RealMarkDeneen
-
Posts
457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by RealMarkDeneen
-
-
YEARS have now passed since the beginning of the pandemic and it appears that many people haven't performed a post-pandemic review to discover all that went wrong, all that could have been prevented, and all the absolutely unnecessary deaths that resulted from the errors, the corruption, the propaganda, and the denial of human rights.
For those still stuck in mid-2020 that entire worldview promoted by the government and the mass media has been proven to be FALSE. There is plenty of emerging data and evidence now that is readily available to those who are stuck in June 2020.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tom05 said:
Ivermectin was never an FDA approved treatment for Covid 19 , therefore it would not be considered an existing treatment. The use of Ivermectin lacked scientific evidence of being a beneficial treatment for Covid 19 as was hydroxychloraquine .So yes you are correct , thousands of ill informed patients died unnecessarily taking drugs that were ineffective ,whilst effective vaccines sat on shelves . Conspiracy theories and misinformation should not be tolerated during times of grave public health concern, but because of free speech that this great nation affords its people, much latitude was given to dangerous propaganda.
FDA regulates the testing and sale of drugs and devices, approving them to be marketed for specific conditions or “indications” specified on the label, but the agency does not control how doctors use a drug once it is on the market.
Doctors are free to prescribe any legitimate approved medication in the process known as "off label" use. In the case of Covid-19, doctors found Ivermectin to be extremely beneficial for early treatment of Covid-19, and they began collecting and distributing this information to other doctors.
QUOTE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375047/
Furthermore, my posts were referring to the period in 2020 well before any vaccine had received EUA. In other words, the while NIH, CDC were waiting for a vaccine to get EUA, people were dying for lack of any viable therapies. As doctors are won't to do, they screened all the available on the shelf meds for treatments that would provide some benefit in this period. It turned out Ivermectin + steroids was one of the useful therapies.
Interested parties can learn more here: https://www.amazon.com/War-Ivermectin-Medicine-Millions-Pandemic/dp/151077386X
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:
4.9 billion views:
4,900,000,001 views.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:
No. What I called misinformation was conspiracy theories and faulty medical advice outside of what Government Pandemic experts were saying. Did some things get wrongly censored? Sure, but alot more crap was scrubbed which I did see coming across my Facebook screen and mirrored on the Klipsch Forum. THAT is why it became a forbidden subject here.
But in fact, the censorship I refer to regards the early treatment protocols developed by specialists in viral disease such as Peter McCullough and Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, and so many others worldwide. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "conspiracy theories on Facebook."
For the FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authorization" for a new drug, there can NOT BE an existing treatment for the disease in question. Since all focus was on a EUA for a new vaccine, it became imperative to shut down any and all currently available treatments for COVID-19. That included Ivermectin at the top of the list. Thus, all mention in any media - including medical journals - were censored, and doctors promoting it were censured, fired, blacklisted, and canceled from the medical establishment.
And, another area of massive censorship leading to more unnecessary deaths was The Great Barrington Declaration.
It's a gross error in scale to equate the censorship of these life-and-death issues - which caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths - with silly junk on Facebook feeds.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Bubo said:
Private businesses are consumer oriented.
Well, not really. Unless by "oriented," you mean that they understand their revenue will be extracted from consumers. What all private enterprise is "oriented toward" is making a profit. In the business of "educating children," the goal is to get kids to pass government-constructed "standard tests" as profitably as possible. That's a far different goal than "providing the most useful and productive education to children." Most of what is referred to as 'education' is just indoctrination to the desired kind of citizenship the system thrives on. That has nothing to do with properly educating a human being.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
Otoh, Covid-19 hit us stealthily and needed immediate Government response because our Emergency Rooms were projected (and did) get overrun by a contagious virus. No room for all the misinformation being spread on Social Media and elsewhere.
What you call "misinformation" was actually "life-saving information." And, by censoring it and, even worse, taking administrative action to prevent its application, tens of thousands of Americans died needlessly on hospital respirators.
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:
It is kind of interesting because YT and other social media can be useful for cult leaders to convince people to drink Kool Aid.
There are myriad claims out there, like horse deworming medicine curing cancer, etc. I haven't checked, but it wouldn't surprise me to find advocates for drinking Mercury.
Should large companies be required to host such people?
And are cult leaders any different than government officials? Why should the population be limited to only listening to one kind of cult leader?
"Domino effect""WMD"
" Vaccines are safe "
Aren't those as dangerous as any other cultish claims?
Big companies don't have to host conversations---They choose to do it to make money. once they make that choice they have an obligation to serve the public fairly. If Facebook doesn't want to publish the public thoughts they should close down and go into another field. In spite of their absurd claims to the contrary they have agreed to be a "public square."
Again, if one assumes information is dangerous per se, the word becomes a singular religion.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, babadono said:
o offense to anyone here but......what exactly is MISINFORMATION
It is literally " information that is not consistent with government narratives."
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:
These points are long outdated, and I don't think people really care that much anymore.
Are they? Only two weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit just unanimously affirmed (Louisiana) Judge Doughty’s injunction against the White House, CDC, FBI, and others. Just ten days ago, the FDA issued yet another EUA for yet another jab when there was no "declared emergency."
There's still a lot more to lose on the table.
-
Despite its censorship shortcomings, YT is a decent source of health, wellness and medical viewpoints. It's also chock full of instructables on many arcane subjects. Considering the price of it, that's a good bit of utility still available. I also enjoy several YT musicians like this:
-
7 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
I'm still wondering how much MISINFORMATION and indoctrination into other endeavors that could be dangerous and not beneficial to society
I'm a lot more worried about humans than I am about societies. Crucial to human potential is the free pursuit of a meaningful life, which happens during the open discovery process, which is the antithesis of society. Society seeks the opposite of open discovery (aka freedom) by expressly imposing limits on the free distribution of **cough, cough** "information."
The exciting possibilities of YouTube in the early days was that it had no editor, publisher, fact-checker, or censor beyond certain prudish limits on, say, nudity or gore. It was chock full of ALL the logical vectors of information from which the user could review, accept, or reject at his/her own will. It was full of imagination. STOP THE PRESSES! That is "too dangerous" for our social construct of carefully groomed "citizens." And so the heavy hand comes down harder and harder with each passing year and with each and every "scare complaint" delivered by politicians, spies, generals, bureaucrats, and overseers of the society.
When YT went live in 2005, one of the liveliest arenas was the 3-ring circus around 9/11. The richness of the discourse grew rapidly, and soon, the 2008 FinCrisis joined the party and once more the depth and breadth of information available to armchair analysts was 10,000X greater than the pre-packaged, heavily redacted, heavily edited content in the NYT or on CNBC. But the hammer started coming down hard at that point. Humans were acquiring far too much knowledge about activities behind the curtains. And by today, anything even remotely dangerous to the workings of the system are just disappeared into the bit bucket with no explanation. What remains is called "entertainment" which we are always encouraged to indulge in to great excess.
-
3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
This was a wake up call for social media if they didn't want Government involved and so far they really aren't except for giving warning shots. That's my take.
The government was heavily involved and that's my complaint. See this ruling from Louisiana.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/75e9f7a3-da4e-45af-8430-6eeba37eaf9f.pdf
The government interference was abominable and pernicious as well documented in those 155 pages. It was a dystopian nightmare come true.
Doctors posting useful, lifesaving info on you tube were throttled, de-platformed by bureaucrats. -
Since 2016 government and social media companies have worked together seemlessly to censor content deemed troublesome to their agenda. Short of a complete legal overhaul of the 1996 Communications Act and establishment of authentic free speech protections focused on citizens in place of political whims, I'm not optimistic for the future benefits of the Internet.
If the Internet turns into just another government bullhorn, like the NYT, WaPo, NPR, and network TV, it's value will drift to zero and all promise will have been lost. In fact, maybe (probably) it has already happened.
I think there was a psyop waged in which the populace was taught that information was itself "dangerous"--like bombs-- and that they should rely on government to protect them from that danger. Hence, all that ballyhoo about "disinformation" and "misinformation" and "fact checking Authority."-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JJkizak said:
I totally and emphatically disagree with your statements. You are totally biased in one direction.
JJK
Well, yes. I'm naturally biased in the direction that I believe is most beneficial to society while recognizing that others will believe in other positions.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Here's a very dangerous to public health decision by Google regarding you tube.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
I don't know but I'm glad to see liable charges being brought (and won) against media sources spreading provable lies, as well as, those who served in government being letigated as well.
There's no standard methodology for determining truths from untruths outside of age-old courtroom evidence procedures, which have limited usefulness in politics. So-called "fact-checking" institutions are nothing more than political action committees pursuing conformance to preferred Establishment political narratives of the day.
It should be obvious enough that in the "information age" ALL governments will seek complete control over communications strategies and systems. Otherwise, they would obviously lose control and power, and that violates the prime objective. Governments have no interest in determining truths from untruths. Their only interest is propagating their version of truths in order to maintain a national narrative.
