[Mark Singletary]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It doesn't work, for the same reason your flu shot doesn't kill your parasitic worm infestation.

In the article you linked to, did you notice all the other drugs that the immigrants were given? Why? Why not just give them Ivermectin to get rid of every possible illness, disease, virus, and infection?

These other drugs are given, because Ivermectin is very effective at killing parasitic worms, anywhere in the body. But that's it. it doesn't kill the flu, or Mumps, or polio, or hay fever, or allergies, or any viral infection. It kills worms.

Covid is a virus. It is not a worm.

I understand what you are saying. But there must be something to this or they wouldn't be running trials on it dealing with COVID. I mean if there was absolutely no way it would ever work under any circumstance, they wouldn't be testing it (unless to shut people up).

The reason they are running a bigger trial, is that a small trial https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/ did show antiviral qualities.

I'm not arguing either way. We'll see how it all turns out. Hopefully I'll be able to get my second jab soon and I won't need to worry about it (med supplies still slow here).

The danger is twofold;

1) That people think this will kill a virus, and it will not.
2) People are taking way too much, which leads to the same symptoms someone would have if they took any drug in large quantities.

People are desperate for some answer and a return to normal. I think it's interesting how some are 100% against an "unproven, experimental" vaccine but they will take drugs like this which are unproven and experimental. Here's your sign!

Mark

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Kay King

...we have far more 'cases' now but the death rate has not increased at the same rate. Either we have better treatment or that breakthrough cases are not killing people who are vaccinated.

Possibly an indicator is that old people are vaccinated at a much higher rate than others. (I think it's about 91% in the US of people over 65) So there are going to be a lowering of fatalities, relative to the number of cases. And the new cases (with the Delta variant) are skewing younger....and healthier.

And of course, the breakthrough cases aren't killing many people at all. Whether you already had Covid, or got the vaccine.

That's actually all just an educated guess as to the reasons that the percentage of deaths to cases is lower.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

I understand what you are saying. But there must be something to this or they wouldn't be running trials on it dealing with COVID. I mean if there was absolutely no way it would ever work under any circumstance, they wouldn't be testing it (unless to shut people up).

I get it, but there is a bigger picture. There are lab tests on hundreds and hundreds of possible drugs that show any possibility of affecting a virus.

There have been clinical trials on many other drugs involving hundreds of patients with Covid.

Ivermectin has shown to be able to affect cell walls in parasites (that's how it kills parasites). The trials are to see if it will act the same on a cell wall that hosts the virus.

So when we see that trials are testing a drug, that just means that it's possible that there may be some effect, and it's being tested...not that they think it will work.

There have also been trials with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Azithromycin kills bacterial infections in the lungs, so there was a connection. But both of these drugs were tested against Covid in clinical trials with no effect.

A page one Google search will show up any real clinical trials of any of these drugs.

The Ivermectin study you posted was a test of 72 patients in Malaysia. And they were each given a spectrum of drugs, including Ivermectin. I wouldn't use that as a study showed just the effects of Ivermectin. And 72 people isn't statistically enough to get a clear result.

It may sound like I'm arguing, but I'm doing this "research" as I type here. I'm finding these things out right now. I just have to steer clear of the websites that host articles by individuals, and stick to the government sites. (or major medical hospital sites.)

[DWolfe]

Originally Posted by kenmichaels

I've been driving all over north jersey and a little bit into NY doing sales for the last couple of months and it's crazy how different people in Jersey treat covid vs FL. In NY/NJ I see lots of masks and people staying back from each other. In FL, even now when everyone I know is sick, it's as if there is no corvid.

I will verify that is very true. NJ as of yesterday (Sept 3) has 61.9 % have been fully vaccinated. over 5.4 million people. 70.3 % had their fist does total number is over 6.2 million. On one of the reddit news sites. NJ is about to roll out a mobile booster program for the elderly.

That is also true in the center part of the state. Big thing I noticed the past two weeks, is more & more people are wearing masks again in the stores. I don't know if has to do with schools going back this month or some other reason. Most people in NJ would not have a problem if they start tighten the mask mandates up again for the winter.

[Kay King]

I was watching TV this morning and saw an amazingly simple ad.


Four statements - printed on a white screen - one after the other.


"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."


Personally, I think that's a far more effective argument than a bunch of people, or even experts, spouting a lot of details.



We've gone back to masks indoors in my region beginning Monday - because the university is back in session and is requiring masks. So - local city/businesses are doing the same.

[Mark Singletary]

I'm not trying to take away from your message, I agree. I know someone who had polio as a child. Now you have me wondering if she didn't take the vaccine or exactly what her deal was. She walks with a very bad limp.

Mark

Originally Posted by Kay King

I was watching TV this morning and saw an amazingly simple ad.


Four statements - printed on a white screen - one after the other.


"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."

[Janice Sperry]

A tip (or reminder) to no one in particular...

When I am researching for more scientifically based information I never go to google. I always go to scholar.google.com.

Then I hope I can understand 10% of it.

It is also very easy to customize the date range so you are getting current research.

The downside is that there are more postings now that are just "abstracts" and you can't click through to the entire academic report than there were years ago. Nevertheless, some of the abstracts have everything summarized so you at least get the overall conclusions of studies and such.

I honestly have been doing zero research on the COVID vaccines. We are already essentially right in the middle of one of the top five medical case studies in human history. Millions of people have been vaccinated and millions have not because they have chosen not to or it is not available. Even people like me with no medical training can see very clearly what is happening in populations that have been taking the vaccine as compared with populations that are not.

People can keep arguing whether they want to get the vaccine but there is no argument left concerning the effectiveness.

[Profit Traveler]

Originally Posted by Janice Sperry

A tip (or reminder) to no one in particular...

When I am researching for more scientifically based information I never go to google. I always go to scholar.google.com.

Then I hope I can understand 10% of it.

It is also very easy to customize the date range so you are getting current research.

The downside is that there are more postings now that are just "abstracts" and you can't click through to the entire academic report than there were years ago. Nevertheless, some of the abstracts have everything summarized so you at least get the overall conclusions of studies and such.

I honestly have been doing zero research on the COVID vaccines. We are already essentially right in the middle of one of the top five medical case studies in human history. Millions of people have been vaccinated and millions have not because they have chosen not to or it is not available. Even people like me with no medical training can see very clearly what is happening in populations that have been taking the vaccine as compared with populations that are not.

People can keep arguing whether they want to get the vaccine but there is no argument left concerning the effectiveness.

Great share!

I had to Google it.

