CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Unreal said:
Sounds reasonable but there's an added problem when an inconvenient article isn't published anywhere that's considered more credible. This is what happened throughout the pandemic when anyone off message was vilified and counter arguments were suppressed. Or an issue isn't discussed at all, such as excess deaths, except now there aren't any excess deaths apparently.
Then how do you account for confirmation bias where one is simply looking for articles that confirm a preconceived opinion and justifying that it's missing from 'usual' sources because it's being censored or suppressed?Unreal said:
Calm down. Who has said you did? I used them as an example of a body that seems to be widely trusted by a lot of people. I could just have easily used Sky, The Guardian or The Telegraph.
However, the BBC in particular were as close to a NK or Russian state broadcaster as it's possible to get during the pandemic. There wasn't much fact checking going on when we were being shown fake videos and told lurid tales of people dropping dead in the street. I recall the total absence of the word obese in connection with risk factors and a ridiculous hyping of the the risk to NHS workers whilst featuring regular videos of tubby nurses with plenty of time to rehearse and publish tik tok videos.
True, but we're not in a pandemic now. They were exceptional times.However, the BBC in particular were as close to a NK or Russian state broadcaster as it's possible to get during the pandemic. There wasn't much fact checking going on when we were being shown fake videos and told lurid tales of people dropping dead in the street. I recall the total absence of the word obese in connection with risk factors and a ridiculous hyping of the the risk to NHS workers whilst featuring regular videos of tubby nurses with plenty of time to rehearse and publish tik tok videos.
Edited by Unreal on Thursday 18th April 09:24
It doesn't excuse what you've mentioned admittedly, but I don't think that's happening now.
Unreal said:
Calm down. Who has said you did? I used them as an example of a body that seems to be widely trusted by a lot of people. I could just have easily used Sky, The Guardian or The Telegraph.
However, the BBC in particular were as close to a NK or Russian state broadcaster as it's possible to get during the pandemic. There wasn't much fact checking going on when we were being shown fake videos and told lurid tales of people dropping dead in the street. I recall the total absence of the word obese in connection with risk factors and a ridiculous hyping of the the risk to NHS workers whilst featuring regular videos of tubby nurses with plenty of time to rehearse and publish tik tok videos.
Looks like the bizarre tribute video that STV made to Sturgeon has disappeared from YouTube. Now THAT was probably North Korean.However, the BBC in particular were as close to a NK or Russian state broadcaster as it's possible to get during the pandemic. There wasn't much fact checking going on when we were being shown fake videos and told lurid tales of people dropping dead in the street. I recall the total absence of the word obese in connection with risk factors and a ridiculous hyping of the the risk to NHS workers whilst featuring regular videos of tubby nurses with plenty of time to rehearse and publish tik tok videos.
Edited by Unreal on Thursday 18th April 09:24
Don't vaccinate your pet. They'll get autism. A scarily widespread belief.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-dogs-pets-ant...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-dogs-pets-ant...
isaldiri said:
Unreal said:
Sounds reasonable but there's an added problem when an inconvenient article isn't published anywhere that's considered more credible. This is what happened throughout the pandemic when anyone off message was vilified and counter arguments were suppressed. Or an issue isn't discussed at all, such as excess deaths, except now there aren't any excess deaths apparently.
Then how do you account for confirmation bias where one is simply looking for articles that confirm a preconceived opinion and justifying that it's missing from 'usual' sources because it's being censored or suppressed?Unreal said:
Confirmation bias has nothing to do with the indisputable fact that the BBC and other outlets parroted the government line and omitted counter arguments and discussions. Confirmation bias is of course likely if you go looking for certain things. I expect supposedly unbiased sources to present me with a range of views. Unfortunately I'm increasingly told that an alternative view is the equivalent of flat earth theory so it doesn't need to be included. See climate change by way of an example. The BBC presents man made climate change as indisputable fact, just like 'the science' was forced on everyone during the pandemic. I don't have a problem with bias if it's honestly stated. I have a big problem with organisations that won't admit their obvious bias as it undermines trust in anything they say.
Well you have a big problem if one is ever going to believe that any organisation, particularly one of the size and reach of the BBC and other outlets are not going to be biased in some way or another. Or that the likes of zerohedge are going to admit what their particular biases are nevermind 'honestly state' them. isaldiri said:
Unreal said:
Confirmation bias has nothing to do with the indisputable fact that the BBC and other outlets parroted the government line and omitted counter arguments and discussions. Confirmation bias is of course likely if you go looking for certain things. I expect supposedly unbiased sources to present me with a range of views. Unfortunately I'm increasingly told that an alternative view is the equivalent of flat earth theory so it doesn't need to be included. See climate change by way of an example. The BBC presents man made climate change as indisputable fact, just like 'the science' was forced on everyone during the pandemic. I don't have a problem with bias if it's honestly stated. I have a big problem with organisations that won't admit their obvious bias as it undermines trust in anything they say.
