. Doesn't everyone realize that a banning by facebook, twitter, youtube is a badge of honor? Instant credibility and a new conspiracy theory is born."

            It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the intelligence of those doing the censorship, but if they are trying to suppress a valid point or question, it is a good thing if the idea gets traction.

          • sharon sanders
            sharon sanders commented
            Editing a comment
            I think the attempts by twitter, facebook, youtube, main stream media, etc. to control information only serves to exponentially spread the very ideas that they are trying to censor. It is an effort that always backfires for them.

        • #10
          When will the vitamin D dossier in the USA be presented?

          This sheet :
          https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vi...hProfessional/

          is worthy or not?

          Comment


          • #11
            Reposted from the thread "Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning...."
            https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...cloning/page24
            ...
            As Petrovsky considered whether SARS-CoV-2 may have emerged in lab cultures with human cells, or cells engineered to express the human ACE2 protein, a letter penned by 27 scientists appeared suddenly on Feb. 19 in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The authors insisted that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin, and they condemned any alternate hypotheses as conspiracy theories that create only ?fear, rumors, and prejudice.?

            Petrovksy says he found the letter infuriating. Conspiracy theorists is ?the last thing we were, and it looked to be pointing at people like us,? he says.
            ...
            But in late April 2020, as Petrovsky?s group was thinking about where to publish their work, ?Trump blurted out? that he had reason to believe that the virus came out of a Chinese lab, Petrovsky says. And at that point, he adds, much of ?the left-wing media decided they were going to paint the whole lab thing as a conspiracy theory to bring down Trump.? When Petrovsky approached administrators of the preprint server bioRxiv, the paper was refused. BioRxiv staff replied that it would be more appropriately distributed after peer review, ?which stunned us,? Petrovksy says. ?We thought the whole point of preprint was to get important information out quickly.?

            The paper was subsequently posted on a different preprint server called arXiv.org, based out of Cornell University.
            ...
            Petrovsky describes himself as politically neutral, and according to sources, he is highly regarded in the vaccine world. Maria Elena Bottazzi, a microbiologist at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, says Petrovsky doesn?t make scientific claims that aren?t fully supported by evidence. And yet, simply following the science, Petrovsky suggests, had become too politically fraught. ?We were dealing with global forces,? he says, ?that are way more powerful than a scientist trying to tell a science-based story.?
            ...
            BY LATE SPRING of 2020, scientists in the natural origins camp had taken the upper hand in shaping opinions. Only a few researchers have looked deeply into SARS-CoV-2?s origins, and according to the Broad Institute?s Chan, the vast majority of those who did not investigate the question simply accepted what they perceived to be the prevailing view.
            ...
            In Australia, Petrovksy says he is trying to stay above the fray. He says he was warned to avoid speaking publicly about his modeling findings. ?A lot of people advised us ?even if it?s good science, don?t talk about it. It will have a negative impact on your vaccine development. You will get attacked; they will try to discredit you.??
            ...
            ?If we are at the point where all science is politicized and no one cares about truth and only being politically correct,? he says, ?we may as well give up and shut down and stop doing science.?

            https://undark.org/2021/03/17/lab-le...t-in-politics/
            "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
            -Nelson Mandela

            Comment


            • #12

              Op-Ed: We Should All Care About Censorship in Science
              ? Let people say the wrong things sometimes


              by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH November 30, 2020

              Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled "fake news" by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship.
              ...
              Censorship doesn't fix the problems in science, but rather introduces new problems of its own.
              ...
              We must be honest about retracting, deleting, censoring, and labeling articles as "false" -- this is not happening at random or even to the most egregious offenders. In the era of social media, there is a new dynamic.
              ...
              The folks hired by social media platforms to handle adjudication are no doubt smart, well-intentioned people, but they are placed in an impossible situation as both employee of the platform and judge of the science. The temptation to simply side with the angry and vocal majority is likely too great.
              ...
              I feel obliged to point out the slippery slope of our current science practice. Today, censorship of ideas is largely around issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic or papers that touch on social issues, but that is unlikely to be the case in the future. Attention could easily shift to less common topics.

