Jump to content

Corona Virus Disease/(SARS-CoV-2) II


CECAA850

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, tube fanatic said:

To me, the problem is that we are considered too stupid to read various opinions and draw a conclusion which best suits our needs.  I certainly don’t need someone like Zuckerberg or CNN to tell me what I need to believe.

Fwiw, I think the problem is instead of listening to the top scientists some people search out opinions to bolster their own view regardless how fringe it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Fwiw, I think the problem is instead of listening to the top scientists some people search out opinions to bolster their own view regardless how fringe it is. 

Who gets to decide who the "top scientists" are and what criteria are used?

 

Asking for a friend.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

 

 

To me, the problem is that we are considered too stupid to read various opinions and draw a conclusion which best suits our needs.  I certainly don’t need someone like Zuckerberg or CNN to tell me what I need to believe.

 

Maynard


But millions of FB’ers and Tweeters Do rely on those formats for all their news and opinions. And because those formats are protected they dictate what “news” is allowed to be spewed to those drinking their Kool-Aid. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Fwiw, I think the problem is instead of listening to the top scientists some people search out opinions to bolster their own view regardless how fringe it is. 


But you did not answer my question about why McCullough’s recommendation is not acceptable to the mainstream “experts.”  I understand your apparent belief in agencies you have often referred to.  They are not, in my opinion, so trustworthy.  
 

A parallel which is valid is someone posting a question about a Klipsch product.  They usually receive many opinions, some based on the technical knowledge of the respondent, and some which are mere opinion.  It is up to them to sort things out.  Medicine is no different.  A person needs to read differing points of view and draw their own conclusion.  If Klipsch censored anything with which they disagree, the forum would serve no purpose.

 

Maynard
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

But you did not answer my question about why McCullough’s recommendation is not acceptable to the mainstream “experts.”  I understand your apparent belief in agencies you have often referred to.  They are not, in my opinion, so trustworthy

Wait! You haven't been answering my questions:

22 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

My next door neighbor was given a disclosure on her way out of the vaccination site.  

 

Interestingly, she is one of four folks I know who would not consider the vaccine but suddenly decided to do it while relaxing watching TV.  It makes me wonder if subliminal messaging is being employed as was used in movie theaters to create an urge for popcorn, etc.  

 

It is common knowledge among those I know that mainstream news outlets are heavily promoting the “accepted” agenda and ridiculing anyone who presents a different point of view.

 

Maynard

 

21 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Interesting take...Do you see everyone who changes their mind and suddenly decides to take the vaccine in the same light? What about those of us who chose to get vaccinated?

 

 

17 hours ago, tube fanatic said:


I have no interest in the web site or its position.  Rather, I want to know more about this doctor, who is apparently highly respected, and why his beliefs were not given due consideration.

 

Maynard

 

17 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Evidently tube fanatic...

Yet you posted a link from there.

Why? How do you know he wasn't  given due consideration? 

 

 

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

 A person needs to read differing points of view and draw their own conclusion. 

Of course and I assure you I do that. Otoh, not all sources deserve equal weight ESPECIALLY now when so many have been debunked by the people who have dealt with pandemics before. Masks work in containing the spread and the Covid-19 vaccines work!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sam S. said:

Who gets to decide who the "top scientists" are and what criteria are used?

 

Asking for a friend.

The WHO and CDC historically have had the top pandemic scientists.

1 hour ago, richieb said:


But millions of FB’ers and Tweeters Do rely on those formats for all their news and opinions.

That's EXACTLY where historically misinformation was spread and NOT mainstream media. 

1 hour ago, richieb said:

And because those formats are protected they dictate what “news” is allowed to be spewed to those drinking their Kool-Aid. 

Fwiw, I think those social media companies need to be responsible for their content just like actual media sources are. Again, misinformation being spread on those platforms have been detrimental to the pandemic effort.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

the forum would serve no purpose

Can of worms, and yummy...mmmmmmm worms.  Really, you think there has been no censorship?

 

As a corporate entity, they are allowed their censorship.  Oh boy, think on that one!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

The WHO and CDC historically have had the top pandemic scientists.

Yet the CDC echoed the teacher union sentiments when giving advice instead of following data their own scientists gave them.  They lost a lot of credibility.  The WHO has to pass everything past China prior to making public statements.  Talk about misinformation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

Yet the CDC echoed the teacher union sentiments when giving advice instead of following data their own scientists gave them.  They lost a lot of credibility.  The WHO has to pass everything past China prior to making public statements.  Talk about misinformation. 

I was going to respond but realized it was a trap. ;) 

On 4/24/2021 at 10:58 AM, CECAA850 said:

Your last pm with me turned political just like your posts here do.  No thanks.  I have no desire to debate politics with you or anyone else.  I've told you that on more than one occasion.

If you don't want to discuss politics I suggest you not bringing up things that are political. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I was going to respond but realized it was a trap. ;) 

If you don't want to discuss politics I suggest you not bringing up things that are political. 

I'm not discussing red vs blue which is the trap you normally set.  I'm just saying that it doesn't matter how good your "experts" are, if their message doesn't get disseminated to the general public it's worthless.

 

EDIT @dwilawyer please review my comments for appropriateness.   Edit if necessary and let stand if not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CECAA850 said:

if their message doesn't get disseminated to the general public it's worthless.

Again, because of what you've expressed before and the forum's  TOS I won't follow you down this rabbit hole but will agree to the above statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question was whether or not a wide range of differing expert or qualified opinions can contribute to the topics debatable around COVID (thinking broadly about this). Your response clarified that to mean only "top scientists" should be listened to and then you clarified that further (narrowly) to the CDC and WHO. It seems appropriate to include others with research and experience in virology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, evolutionary biology...should if they choose have a voice and as the original poster suggested, and participate in an honest debate about issues. We have nowhere near that. We have a handful of individuals who have constructed a series of narratives and anyone who disagrees or even questions that narrative is attacked and labeled as a nutjob. This further obscures the issues, contributes to vaccine skepticism, and distrust among the general population.

 

As for the WHO, this is part of it as the narrative pushed is that the lab leak hypothesis (I'm talking about lab leak, not a lab created then purposefully released) can't possibly be true. Many scientists have said that while they don't have direct evidence, they believe that a lab leak could explain a great deal about this virus. It should be noted that there is also no direct evidence of other narratives being pushed (e.g. wet markets, pangolins). There are many reasons for the lab leak theory. The most recent credibility issue with the WHO is that when they investigated these sorts of things, they weren't allowed to investigate anything on their own, but rather got information directly from the Chinese government, which concluded that it wasn't a lab leak (nothing to see here, folks). The WHO said "good enough", and didn't question it. There's good reason for them to lie or mislead about this (gov't). See NPR generally. The truth is at this time, we don't really know the origin. Finally, many certainly have an economic interest in the lab leak hypothesis to not be true. Those who've financially relied on gain of function research for grant and other funding. Evidence of a lab leak would certainly call that into question (because we sure as hell don't want this to ever happen again), and many that are vocal against any possibility of a lab leak stand to suffer financially if gain of function research is called into question. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sam S. said:

the original question was whether or not a wide range of differing expert or qualified opinions can contribute to the topics debatable around COVID (thinking broadly about this). Your response clarified that to mean only "top scientists" should be listened to and then you clarified that further (narrowly) to the CDC and WHO.

Those are the top scientist who have historically dealt with global pandemics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia

 

Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and worldwide.[4] The CDC focuses national attention on developing and applying disease control and prevention. It especially focuses its attention on infectious disease, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and educational activities designed to improve the health of United States citizens.

 

World Health Organization - Wikipedia

The WHO's broad mandate includes advocating for universal healthcare, monitoring public health risks, coordinating responses to health emergencies, and promoting human health and well being.[7] It provides technical assistance to countries, sets international health standards and guidelines, and collects data on global health issues through the World Health Survey. Its flagship publication, the World Health Report, provides expert assessments of global health topics and health statistics on all nations.[8] The WHO also serves as a forum for summits and discussions on health issues.[1]

 

Quote

 

It seems appropriate to include others with research and experience in virology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, evolutionary biology...should if they choose have a voice and as the original poster suggested, and participate in an honest debate about issues.

Sure. I bolded the last line above because it has happened with Covid-19 while I and others have posted links to those discussions and research.

Quote

 

We have nowhere near that. We have a handful of individuals who have constructed a series of narratives and anyone who disagrees or even questions that narrative is attacked and labeled as a nutjob. This further obscures the issues, contributes to vaccine skepticism, and distrust among the general population.

Fwiw, I think you are putting the emphasis in the wrong place--There have been some "nutjob" opinions and those are what leads to "skepticism and distrust among the general population." Of course those aren't found in mainstream media (unless newsworthy because a politician or elected official is making those comments)  but circulate on social media which have lead to scrutiny to how those companies operate...Fwiw, I think they should be responsible for what circulates on their platforms. Right now they are trying to police themselves and if that doesn't work government will be lobbied to get involved. That's my take.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sam S. said:

As for the WHO, this is part of it as the narrative pushed is that the lab leak hypothesis (I'm talking about lab leak, not a lab created then purposefully released) can't possibly be true. Many scientists have said that while they don't have direct evidence, they believe that a lab leak could explain a great deal about this virus. It should be noted that there is also no direct evidence of other narratives being pushed (e.g. wet markets, pangolins). There are many reasons for the lab leak theory. The most recent credibility issue with the WHO is that when they investigated these sorts of things, they weren't allowed to investigate anything on their own, but rather got information directly from the Chinese government, which concluded that it wasn't a lab leak (nothing to see here, folks). The WHO said "good enough", and didn't question it. There's good reason for them to lie or mislead about this (gov't). See NPR generally. The truth is at this time, we don't really now the origin. Finally, many certainly have an economic interest in the lab leak hypothesis to not be true. Those who've financially relied on gain of function research for grant and other funding. Evidence of a lab leak would certainly call that into question (because we sure as hell don't want this to ever happen again), and many that are vocal against any possibility of a lab leak stand to suffer financially if gain of function research is called into question. 

Btw, I purposefully didn't respond to the above because we were warned not to go there...Fwiw, I do blame China's initial response but don't think the WHO is covering up anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Those are the top scientist who have historically dealt with global pandemics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia

 

Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and worldwide.[4] The CDC focuses national attention on developing and applying disease control and prevention. It especially focuses its attention on infectious disease, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and educational activities designed to improve the health of United States citizens.

 

World Health Organization - Wikipedia

The WHO's broad mandate includes advocating for universal healthcare, monitoring public health risks, coordinating responses to health emergencies, and promoting human health and well being.[7] It provides technical assistance to countries, sets international health standards and guidelines, and collects data on global health issues through the World Health Survey. Its flagship publication, the World Health Report, provides expert assessments of global health topics and health statistics on all nations.[8] The WHO also serves as a forum for summits and discussions on health issues.[1]


Everyone knows what they're SUPPOSED to do.  I personally have little faith in either organizations for reasons I'll keep to myself.  How's that?  LOL.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:


Everyone knows what they're SUPPOSED to do.  I personally have little faith in either organizations for reasons I'll keep to myself.  How's that?  LOL.

Okay by me...On that note:

On 3/10/2020 at 3:56 PM, CECAA850 said:

I haven't read anything yet that makes me think this is worse or more deadly than the common flu... 

Who were you paying attention to when you made the above comment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Okay by me...On that note:

Who were you paying attention to when you made the above comment? 

Yes as that comment was made over a year ago.  Glad to see you're still obsessing over my ancient posts.  I've never had a stalker before, I feel honored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...