-
21 hours ago, oldtimer said:
Agreed but the line blurs when delineating between official and "unofficial." Only true (official) state censorship is guaranteed to be protected against by the constitution. Nothing good follows censorship, yet corporations and businesses as private entities have been granted unlimited censorship regarding its employees and their conditions of employment. Concurrently, the same private entities are also allowed to censor anything that is attached to their property (see Klipsch Forum and moderation policy). But you have experience with that as I recall.
I'm only worried about "official" state censorship. A good example would be this: An important medication is discovered to treat a dangerous medical condition, but when the doctor attempts to publish these findings, the state mechanisms - regulatory bodies, bureaucrats, intelligence agents - demand through backdoor channels that private companies block the publication or discussion of this information in order to achieve an agenda hidden from the public's scrutiny.
-
1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:
I guess my position is I saw what basically pre/non-censorship brought us and I'm happier with the alternative...Once you think we've reached balance AI comes along. Oh, well. Watched about 3 hours of YouTube already today. 😎
I'm hopeful that the courts will put the brakes on most of the official and unofficial state censorship activities. The First Amendment was "first" for good reason. Nothing good follows censorship.
-
3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
What are they being censored for?
Pretty much anything and everyone that challenges, contradicts, rebutts, or debunks the ongoing social-control narrative for western civilization.
Now that the same 'screen' can be seen by all eight billion people, consolidation to a single narrative was inevitable.
-
3
-
-
On 9/12/2023 at 10:09 AM, Jeff Matthews said:
What's with the Real(name)? Makes me wonder if next, we'll start seeing the RealReal(name).
Just a whim when I resigned up last year. As if..."that old guy is gone....here's the new REAL one." Perhaps just a joke to myself.
-
17 minutes ago, JJkizak said:
You Tube is making Google fabulously wealthy. I still can't believe the powers that be let that purchase go through.
JJK
Since about 1992 "global corporate consolidation" - has been the universally accepted economic engine in all western countries AFAICS.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:
I agree. No streaming service or cable here either and we don't pay for YouTube. Otoh, that means we're the product! 😮 So far I'm good with it but I do wonder...
I think we're always the product.........🤢 But that's just modern life.
I think of YT as "world television." I am nonetheless concerned about their censorship policies and actions.
-
3
-
-
I think of YouTube as the best kind of TV. Considering how crappy streaming services are, and how useless cable TV is, it's the only decent alternative. But no, I won't pay for it!
-
1
-
-
On 8/25/2023 at 8:18 AM, Southern said:
I'm still enjoying my 70's vintage Pioneer receivers.
I feel that the newer receivers didn't account for heat dissipation at the higher volumes. Maybe due to the accountants having leverage?
I just acquired a mint SX-780 for my office mini-system. Partly because I have never owned a receiver, and partly because the Pioneer stuff of that era is beautiful audio jewelry from an age that I really love. At the time I was digging Dynaco tube amps and PAS preamps and that sort of stuff and poo-pooed anyone buying a stinking reciever. Such a snob was I.
I also bought a SA-9100 integrated and I am doing a full restore on it. Here's my epiphany about Pioneer gear of that era: Damn, it was well made, and I think very robust. The sound is just typical of SS gear of the time, and with my Klipsch RPM bookshelfs 1Watt is about all I ever use - - maybe 2 on a Sunday afternoon. I love the knobs, and the tuner works as well as any for my area with 3 FM stations.
It's a bit like owning a '70 Imperial. (Which I would also do If I had a three car garage).
-
3
-
How much YouTube do you watch?
in Lounge
Posted
Interesting. In the last 6 months, I have eliminated several prescription drugs. That, combined with radically overhauling my diet, resulted in my overall health improving markedly. I will not be taking more vaccines now that I have taken a deep dive into the sloppy science and corrupt politics driving this industry. (Ref: Try "Turtles All The Way Down" as a primer: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B6S1ZNLC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Any arguments around the history of the pandemic and its outcomes will necessarily "net" down to simple "personal beliefs" because the crucial informational evidence: actions, results, meetings, data, memos, and discussions by those involved are being sequestered by the use of standard government secrecy practices such as redaction of nearly every scrap of evidence one could ask for in a FOIA request, and the participants aren't about to publically investigate their own actions. It is just another failure stalemate for the public.
The Pandemic now falls into the same black hole occupied by every other colossal failure and ensuing coverup. There will be no day of justice, no reckoning, no repercussions. All the players get to retire with their pensions, Golden Parachutes, and reputations intact. Just a lot of dead people - as usual.
It won't be long until the next challenge strikes, and the whole game starts all over again.