Summary: Google Scholar is great, but its inclusiveness and mix of automatically updated and hand-curated profiles means you should never take any of its numbers at face value.

Some things you need to know about Google Scholar | The Ideophone

Also I totally agree the University of Common Sense is a great resource when we pay attention to where the spreading is taking place and who is catching it the most.

[Mark Singletary]

Regarding the last two "news" articles which is about the same doctor and hospital, the hospital issued an update.

UPDATE: Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah issued a statement: Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose. All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care. We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.”

I understand completely what you said before about false information leading people astray. The problem is the outrage normally only goes one way. Anyone who says anything different from or asks questions about the "standard" is banned for being a weirdo trying to kill all the sweet old Grandmas or worse yet their grandchildren. Yet, the "news" including the NYTimes and others are pushing this story as real and they get away with it.

Mark

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

There must be 2 different Googles.

Because the one I am using has several stories of Emergency rooms that can not accommodate people that were shot because so many are overdosing from Ivermectin and possibility of losing vision entirely.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...ontrol-centers

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...covid-1220608/

https://www.insider.com/oklahomas-em...rmectin-2021-9

But please...do enjoy your choices.

[Odahh]

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

Regarding the last two "news" articles which

I understand completely what you said before about false information leading people astray. The problem is the outrage normally only goes one way. Anyone who says anything different from or asks questions about the "standard" is banned for being a weirdo trying to kill all the sweet old Grandmas or worse yet their grandchildren. Yet, the "news" including the NYTimes and others are pushing this story as real and they get away with it.

Mark

The interesting thing about those articles on people overdoseing on ivermectin is that hundreds of people where overdosing from it every year prior to this year.

People choose the information sources that back their narrative .

And if you read the same fake news piece in many different media sources you will believe there is a sudden epidemic of ivermectin overdoses overwhelming era around the country because joe Rogan said it was part of his regimen to recover from Covid in a few days.

If people didn’t freak out that he said that the majority of the population would still not know what ivermectin is

The very people pick out chunk of what people say and repeating them over and over again to highlight the bad advice are the ones doing the most to spread that bad advice

[savidge4]

Originally Posted by Kay King

"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."

Vaccines indeed do work... to bad with Covid they just have given us a inhibitor shot. Simply does not pass the same test.

Do you know anyone that had the shot that got Covid?

Simply no comparison can be made between those vaccines and this shot. Ivermectin on a daily dose basis is far closer than the shots will ever be. ( I am not in any way suggesting you self medicate, overdosing apparently is pretty easy to do. ) But the FDA has been dragging their little feet with this one. Just recently released it to stage 2 trials testing after resounding positive results in many stage one trial type papers from last year. ( recall the video I posted about the doctor telling congress about Ivermectin? )

I personally have known more people that have had the shot and passed away than I did without.

I will admit, and have admitted the shot is not bad at what it is made to do, and thats inhibit the effects of the virus. But again, it does little to nothing to stop the transmission.

Look at the study I posted above about Israel... 50% of current cases are those with the shot. The whole crap BS line about non vaccinated driving the numbers is is malarky.

And then there is the whole Delta variant hype. Yes more infectious, but studies are indicating about 1/2 as deadly. Throw in some data from WV with 90,000 cases diagnosed since "Delta" became a thing, and we just crossed over 900 "Delta" infections. BUT it is the dominate variant causing all the problems ( they say ) - literally makes no sense.

Which leads to something a bit more interesting... if 50% of the people getting infected had the "Vaccine" and only 900 out of 90,000 cases are Delta related ( in WV ) that means ( +/- ) 45,000 people with the shot are being infected with the other more common less infectious variants running around.

Once they started administering the Polio vaccine, Polio was done. Once they started administering the Small Pox, Small Pox were done. In the case of Covid... it just rages on - except in those that have had it already.

read the headline: ( https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/sou...t-proliferates ) "Texas reports 3,621 new COVID cases, 1,435 new probable cases as delta variant proliferates" later it states 85% of cases are Delta... again look at the headline Total cases 3621 / Delta cases 1435. It doesnt take a guy with a engineering degree to see that that number is not 85% - or to actually do the math and see the number is actually 40% ( or does it? ) "...currently comprises the vast majority of its COVID-19 cases" the article says. Apparently math calculations and being a reporter are not required.

The whole "Delta" thing is fake news. the data is all twisted and manipulated. The "Vaccine" is being "broken through" by ALL of the variants - BECAUSE that is what it was designed to do - its an INHIBITOR, and by no means a blocker.

If you dont want to die?!? By all means get vaccinated ( like i stated before I currently knew more that have died after the vaccine, than those that have not been vaccinated ). If you have had Covid already, the "science" with all of the currently known variants are saying "dont worry about it"

And maybe... just maybe... at some point a more rational minded person will start making some of these higher level decisions and looking at the actual "Vaccine" models in testing ( none of the big 3 J&J, Pfizer, Moderna are going this route ) and at the very least the handful of drugs like "Ivermectin" that stop the virus dead in its tracks. - Imagine what today would be like if we implemented a drug that just totally stopped the transmission of the virus a year ago.. it saddens me.

Stop with the pity party get vaccinated crap - its a lie - your still going to get it, or at the very least you have to act as if you can get it, no less than the unvaccinated people of the world.

The only immunity - is Natural Immunity - until an actual "Vaccine" is released ( coming to a 3rd world country near you )

[lanfear63]

Close to home. My ex-workmate, who I socialize with and her son and daughter, son 18, daughter 15 all have COVID. The son got it first and must have transmitted it to his mother and her daughter. This all came to light about a week ago.

I text her each day for an update. The latest, as of yesterday was that they had all suffered very sore throats and excessive coughing but were starting to feel better after a week. The daughter who showed symptoms a little later had a blocked nose and was having a little difficulty breathing.

None of them were vaccinated and had planned to go and get it a week ago. I am fully vaxed and had not seen them for a month. They had always worn masks out in public.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Kay King

Four statements - printed on a white screen - one after the other.


"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."


Personally, I think that's a far more effective argument than a bunch of people, or even experts, spouting a lot of details.

I agree. It takes a few seconds to read, an attention span most of us can muster. But even better are three word slogans. They go right to the brain stem, bypassing any need to think at all. That's why they work.

I can't take it. My brain won't let me let this go.

"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."

Nothing in this ad is rational. Nothing.

"Do you know anyone who has polio?"
"Do you know anyone with smallpox?"