Well you have a big problem if one is ever going to believe that any organisation, particularly one of the size and reach of the BBC and other outlets are not going to be biased in some way or another. Or that the likes of zerohedge are going to admit what their particular biases are nevermind 'honestly state' them. My history teacher at school said - "everyone is biased. Always test your sources, and corroborate where possible with trusted sources..."
This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
Roderick Spode said:
My history teacher at school said - "everyone is biased. Always test your sources, and corroborate where possible with trusted sources..."
This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
This is why we only get to the truth around events such as Bloody Sunday, the Birmingham Pub bombings or Hillsborough many decades later, when the liars, decision makers and most witnesses are dead or retired and any admissions can be cheerfully dismissed as happening at a different time and couldn't happen today. This enables fullsome apologies to be made on behalf of people no longer in authority and swerve accountability whilst claiming some sort of moral high ground.This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
I read this article from Unherd yesterday which discusses the way that the fact checking ‘industry’ massively impacts ad revenue for news websites and in effect starts to limit the boundaries of public discourse.
This commercial self censorship was apparent throughout COVID
https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformati...
This commercial self censorship was apparent throughout COVID
https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformati...
JC on Bridgen's speech : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd99uVOMWEk
Good comments under the video.
"@69mosshead
1 hour ago
The lack of MP's there shows their contempt for the public."
Yes, indeed.
But no biggie, all in the past now, everyone has "moved on", despite a large propoprtion of the UK pop being dead under the excess deaths count, or simply laid up "sick" with unexplainable mystery health issues.
I'm sure the usual rabble-rousers here will dismiss the speech as being "utter pish" because it's not on the BBC.
Good comments under the video.
"@69mosshead
1 hour ago
The lack of MP's there shows their contempt for the public."
Yes, indeed.
But no biggie, all in the past now, everyone has "moved on", despite a large propoprtion of the UK pop being dead under the excess deaths count, or simply laid up "sick" with unexplainable mystery health issues.
I'm sure the usual rabble-rousers here will dismiss the speech as being "utter pish" because it's not on the BBC.
Elysium said:
I read this article from Unherd yesterday which discusses the way that the fact checking ‘industry’ massively impacts ad revenue for news websites and in effect starts to limit the boundaries of public discourse.
This commercial self censorship was apparent throughout COVID
https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformati...
That is disgusting, and describing it as 'fact-checking' is too charitable. Or maybe not, if one feels an agenda whereby you're shut down for example publishing a JK Rowling interview, is valid.This commercial self censorship was apparent throughout COVID
https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformati...
But I have as much respect for 'fact checkers' as many have for 'conspiracy theorists'.
I think 'disinformation' being from the Russian 'dezinformatsia' puts it into context i.e. facts the Soviets didn't like.
The contradiction was my favourite part of the COVID era. Faith in the government reached a new low. There would have been riots had those who already opposed the government not bent over and taken it. "Bloody Tories locked us up but didn't do it hard or fast enough, and had parties, while some people who also had parties couldn't visit dying relatives. Didn't help anyone, but paid people to stay at home. And ruined the economy but attempted to boost the economy with Eat Out to Help Out"...
But no, that was not the "adversarial narrative”. The thing we couldn't pull the Tories up on was them going on TV every week terrifying us with statistics of how many people died with a virus present in their bloodstream and spent billions trying to jab every living thing in the country. And god forbid you pointed out the inaccuracies in the BBC's reporting.
Marianna Spring was always there to put you straight though: 'Claims that AstraZeneca jab killing people: FALSE (It's actually the Pfizer)'
Edited by R Mutt on Thursday 18th April 19:15
BigMon said:
Unreal said:
I see where you're coming from but can you see why many people would be just as distrustful of media sources such as the BBC? It's impossible to reasonably deny that the BBC (and other channels) parroted the government line on everything from lockdowns to masks and vaccinations. 'Investigative journalism' went out of the window. Social media companies complied with directions to shadow ban.
So I agree that one should use a wide range of sources but I also think that any source you care to name can be criticised. Sites like zerohedge will often undermine their credibility by hosting all sorts of weird stuff. More traditional sources are clever and they just tell you they can be trusted and they fact check everything. When they're caught out, it's always an innocent error.