              In the future, the risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies.

              On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company. On a topic like devices, doctors bullish about a new device may far outnumber those with concerns.

              We run the serious risk that one corporation will persuade another corporation to silence dissenting opinions. Given the breadth and reach of these platforms, the resulting effect could be devastating.
              ...
              We may have forgotten the reason we permit scientists to take gambles and say things that may in fact be considered wrong or stupid or harmful by the majority of their peers.

              We do so not because most of these ideas are right, but because some tiny fraction of them might be.
              ...
              Only dialog and argument can move us closer to the truth. Appealing to corporations to strike down speech and expunge all trace of it is a tactic of autocrats and tyrants and not scientists. We can choose to ignore, to rebut, to discuss, and to retract, rarely, when the grounds have been met, and only after a formal due process ensuring justice and fairness.

              We should all care about censorship because of where we might be headed.

              https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89932
              "Safety and security don't just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear."
              -Nelson Mandela

              Comment


              • #13
                In France, the situation is improving, and this is due to what: the obligation to deprogram interventions?

                The haccp method is used in the food industry, it makes it possible to point out the points and places of interventions.

                For me, the closures of medical places at the start of the crisis would be a real plus. And this is demonstrable, already because it is the historical situation for all colds and gastro. I'm doing this text, following this:

                Covid-19: French people infected long before the first official cases testify for the first time

                https://www.les-crises.fr/covid-19-d...premiere-fois/

                https://presse.inserm.fr/le-sars-cov...re-2019/42169/

                - Given the rules for the movement of humans, a virus may have circulated from China, to France, without it awakening anyone

                - Considering the capacities of the French doctors, one can have 176 suspected cases and 13 confirmed cases, without having seen anything. Considering what some people have to say about China, it would be good to look at the French system. By the way, as the details are accessible, these are not cases that only consulted local doctors ...


                choices and values ??of the stress measurements implemented:

                although we know that this disease is a nosocomial disease, we never discuss the possibility of closing medical units. However, it is in the food industry the first rule: to dry up production at the source ... I do not remember that we want to eradicate human listerias, etc.

                - basic medicine: when we see the layout of a German and French medical practice at the start of the crisis, there are things to say. The worst part is that we got used to it. It's the same thing every year:

                is it necessary in an epidemic phase to force an old woman to go to a waiting room for the renewal of her prescriptions?


                - hospital structure: the non-publication of figures and information on cases of hospital nosocomial disease is a disgrace in France. There, things are better, it seems, it is strange because this can be the consequence of the obligation to postpone hospital interventions. This is presented to the French as a drop in luck, but is it really the case? for example, what happened in the gastroenterology departments, throughout the crisis, it is a disease of the lungs, but it is found in the stool, so what about in these departments?

                it would have saved how many lives at the start of a crisis to postpone all non-vital interventions for three months, to wash, train and implement the quality approach which has never been implemented in a hospital environment.


                Now that the doxa is vaccines, is it strange the silence on the nosocomial disease file, with staff who are partly vaccinated and therefore potentially almost all potential healthy carriers?



                In animals we can produce production animals with strong genetics and germ free. . Knowing their method learns a bit about what should be done, for humans, ..

                Comment


              • #14
                First, I agree with Sharon, that the best way to expose thoughts and ideologies that are not scientific is to air them out, in open conversation, such as Flutrackers. Thanks for having this discussion.
                Second, there are another group of people who wish to create a commission to explore the trajectory of the covid19 pandemic, similar to the 9/11 Commission, exploring what errors of omission or commission may have contributed to the magnitude of the disaster.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #15
                  I haven't read anything about the experience feedback process from the Wuhan military games. I was hoping to read about it before the Olympics meet in Japan.

                  There are security protocols accepted by both sides, already for staff who in the context of sports monitoring have regular samples, therefore accessible ...
                  In the context of a sports competition, it is not secret defense or?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X