Of course not. But polio and smallpox are not the Corona virus. If you asked "Do you know anyone with Covid?", plenty of people would have to admit that they do not. Does this mean it isn't real? Of course not, but the argument is deeply flawed.

The "conclusion" on the third line "Vaccines work". Whether true or not, only means that the smallpox and polio vaccines work. There is no reason to think, based on what is said here, that all vaccines work.

And "Vaccines Work, But only if you take them" is true. But it is true in the same way the lottery ads are true when they say "You can't win if you don't play".. Technically true, but highly misleading.

Of course the vaccines are effective. Of course they are a very valuable solution. Of course I was desperate to get the vaccine when offered (mostly for my wife to get the vaccine).

But like almost all arguments I've read trying to use anything close to logic to convince someone of a point, this ad is devoid of reason. It feels reasonable, because it supports our view. It agrees with the science.

But plenty of irrational statements can agree with the science, agree with reality, and yet be nonsensical as an argument.

Anyway, I have a pathological hatred for irrational arguments. In ads, in conversations. Especially when I realize it came from me.

[1Bryan]

Originally Posted by savidge4

read the headline: ( https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/sou...t-proliferates ) "Texas reports 3,621 new COVID cases, 1,435 new probable cases as delta variant proliferates" later it states 85% of cases are Delta... again look at the headline Total cases 3621 / Delta cases 1435. It doesnt take a guy with a engineering degree to see that that number is not 85% - or to actually do the math and see the number is actually 40% ( or does it? ) "...currently comprises the vast majority of its COVID-19 cases" the article says. Apparently math calculations and being a reporter are not required.

The headline means Texas has 3,621 new confirmed Covid Cases and 1,435 new unconfirmed cases.

The 1435 number is NOT the number that is Delta variant.

And the 85% number comes from a spokesperson at one single hospital in Houston. It's not an official number representing the entirety of Texas. She said it was the number at the hospital she represents, Houston Memorial. She didn't make a claim about the state of Texas.

Basically, the headline probably could've been written better. The math is fine though.

[savidge4]

Originally Posted by 1Bryan

The headline means Texas has 3,621 new confirmed Covid Cases and 1,435 new unconfirmed cases.

The 1435 number is NOT the number that is Delta variant.

And the 85% number comes from a spokesperson at one single hospital in Houston. It's not an official number representing the entirety of Texas. She said it was the number at the hospital she represents, Houston Memorial. She didn't make a claim about the state of Texas.

Basically, the headline probably could've been written better. The math is fine though.

ok so look at this: ( https://www.dshs.texas.gov/news/updates.shtm ) The "pending patient info from lab" is a classic. Throw that line out with the bath water, and the dominant variant is "Alpha". Alpha is the variant that was initially transmitted across Europe to the States, Vs the "wild variant" that hit Seattle at the onset.

Just look at the numbers... there is nothing "Dominant" about Delta. How can "Delta" and "dominate" be in the same sentence? Again if 50% of cases are "Vaccinated" individuals... The "Alpha" variant is kicking tail and taking names... and THIS is the variant that the "Vaccines" were initially formulated to "block". But again, since the data first came out I have been saying the shots are inhibitors and not "Vaccines" I still say the same thing, because it is the TRUTH. Numbers dont lie.. and in this case, they show that propaganda and false hoods have taken place of any amount of TRUTH.

The numbers are right there in front of us, well to those of us willing to look... from the Fed level, to the State, to the local level, they are perpetuating a lie. Straight up FAKE NEWS. Its not even funny at this point. Hey get another shot ( aka booster ) and everything will be fine. my tail end. The only thing fine at this point is the books of Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J.

[Claude Whitacre]

Well, Boys and Girls...

As of now, 75% of adults in the US have had at least one vaccine shot.

And for the last several days, on a 7 day running average, we are still seeing about 1,500 deaths from Covid a day.

A steady number of people are dying in a shrinking pool of the unvaccinated.

In many states, mostly in the south, that daily number is increasing.

[tagiscom]

Originally Posted by savidge4

ok so look at this: ( https://www.dshs.texas.gov/news/updates.shtm ) The "pending patient info from lab" is a classic. Throw that line out with the bath water, and the dominant variant is "Alpha". Alpha is the variant that was initially transmitted across Europe to the States, Vs the "wild variant" that hit Seattle at the onset.

Just look at the numbers... there is nothing "Dominant" about Delta. How can "Delta" and "dominate" be in the same sentence? Again if 50% of cases are "Vaccinated" individuals... The "Alpha" variant is kicking tail and taking names... and THIS is the variant that the "Vaccines" were initially formulated to "block". But again, since the data first came out I have been saying the shots are inhibitors and not "Vaccines" I still say the same thing, because it is the TRUTH. Numbers dont lie.. and in this case, they show that propaganda and false hoods have taken place of any amount of TRUTH.

The numbers are right there in front of us, well to those of us willing to look... from the Fed level, to the State, to the local level, they are perpetuating a lie. Straight up FAKE NEWS. Its not even funny at this point. Hey get another shot ( aka booster ) and everything will be fine. my tail end. The only thing fine at this point is the books of Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J.

And UK studies confirm that..
.
/https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/there-is-no-evidence-that-the-delta-variant-of-sars-cov-2-has-a-lower-fatality-rate-than-the-wild-type-virus-craig-kelly-dan-bongino/

The fatality rate of the Delta variant of COVID-19 is lower than the original variant. The latest data from the U.K. shows the case fatality rate for the Delta variant amongst the unvaccinated is 0.08%, which makes it less deadly that the normal flu. This Delta variant is one-tenth as deadly as the wild-type virus.

And l had to use GoGoDuck to find this, (Google, first page results, nothing, except how wonderful the vaccine is).

The hysteria in my country has reached high levels, about this strain, ranging from idiots saying, "if you get this, your health will deteriorate, rapidly" and some unfortunates who are suffering from this more than the vast majority, (rampant cherry picking) on tv.

But in AU, destroying our economies, for this, supposed threat, is driven by ideology and supposedly high approval ratings.

Also using fear, and dangling a carrot works well, unfortunately.

This is funny to a point, but l would rather watch a B-grade horror movie than be in it.

[Kay King]

We are now almost...almost ...at the number of deaths from this pandemic as we were in the pandemic of 1918.

Isn't that a misleading statistic?



The numbers are not 'equal' because we have more than 3 TIMES the population now that we had in 1918.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Kay King

Isn't that a misleading statistic?



The numbers are not 'equal' because we have more than 3 TIMES the population now that we had in 1918.

There was no intent to mislead. But I agree that I should have included the increase in population. It would have painted a more accurate picture.

It didn't occur to me that anyone would think that the population was the same, or that I meant that the rate of deaths was the same.

To avoid misinterpretation, I deleted that part of my post.

[savidge4]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Well, Boys and Girls...

As of now, 75% of adults in the US have had at least one vaccine shot.

And for the last several days, on a 7 day running average, we are still seeing about 1,500 deaths from Covid a day.

A steady number of people are dying in a shrinking pool of the unvaccinated.

In many states, mostly in the south, that daily number is increasing.

I am going to say that the numbers simply are not accurate, and not to any fault of yours, because this is what we are lead to believe.

Read this: ( https://www.publichealth.columbia.ed...id-19-end-2020 ) 100,000,000 had been infected by the end of 2020.

Read this: ( https://jim.bmj.com/content/69/6/1253 ) and something like 17( +/- ) people across the globe are cases of "reinfection"

Read this: ( http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_pa...ata_latest.pdf ) and you can quickly start to get an idea that in FL in particular ( a hard hit state ) there is a 66% vaccination rate here. Then you jump down to page 8 to see the breakdown of deaths by AGE and 65+ is simply a shocking number. Then you scroll back up to page 7 and see that the same age group is 87% vaccinated.

is it really "A steady number of people are dying in a shrinking pool of the unvaccinated."?

OR is it a steady number of people in high risk demographics that simply are not being counted. and I can specifically show you oodles of articles and data to suggest this might actually be the case.

The data I am providing here is to give you a wider picture than one you are presented on a daily basis. "Its the unvaccinated" based on the data simply can not be what is actually going on.

Look here: ( https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...-Age/9bhg-hcku ) and there is this interesting subset of data "Pneumonia Deaths" and more interestingly "Pneumonia and Covid 19 Deaths" There are MORE deaths accounted for in these 2 subsets than Covid 19 Deaths. and yet as the title of the document indicates this is a running total of Covid 19 statistics.

There hasnt been 640,000 Covid deaths... there has been more than 1.4 million.

Pneumonia, and Pneumonia and Covid 19 Deaths is the subsets they are throwing the vaccinated and high risk deaths into.

[Kay King]

Celebrity with $100 Million Net-worth recently catches COVID and shares he is taking Ivermectin a Horse Deworming medication for COVID 19.

And that was spred by the media with claims of blindness and MANY deaths in hospitals caused by ivermectin....

And the entire story has now been debunked....the talking head anchors that were so outraged have been outed as 'media' that get their news from twitter and instagram and don't vet it before venting their 'outrage' online and adding a few sensational lies to it.

The person whose story began the recent iverrmectin outrage was not dosing himself - his doctor prescribed a small dose and that's what he was taking. The claims of deaths of ivermectin overdose turned out to be flights of imagination by a couple MSNBC anchors and the claims could not be verified.

One of my horseback riding friends had decided against being vaccinated. She told me her entire family talked about it and didn't think it was necessary - didn't feel they were at risk - didn't like being told what to do. She is not a crusader so didn't spout about it all the time or try to convince anyone else but we all knew where she stood on the subject.

Had a message from her last night - her husband and her mother are in a nearby hospital ICU - and my friend has also been hospitalized but not in ICU.....all three have covid. Her message said she was sick and afraid- and asked for thoughts and prayers for her family.

I was stunned reading her message and remembering the (often imaginative and funny) reasons she had given all summer for 'why we won't be vaccinated'..it was a long running joke as we groomed the horses and tacked up, etc. No humor in it now.

[DWolfe]

Originally Posted by Kay King

.
Had a message from her last night - her husband and her mother are in a nearby hospital ICU - and my friend has also been hospitalized but not in ICU.....all three have covid. Her message said she was sick and afraid- and asked for thoughts and prayers for her family.

Sorry to hear that wishing your friend and her family a speedy recovery !

[Princess Balestra]

Originally Posted by Kay King

"Do you know anyone who has polio?
Do you know anyone with smallpox?
Vaccines Work.
But only if you take them."

The science of Shit We No Longah Subjected To demands no foray into conspiracy theory zealotry, bcs remembah ... them smallpox-bustin' (& frankly el crapola apparel wearin') supahstars nevah had no kinda EVIL, PLANET MANIPULATIN' DEVILRY like data probes or mind control bots to INJECT LIKE POISON into their life-savin' antviral squirts.

Tellya, when I first discovered MUMPS, I figured it was a padded bra.

"You do not need a padded bra," said Mom, "because you are sweet enough the way you are. However, regarding everything else, of course, I have a list."

Latah, I gaht searchin' for cool jazz CDs by Rubella, jeans without Smallpox so I could fit muh purse in 'em without needin' no clutchbag, an' all kindsa stuff woulda snuffed my beautilicious self from the plannit had I lacked the initiative naht to have been born earliah.

Way too much whingin' gowin' on 'bout sour grapes!

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Kay King

The person whose story began the recent iverrmectin outrage was not dosing himself - his doctor prescribed a small dose and that's what he was taking. The claims of deaths of ivermectin overdose turned out to be flights of imagination by a couple MSNBC anchors and the claims could not be verified.

This happens all the time now. Because of the algorithms (I hate that word), Facebook now just feeds you more of what you show you want to hear.

Far left and right stations know that their audiences are mostly on the fringes (and trending further that way all the time), so they go with stories like that with the slimmest of verifications. Anything to feed the outrage. Anything to create a feeding frenzy.

My wife watches MSNBC for a couple hours at night. Fully 80% of what I hear is heavily slanted, taken out of context, or just not true. Fake outrage to please their base.

It's the same with FOX. And the further to both extremes you go (in media) the more fantastical the "news". That isn't even including the websites that are so extreme (meaning nonsensical), that they can't make it on Cable.....and those are some of the ones we see linked to here.

I've had to change how I get the news. I read AP...and get the data from sources. Meaning the CDC, or other original sources. No articles written by 'reporters".

When I do a Google search to find out more about just about anything...the first listings are from the Authority sites, The Government, universities, that sort of thing. These are the sites that everyone links to, that authorities get their information from. Raw numbers are what I look for. Even commentary about what the numbers mean can be distorted....cherry picked for meaning. Quoted out of context. Intentionally misunderstood.

I'm so afraid I'm going to start going down a rabbit hole...and just a few feet in, you start seeing outrage, conspiracies, threats, and nonsense.

Even though I have nothing against most politicians, I never listen to any of them, even the ones that say something I like.

Just because I like it, doesn't mean it's true.

Ivermectin in small doses isn't toxic to humans, just like it's not toxic to animals. But it doesn't kill viruses. Most people don't know the difference between a virus and a parasite (or germs or bacteria).

My guess is that, if you drank way too much, you would just throw up. But that's just a guess.

OK, now I don't have to guess. Here's a link to webmd. about Ivermectin.

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1...n-oral/details

[Profit Traveler]

Originally Posted by Kay King

And that was spred by the media with claims of blindness and MANY deaths in hospitals caused by ivermectin....

And the entire story has now been debunked....the talking head anchors that were so outraged have been outed as 'media' that get their news from twitter and instagram and don't vet it before venting their 'outrage' online and adding a few sensational lies to it.

The person whose story began the recent iverrmectin outrage was not dosing himself - his doctor prescribed a small dose and that's what he was taking. The claims of deaths of ivermectin overdose turned out to be flights of imagination by a couple MSNBC anchors and the claims could not be verified.

One of my horseback riding friends had decided against being vaccinated. She told me her entire family talked about it and didn't think it was necessary - didn't feel they were at risk - didn't like being told what to do. She is not a crusader so didn't spout about it all the time or try to convince anyone else but we all knew where she stood on the subject.

Had a message from her last night - her husband and her mother are in a nearby hospital ICU - and my friend has also been hospitalized but not in ICU.....all three have covid. Her message said she was sick and afraid- and asked for thoughts and prayers for her family.

I was stunned reading her message and remembering the (often imaginative and funny) reasons she had given all summer for 'why we won't be vaccinated'..it was a long running joke as we groomed the horses and tacked up, etc. No humor in it now.

If someone wants to take a product meant for Animals more power to them.
If they want to put Glue in their Hair more power to them.


One of them may take up a hospital bed.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Ivermectin in small doses isn't toxic to humans, just like it's not toxic to animals. But it doesn't kill viruses.

The claims I've seen for Ivermectin are that in laboratory tests, it has been shown to inhibit the reproduction of a broad range of viruses. Outside of any sensationalist reporting, I've haven't seen any claims that it can actually kill a virus. But I've yet to come across any credible evidence for its efficacy in treating SARS‐CoV‐2.

The trend was going this way before, but I'm noticing an increasing number of intelligent people - in this thread and elsewhere - voicing mistrust and even downright cynicism in the reportings of most media outlets, including the mainstream channels. This might end up being one of the most enduring outcomes of the whole pandemic, where a widespread public mistrust of the so-called mainstream media results in a more extreme polarization of information preferences.

Where there's so much "news" so easily accessible, and where you can virtually pick and choose any that supports your existing viewpoints, the need to filter out the signal from the noise while at the same time recognizing the danger of confirmation bias is becoming ever more critical.

Personally, I stopped buying newspapers several years ago. Recently, I'm taking less and less notice of TV and radio news outlets - other than for the sports reports. Aside from any inherent narrative bias, the obsession with immediacy caused by competition for "stories" has clouded or removed any journalistic integrity.

Like Janice said above, there are still some sources that can be trusted, but If you want any kind of balanced debate, you'll have to wait for the more thoughtful longer pieces to appear, or better still, read books.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Personally, I stopped buying newspapers several years ago. Recently, I'm taking less and less notice of TV and radio news outlets - other than for the sports reports. Aside from any inherent narrative bias, the obsession with immediacy caused by competition for "stories" has clouded or removed any journalistic integrity.

I'll still read hard news in the New York Times.

What I have to stay completely away from is any political news. The only political news I'll believe is after something happened. A bill was signed, a law was passed....what you get on the ABC news at 6PM.........and even then, I have to be careful of listening to inevitable hyperbole.

If someone says that a person said something, I have to see the video of them actually saying it...even if it agrees with my world view.

My wife will watch an hour, and get really angry. I used to tell her that the majority of what she heard never really came true. I've learned to just read my damn book.

I believe the weather when I hear it. My last sanctuary.

[Frank Donovan]

Nassim Taleb once said "To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week's newspapers."

[Profit Traveler]

There are people that have had an exact date for the end of the world.

Where did they get this information?

I think the problem is not so much the messengers but our ability to distinguish what is authentic.

I lean to Scientists. But I will filter one that thinks 1+1= 2 is up for debate.

[savidge4]

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

But I've yet to come across any credible evidence for its efficacy in treating SARS‐CoV‐2.

Kind of a roundup article of the 18+ controlled treatment trials in motion as of April this year ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ )

Database of the 114 studies, 75 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.( https://c19ivermectin.com/ )

There is more data on this treatment than any of the other active treatments world wide. Add to that, the fact the the drug has a human use history of 33 years also says something to knowing side effects etc.

Again the data is right there in front of us if we are willing to look for it, because for some unknown probably financially driven reason this data is buried and it gets nothing but bad press.

If we had this a year ago, where would we be today? A lot further along to "Recovery" than we are now, thats for sure. I would say its down right criminal - people are dying from political and financial bad decisions.

[tagiscom]

Originally Posted by savidge4

I am going to say that the numbers simply are not accurate, and not to any fault of yours, because this is what we are lead to believe.

Read this: ( https://www.publichealth.columbia.ed...id-19-end-2020 ) 100,000,000 had been infected by the end of 2020.

Read this: ( https://jim.bmj.com/content/69/6/1253 ) and something like 17( +/- ) people across the globe are cases of "reinfection"

Read this: ( http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_pa...ata_latest.pdf ) and you can quickly start to get an idea that in FL in particular ( a hard hit state ) there is a 66% vaccination rate here. Then you jump down to page 8 to see the breakdown of deaths by AGE and 65+ is simply a shocking number. Then you scroll back up to page 7 and see that the same age group is 87% vaccinated.

is it really "A steady number of people are dying in a shrinking pool of the unvaccinated."?

OR is it a steady number of people in high risk demographics that simply are not being counted. and I can specifically show you oodles of articles and data to suggest this might actually be the case.

The data I am providing here is to give you a wider picture than one you are presented on a daily basis. "Its the unvaccinated" based on the data simply can not be what is actually going on.

Look here: ( https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...-Age/9bhg-hcku ) and there is this interesting subset of data "Pneumonia Deaths" and more interestingly "Pneumonia and Covid 19 Deaths" There are MORE deaths accounted for in these 2 subsets than Covid 19 Deaths. and yet as the title of the document indicates this is a running total of Covid 19 statistics.

There hasnt been 640,000 Covid deaths... there has been more than 1.4 million.

Pneumonia, and Pneumonia and Covid 19 Deaths is the subsets they are throwing the vaccinated and high risk deaths into.

Rane claimed that the state government’s decision was based on studies by expert panels from the UK, Italy, Spain and Japan which found a statistically significant reduction in mortality and recovery time in patients with Covid-19, without offering any specifics.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladit...h=43eb7cef6d9f

And the WHO trashes it, why, billions have taken it with two deaths, (and they had contributing conditions) compare that with the jabs, (a hell of a lot more than two).

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

The claims I've seen for Ivermectin are that in laboratory tests, it has been shown to inhibit the reproduction of a broad range of viruses. Outside of any sensationalist reporting, I've haven't seen any claims that it can actually kill a virus. But I've yet to come across any credible evidence for its efficacy in treating SARS‐CoV‐2.

The trend was going this way before, but I'm noticing an increasing number of intelligent people - in this thread and elsewhere - voicing mistrust and even downright cynicism in the reportings of most media outlets, including the mainstream channels. This might end up being one of the most enduring outcomes of the whole pandemic, where a widespread public mistrust of the so-called mainstream media results in a more extreme polarization of information preferences.

Where there's so much "news" so easily accessible, and where you can virtually pick and choose any that supports your existing viewpoints, the need to filter out the signal from the noise while at the same time recognizing the danger of confirmation bias is becoming ever more critical.

Personally, I stopped buying newspapers several years ago. Recently, I'm taking less and less notice of TV and radio news outlets - other than for the sports reports. Aside from any inherent narrative bias, the obsession with immediacy caused by competition for "stories" has clouded or removed any journalistic integrity.

Like Janice said above, there are still some sources that can be trusted, but If you want any kind of balanced debate, you'll have to wait for the more thoughtful longer pieces to appear, or better still, read books.

Agreed, but someone considering the jab, and doing research on Google, and finding positive posts only, hmmm. This thing has had red flags from the beginning, and doctors have got it wrong before. But l agree, the only thing that will sink in would be mass media all saying how this is causing that, and that is at least two years away.

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I'll still read hard news in the New York Times.

What I have to stay completely away from is any political news. The only political news I'll believe is after something happened. A bill was signed, a law was passed....what you get on the ABC news at 6PM.........and even then, I have to be careful of listening to inevitable hyperbole.

If someone says that a person said something, I have to see the video of them actually saying it...even if it agrees with my world view.

My wife will watch an hour, and get really angry. I used to tell her that the majority of what she heard never really came true. I've learned to just read my damn book.

I believe the weather when I hear it. My last sanctuary.

What like YouTube? Funny l remember showing videos here from YT, and you lot garbaged them?

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

There are people that have had an exact date for the end of the world.

Where did they get this information?

I think the problem is not so much the messengers but our ability to distinguish what is authentic.

I lean to Scientists. But I will filter one that thinks 1+1= 2 is up for debate.

They got if from scientists, or paid hacks.

But true how do we know, basic research is one, making very safe options disappear or made illegal being another, seeing no discussions on why the jab isn't good being non-existent, etc.

Pretty hard to have a discussion with the jabbed, as they will ignore anything that conflicts with their narrative, only brings up examples that support it, and anything short of a large, scale mass media push will sink in.

This thread is about support, and not much else.

And individuals who are depressed, stressed, tired and angry will get anything more severely than they used to.

[Profit Traveler]

Seems the exact same folks that prolong this Pandemic think they are genius level on the topic.


I have an idea! Why don't Government and Scientists and Media all recommend to behave normally take any alternative medication you see fit and never wear masks.


Then all the superspreaders will do the opposite!

[socialentry]

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

Seems the exact same folks that prolong this Pandemic think they are genius level on the topic.


I have an idea! Why don't Government and Scientists and Media all recommend to behave normally take any alternative medication you see fit and never wear masks.


Then all the superspreaders will do the opposite!

What is funny is that when everyone in the thread was saying things like "Oh, it's just the media trying to sell newspapers",
"Oh it's fear mongering"
"it's like two people only no way its gonna be a pandemic in the usa roflmao lulz".
... to his credit, tagiscom was correctly predicting an all-out pandemic with terrible consequences for humanity (or at least Australia, don't remember which).


Privately, my train of thought was akin to:

"Ooohh, tagiscom is right and is going to pwn Claude! After all these years of pwnage by Claude and painting himself in an unwinnable corner, tagiscom will finally gets his revenge."

And then somehow he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[tagiscom]

Originally Posted by socialentry

What is funny is that when everyone in the thread was saying things like "Oh, it's just the media trying to sell newspapers",
"Oh it's fear mongering"
"it's like two people only no way its gonna be a pandemic in the usa roflmao lulz".
... to his credit, tagiscom was correctly predicting an all-out pandemic with terrible consequences for humanity (or at least Australia, don't remember which).


Privately, my train of thought was akin to:

"Ooohh, tagiscom is right and is going to pwn Claude! After all these years of pwnage by Claude and painting himself in an unwinnable corner, tagiscom will finally gets his revenge."

And then somehow he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Lol, me beat Claude, it will never happen in his lifetime.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by tagiscom

What like YouTube? Funny l remember showing videos here from YT, and you lot garbaged them?

I didn't mention Youtube. And I'm only going to comment on this part of your post.

This is called Straw man arguing.

You are saying something nobody said...and then arguing against the thing nobody said.

You won an argument, that is only taking place in your imagination.

[Odahh]

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

Seems the exact same folks that prolong this Pandemic think they are genius level on the topic.


I have an idea! Why don't Government and Scientists and Media all recommend to behave normally take any alternative medication you see fit and never wear masks.


Then all the superspreaders will do the opposite!

There is no prolonging the pandemic Covid 19 and all it’s future variant will be something we deal with around the world permanently.

The very thing everyone on both sides of the issue are doing wrong is treating the issue like it is temporary and will go away.

My niece who is 32 caught Covid last year got the vaccination but caught the delta variant a month ago. So many people who caught the virus last year where not counted because they didn’t go to the hospital.

I am fully vaccinated and I’m gradually loosing weight and doing the things I need to do to reduce my risk factors for if I do get Covid.

I guess you consider losing weight and a change in personal behaviors to reduce the risks of Covid if you do get it as alternative therapy.

[Kay King]

Pretty hard to have a discussion with the jabbed, as they will ignore anything that conflicts with their narrative, only brings up examples that support it, and anything short of a large, scale mass media push will sink in.

Why would you WANT to have 'a discussion with the jabbed' as you put it? What do they have to prove? Why do they owe you any explanation?

Once you are vaccinated - it's done. You can't take it back - you've made the decision and acted on it. If you want to argue with someone who is already vaccinated....why would they care what you think?

The main argument about covid is "It is a personal decision....let me tell you why I'm right...".... We all do it to some extent - human nature?

[Profit Traveler]

Originally Posted by Odahh

There is no prolonging the pandemic Covid 19 and all it’s future variant will be something we deal with around the world permanently.

The very thing everyone on both sides of the issue are doing wrong is treating the issue like it is temporary and will go away.

My niece who is 32 caught Covid last year got the vaccination but caught the delta variant a month ago. So many people who caught the virus last year where not counted because they didn’t go to the hospital.

I am fully vaccinated and I’m gradually loosing weight and doing the things I need to do to reduce my risk factors for if I do get Covid.

I guess you consider losing weight and a change in personal behaviors to reduce the risks of Covid if you do get it as alternative therapy.

Glad to know you are fully vaxxed. Maybe if everyone complied to restrictions there would have been no need for it.

No need to go back and count all your Let's keep everything open rather than lockdown comments.

Good on you for staying fit as well.

[tagiscom]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I didn't mention Youtube. And I'm only going to comment on this part of your post.

This is called Straw man arguing.

You are saying something nobody said...and then arguing against the thing nobody said.

You won an argument, that is only taking place in your imagination.

No, Claude this is not being specific, you said video, meaning every video platform online, you didn't say "only from Foxtel", so am not in the wrong on this one.

Originally Posted by Kay King

Why would you WANT to have 'a discussion with the jabbed' as you put it? What do they have to prove? Why do they owe you any explanation?

Once you are vaccinated - it's done. You can't take it back - you've made the decision and acted on it. If you want to argue with someone who is already vaccinated....why would they care what you think?

The main argument about covid is "It is a personal decision....let me tell you why I'm right...".... We all do it to some extent - human nature?

I am just saying Kay, that if l took radium powder for my burns in 1905, in a hospital, and someone said, "that this stuff is dangerous", l would defend my position, fanatically as l obviously don't want to know, and l especially don't want to think that the medical profession doesn't have a clue.

So would l want to have a discussion with someone jabbed up, no, for those very reasons, (and have already had discussions with some, and know from experience).

I wouldn't care what they thought, since my opinion wouldn't matter anymore.

Yes human nature, which some throughout history have learned to control, and others learned from. Modern technology doesn't change human nature, it just gives some more options.

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by tagiscom

No, Claude this is not being specific, you said video, meaning every video platform online, you didn't say "only from Foxtel", so am not in the wrong on this one.

Now you're re-defining what I said so that you can argue against it.

I said "If someone says that a person said something, I have to see the video of them actually saying it...even if it agrees with my world view."

Then you replied "What like YouTube? Funny l remember showing videos here from YT, and you lot garbaged them?"

You changed the idea of video proof of what someone said, to somehow trashing videos that you have linked to here.



I used the word "video" and you changed it into a personal insult.

It would be as if someone posted something here, and you said "This guy is just using words in his post, and you believe them. But I use words in my posts, and you don't believe them. That's not fair".


And then you said "No, Claude this is not being specific, you said video, meaning every video platform online, you didn't say "only from Foxtel", so am not in the wrong on this one." as though the video hosting platform was the point of argument here.

God, I missed you.

[Odahh]

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

Glad to know you are fully vaxxed. Maybe if everyone complied to restrictions there would have been no need for it.

No need to go back and count all your Let's keep everything open rather than lockdown comments.

Good on you for staying fit as well.

I didn’t get vaccinated to comply with anyone. I never had any reservations against getting a shot when they where available. Much less risk getting them than not getting them.

Well I’m still for keeping thing open and not locking down. If we had adapted to this being a permanent problem and applied resources to protecting the most at risk and making changes where we needed. Instead of this myth that if everyone complies it will go away and we can get back to normal.

The pre pandemic world is gone and we will not return to it .

And how does me getting vaccinated have anything to do with me being or having been against long term lockdowns

[1Bryan]

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

Glad to know you are fully vaxxed. Maybe if everyone complied to restrictions there would have been no need for it..

This is part of the problem. Nobody from the epidemiologist community ever said there would be no need for vaccination. The idea of lockdowns was to "buy time" so there would be vaccinations.

The idea that people were the "cause" of it spreading was because it was the 2020 election year. And became the main "wedge" issue.

It became an "ignorant Republicans are spreading it and Democrats are the good people doing the right thing kinda thing".

As a marketer, that should be beyond obvious. Marketers should be able to easily see beyond political marketing. It's Blair Warren's one sentence persuasion course in action.

Throwing rocks at the enemy.

[1Bryan]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

OK, now I don't have to guess. Here's a link to webmd. about Ivermectin.

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1...n-oral/details

Just a heads up. WebMD is not an unbiased resource. They have material relationships with pharma companies. It's part of how they monetize the website.

Search WebMD pharma scandal. You'll get links that unveil their relationship with pharma companies.

[Profit Traveler]

Originally Posted by 1Bryan

This is part of the problem. Nobody from the epidemiologist community ever said there would be no need for vaccination. The idea of lockdowns was to "buy time" so there would be vaccinations.

The idea that people were the "cause" of it spreading was because it was the 2020 election year. And became the main "wedge" issue.

It became an "ignorant Republicans are spreading it and Democrats are the good people doing the right thing kinda thing".

As a marketer, that should be beyond obvious. Marketers should be able to easily see beyond political marketing. It's Blair Warren's one sentence persuasion course in action.

Throwing rocks at the enemy.

"The idea of lockdowns was to "buy time" so there would be vaccinations."

You can not state lockdowns were necessary and smart and be anti lockdowns all along.

That my friend is prolonging this Pandemic.

Rewriting history is also a sad byproduct of this era.

People twist themselves into pretzels trying to prove their contradictions.



Separate issue...

Did you say humans are not cause of spreading?

"The idea that people were the "cause" of it spreading was because it was the 2020 election year. And became the main "wedge" issue."

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by 1Bryan

Just a heads up. WebMD is not an unbiased resource..

On the subject of bias.

This is separate from the issue of whether something is true or not.

But as a marketer, you know that marketing has a language. Well, so does bias. The written word and the spoken word have ways of showing the bias of the writer or speaker. It has nothing to do with whether they are sincere, or even if what they say is essentially true.....it's the words they use. the way they edit what they say.

So, at least to me, biased arguments stand out as though they had flashing lights.

The problem is, we can never see our own bias. We all see the world through a different lens. And we are all certain that our lens is the one that's crystal clear.

For example, even on this thread, the links given often go to a website that is painfully biased. The language they use, the way they editorialize, and the strong slant they show.

As a marketer (and experienced salesman) the raw anger, distain, and agenda they show is obvious. They are not an information source, they are a confirmation bias source.

Now, I imagine that there are websites that have an agenda, and they are so intelligent, so very skilled...that they don't use the language, the syntax, the editorializing of a biased website. But so far, if the source is heavily slanted in one direction...it's been obvious to me. And I assumed obvious to other experienced marketers.

And as I've said before, if someone agrees with you, that doesn't mean they are unbiased. And it doesn't mean they are right.

Think about this. Can't you tell when a friend is going to ask you for money? Can't you tell when someone doesn't like someone else...and they try to hide it? To an experienced salesperson, or copywriter, or marketer...a pitch is as different as a night and day from a discussion.

But it isn't like that with our own personal biases. They can only be seen by others.

And based on the links I usually see here, and some of the posts, it's impossible to see a bias if it agrees with a person's point of view.

It's just something that stood out to me the last few days here.

Added a tad later; It just occurred to me that nobody reading this thinks any of this applies to them. It applies to those evil lying misanthropes on "The other side".

On a personal note, I have a prejudice. An unreasoning assumption that when I read something (on a website or anywhere) that uses the structured language of strong bias...an agenda, I don't consider whether what they say is true or not. I assume they are wrong.

And that's regardless of who posts the links, or whether I agree with them or not.


That's just my take.

Added later; Another way to tell if a source is biased is that they arguments are slanted severely in one direction.
Another way of putting it is that they use arguments that aren't rational. It's often hard to tell the difference between a rational argument, and one that sounds good, because it supports our view.

Slanted arguments are broken arguments.

Of course, I'm seeing all this through a crystal clear lens...like everyone else.

[TOA Việt Nam]

at our country, it still dangerous

[1Bryan]

Originally Posted by Profit Traveler

"The idea of lockdowns was to "buy time" so there would be vaccinations."

You can not state lockdowns were necessary and smart and be anti lockdowns all along.

That my friend is prolonging this Pandemic.

Rewriting history is also a sad byproduct of this era.

People twist themselves into pretzels trying to prove their contradictions.



Separate issue...

Did you say humans are not cause of spreading?

"The idea that people were the "cause" of it spreading was because it was the 2020 election year. And became the main "wedge" issue."

Ho hum oh intelligent one. I was never anti-lockdown. I was never anti-mask. And I was never anti-vaccine.

So you can put a stop to all that noise.

And I got a 95 in 8th grade biology. Of course it spreads via humans. But not intentionally.

Which was my point.

[1Bryan]

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

On the subject of bias.

This is separate from the issue of whether something is true or not.

But as a marketer, you know that marketing has a language. Well, so does bias. The written word and the spoken word have ways of showing the bias of the writer or speaker. It has nothing to do with whether they are sincere, or even if what they say is essentially true.....it's the words they use. the way they edit what they say.

So, at least to me, biased arguments stand out as though they had flashing lights.

The problem is, we can never see our own bias. We all see the world through a different lens. And we are all certain that our lens is the one that's crystal clear.

For example, even on this thread, the links given often go to a website that is painfully biased. The language they use, the way they editorialize, and the strong slant they show.

As a marketer (and experienced salesman) the raw anger, distain, and agenda they show is obvious. They are not an information source, they are a confirmation bias source.

Now, I imagine that there are websites that have an agenda, and they are so intelligent, so very skilled...that they don't use the language, the syntax, the editorializing of a biased website. But so far, if the source is heavily slanted in one direction...it's been obvious to me. And I assumed obvious to other experienced marketers.

And as I've said before, if someone agrees with you, that doesn't mean they are unbiased. And it doesn't mean they are right.

Think about this. Can't you tell when a friend is going to ask you for money? Can't you tell when someone doesn't like someone else...and they try to hide it? To an experienced salesperson, or copywriter, or marketer...a pitch is as different as a night and day from a discussion.

But it isn't like that with our own personal biases. They can only be seen by others.

And based on the links I usually see here, and some of the posts, it's impossible to see a bias if it agrees with a person's point of view.

It's just something that stood out to me the last few days here.

Added a tad later; It just occurred to me that nobody reading this thinks any of this applies to them. It applies to those evil lying misanthropes on "The other side".

On a personal note, I have a prejudice. An unreasoning assumption that when I read something (on a website or anywhere) that uses the structured language of strong bias...an agenda, I don't consider whether what they say is true or not. I assume they are wrong.

And that's regardless of who posts the links, or whether I agree with them or not.


That's just my take.

Added later; Another way to tell if a source is biased is that they arguments are slanted severely in one direction.
Another way of putting it is that they use arguments that aren't rational. It's often hard to tell the difference between a rational argument, and one that sounds good, because it supports our view.

Slanted arguments are broken arguments.

Of course, I'm seeing all this through a crystal clear lens...like everyone else.

Hi Claude,

As I said you can do your Googles on WebMD. This isn't about philosophy. It's about facts. One of the main rev streams of WebMD is material relationships with pharma companies. Disclosed in tiny font that nobody ever reads. Again, a fact.

[Odahh]

Originally Posted by 1Bryan

Hi Claude,

As I said you can do your Googles on WebMD. This isn't about philosophy. It's about facts. One of the main rev streams of WebMD is material relationships with pharma companies. Disclosed in tiny font that nobody ever reads. Again, a fact.

I am not defending Claude.

What websites out there have zero possible conflicts of interest based off funding sources.

It’s only fair play

[Claude Whitacre]

Originally Posted by 1Bryan

Hi Claude,

As I said you can do your Googles on WebMD. This isn't about philosophy. It's about facts. One of the main rev streams of WebMD is material relationships with pharma companies. Disclosed in tiny font that nobody ever reads. Again, a fact.

I Googled webmd.com pharma scandal...just like you suggested. I read the first 5 or 6 postings. Then I went to Wikipedia, and read their article on Webmd and the scandal. I found two articles that said that their editorial staff was separate from their advertising staff. Just like any newspaper or news magazine.

All I could find is that they sold ads on the site, just like any other website not government owned....and mentioned fish oil as a supplement.

I found nothing that would suggest that they are printing lies. And I found (on the limited number of pages I read on their site) none of the language I was talking about that glaringly indicated bias.

That cannot be said for most of what I see linked to here.