Where have I ever said 'trust the BBC'? I never have! I never would unquestioningly trust any media source and just parrot it's findings.So I agree that one should use a wide range of sources but I also think that any source you care to name can be criticised. Sites like zerohedge will often undermine their credibility by hosting all sorts of weird stuff. More traditional sources are clever and they just tell you they can be trusted and they fact check everything. When they're caught out, it's always an innocent error.
But, at the end of the day, unless you're a genuine vaccine expert undertaking a cold, calculated scientific study in a group of peers which will be peer reviewed how on earth do you know?
What you have to do, as I've said, is look at your sources and using your own judgment is think about how trustworthy they are. I don't doubt the BBC puts it's own spin on things, but I don't think it's a North Korean style unquestioning publisher of government propaganda whereas if we look at someone on TikTok or Youtube who stands to make a lot more money from their content it it goes viral then I, personally, would trust the BBC more in that instance but no one should take any article from anywhere at face value and should try and track down the sources.
I can't find the exact info now but this 2021 article suggests Govt had spent £164m by that point, but I can't find a breakdown of it right now.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/29/the-...
article said:
In 2020, the UK government tripled its already bloated advertising budget, displacing corporate behemoths such as Unilever, Sky and Proctor & Gamble, by splurging a whopping £164 million. If you then add Public Health England’s substantial 2020 ad spend of £80m, you get a good picture of how government messaging has come to comprehensively dominate our lives.
I am certain it was noted on here (maybe by isaldiri?) that perhaps the BBC were so compliant because they received a massive wedge of funding from Govt and conveniently delayed conversations around getting rid of the licence fee.EDIT: Does anyone have a subscription to Statista?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284709/bbc-s-a...
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 18th April 20:41
Roderick Spode said:
My history teacher at school said - "everyone is biased. Always test your sources, and corroborate where possible with trusted sources..."
This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
Really good post.This was evident throughout the last four years. TV, online & print media all ceased critical thinking and analysis, and instead started reporting government narrative as facts - "safe and effective, 15 million jabs to freedom, etc" whilst portraying anyone who dared question or applied critical thinking as "far-right alt-loon anti-vaxxer conspiracy nutters." There have been contributors to this suite of threads over the years who have cheerfully labelled any cynical opinion as just this. It stifles debate & shuts down reasoned analysis, meaning there is no longer a rational middle ground where opinions may be explored & amended, rather two polarised extremes throwing accusations at each other. It's entirely pointless.
There will never be a full exploration of vaccine harms by the mainstream media, for the reason that to do so would completely undermine public trust in the very organisations that pushed the narrative in the first place. Obviously government(s) will not wish that to happen either, as public trust (such as it is) would be irreparably damaged.
Back in 2021, I initially thought I had Long Covid symptoms, but then gradually faced a brick wall silence, whilst various consultants made guesses about what I was suffering from. I went from being someone who could walk ten miles easily, to someone who struggled to climb the stairs or walk to the Co-op and back. I used to do bicep curls, three sets of 20 reps of 10kg dumbells in each hand and now I struggle to lift a saucepan to and from the hob.
The doctors are in denial about adverse reactions to the jabs, but they definitely exist. I no longer trust the NHS.
My first jab was AZ batch PV46664 in late February 2021.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...
https://findothers.com/campaign/families-fighting-...
This gem has just landed in t'other thread.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
Chromegrill said:
As a health professional involved at a fairly senior level in the COVID response it's been quite illuminating to see how really quite small numbers of people have developed these sorts of conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic and amplified them to make it seem like there is a really serious problem when there isn't.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
r3g said:
This gem has just landed in t'other thread.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
Mmm - having just watched the “debate” on Excess Deaths in our wonderful HOC - is there any wonder that people start to look at things from a different perspective. Chromegrill said:
As a health professional involved at a fairly senior level in the COVID response it's been quite illuminating to see how really quite small numbers of people have developed these sorts of conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic and amplified them to make it seem like there is a really serious problem when there isn't.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
If there is nothing to hide, then show us the figures rather than fudge things rather than only give data to the pharma companies………..
r3g said:
This gem has just landed in t'other thread.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
Chromegrill may well be a 'health professional, fairly senior level' (that could mean anything, assistant Head Porter at the local hospital, to GP at local practice?), who knows?Chromegrill said:
As a health professional involved at a fairly senior level in the COVID response it's been quite illuminating to see how really quite small numbers of people have developed these sorts of conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic and amplified them to make it seem like there is a really serious problem when there isn't.
Not sure whether to post the Comical Ali or the Gunshow 'This is Fine' meme.
However, what I'm certain of is he certainly ain't in the English grammar profession...
Over FIFTY words in one single sentence with NO punctuation whatsoever, not even a measly comma. Phew!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff