Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
Moved to censorship report list.
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...uring-pandemic
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...uring-pandemic
Last edited:
-
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website. -
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Discussion about pandemic censorship
- Thread starter Emily
- Start date
Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
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.
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.
sharon sanders
Editor-in-Chief & President
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.
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.
bertrand789
Well-known member
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?
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
Editor-in-Chief & President
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
Well-known member
@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 ...
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 ...
tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
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.
I did not know the content of the paper they thought was rushed through peer review but it does not bother me that it was quickly dealt with as PCR is the gold standard and has such a sound basis as THE method of RNA detection and analysis it is no surprise it got rubber stamped in short order. Given the weight of evidence behind it I have no idea what Wolf and Goddek could have a problem with. Most papers need a lot of clarification, especially in the methods, leading to requests for more experiments none of which would be needed if all you are doing is saying this method also works with SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
sharon sanders
Editor-in-Chief & President
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
Editor, Senior Moderator
The questioned article should be this: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
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.
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?
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?
Mary Wilson
Well-known member
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/article/most-people-dont-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/article/most-people-dont-actively-seek-to-share-fake-news/
Mary Wilson
Well-known member
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 media[SUP]1,2,3,4[/SUP]. Academics and practitioners alike have asked why people share such misinformation, and sought solutions to reduce the sharing of misinformation[SUP]5,6,7[/SUP]. 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 accuracy[SUP]8,9[/SUP], 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
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 media[SUP]1,2,3,4[/SUP]. Academics and practitioners alike have asked why people share such misinformation, and sought solutions to reduce the sharing of misinformation[SUP]5,6,7[/SUP]. 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 accuracy[SUP]8,9[/SUP], 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
Emily are the two mutually exclusive if a 'scientist' is promoting a conspiracy theory? In this case it seems a scientist , albeit from an unrelated field, thinks there is a conspiracy between the peer reviewers and journal to fast track a paper without adequate peer review. His evidence being it passed peer review far more quickly than normal. There have been a lot of articles, youtube videos and op-eds by scientists from totally unrelated fields making pronouncements in the fields of epidemiology, virology and therapeutics most of which do little more than dilute the science based advice from those who actually understand what they are talking about. Most of the public lack the knowledge to differentiate between the two.
I am all for FT posting them, as long as it is with an explanation of why they should not be taken seriously, otherwise we are just giving them credence with readers who come here assuming we are safe place to get sound guidance - which is what we have been through previous public health events.
I am all for FT posting them, as long as it is with an explanation of why they should not be taken seriously, otherwise we are just giving them credence with readers who come here assuming we are safe place to get sound guidance - which is what we have been through previous public health events.
Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
?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/instit...-Mathematical-and-Statistical-Methods/members
Last time I checked, universities have math courses and statistics courses that translate across all scientific areas. I think he can count.
Goddek is in this department:
https://www.researchgate.net/instit...-Mathematical-and-Statistical-Methods/members
Last time I checked, universities have math courses and statistics courses that translate across all scientific areas. I think he can count.
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: