CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[BigMon]

Hants PHer said:

Why thank you kind sir. You, and others, may have noticed that I no longer engage with r3g. I regard him as a deluded zealot who cannot be reasoned with. He has decided that the Covid vaccines (well, the mRNA ones anyway) are the cause of 'turbo cancers', heart disease and goodness knows what else. Sheffield United's terrible season is probably included.

My advice? As per Jehovah's Witnesses, save your breath to cool your porridge and simply ignore him. Oh, and you're correct about the Zerohedge pish.

I am all for reasoned debate. I might not agree with everything someone like James says but at least he offers reasoned debate rather than snarky snipes whilst, with zero self awareness, parrotting utter pish.

The Sheffield United thing might be something I actually agree with, as it would take away the fact it's yet another stshow of a season.

[wc98]

jameswills said:

I might do something purely cathartically, perhaps I actually did go insane and I haven’t realised it

If nothing else i am sure it would be an interesting read and i will read it and won't judge either, unlike many on here. We all have to forge our own path in life and what works for one may not be right for another.

I had 3 vaccinations, won't have anymore even if it's the black plague the next time. Not due to any conspiracy theory, mainly just because i really don't give a sh*t. I got Bells Palsy after the first vaccine, coincidence i was told on here and i was happy to accept that until the total number of people i knew either personally or through friends and family that got Bells Palsy after their first or second vaccine reached around twenty. Prior to that the only people i knew that had had it were my father and Chris Walker the bike racer.

Even then, no big deal although i was surprised at the Doctor prescribing strong steroids over the phone after i assured him it wasn't a stroke and not getting a face to face appointment until three days after starting the course of steroids. Again no biggy, loads of people take steroids with no problems.

It did however highlight how little it takes to upset what we would consider vigorous norms in officialdom. I am now of the opinion that there are far more people in the UK scared of their own shadow and the hubris, mainly in the developed west regarding the importance of human life and in particular that of certain humans, is off the fking charts. If more people realised that no, they as an individual being alive on this planet is not really that important in the big scheme of things they would lighten up, take life less seriously and have more fun

To expand on the above as i know there are a few on here that like to read into a post what they want as opposed to it's intention. I find it hard to get upset at the thought of excess death in the developed west when in many areas of the world life expectancy is half that of ours, infant mortality rates are through the roof and in other areas people into their thirties know nothing but a life of bombs,guns and constant fear or hate. Don't get me wrong, i appreciate how lucky i have been to be born where i was instead of say Haiti, but i do understand it was down to luck and nothing else.

[BigMon]

r3g said:

BigMon said:

I am all for reasoned debate so long as you agree with me that the vaccines are safe and effective as per the BBC and government and also agree with me that everyone popping off all over the world with cancers, heart attacks, blood clots, myocarditis was all due to people not being able to get GP appointments. If you say anything that contradicts this narrative then you are an unhinged wingnut and the debate must be shut down.

Edited for truth.

[Hants PHer]

BigMon said:

I am all for reasoned debate. I might not agree with everything someone like James says but at least he offers reasoned debate rather than snarky snipes whilst, with zero self awareness, parrotting utter pish.

The Sheffield United thing might be something I actually agree with, as it would take away the fact it's yet another stshow of a season.

Haha, yes, James (willis) has a degree of reasonableness for somebody who appears to exist a long, long way down a rabbit hole. Dear old r3g however, is, in his own way, quite, oooh, unique.

Are you a Blade? If so, sorry I had no idea, it was chosen at random. Change it for Carlisle if it helps!

[R Mutt]

jameswills said:

I have been tempted to write chapter and verse about how I’ve turned my own opinions on my view of the world 180 degrees in just 5 years, what books, the podcasts I’ve listened to, the debates, articles, papers, real life chats with real world people and show my thorough working out, not as evidence of being right, just to as to why I think what I think now. I feel it may help people understand how to go about discovering an alternative viewpoint and trying then to make your own conclusions.

I believe we’re spoon fed propaganda daily, we’re bombarded with it. BBC News to Netflix, it’s unavoidable and no one is immune. Unless you turn it off. I’ve been there, recognised it, done that.

But it will be a pointless exercise, as there isn’t a single point of entry to discovering what one sees as “the truth”, and unfortunately it’s the often cliched phrase “a journey”. You have to go seek it out for yourself, and you can only do that if you want to, or feel that you need to, and from what I’ve seen above, a lot of people aren’t prepared to do that, they want one single answer they can place their hat on.

But if anyone is curious, I can try.

A friend last weekend went on an unsolicited rant about conspiracy theorists. I suppose many believe that COVID uncovered a bunch a secret loons. While I feel it was a worrying testament to people's tendency and willingness to believe any fact presented by the BBC, and follow arbitrary rules. On the positive side, I like to think it created more 'conspiracy theorists' than perpetually terrified permanent maskers. Most overcame the fear at varying stages between 2020 and now, but I will always question everything I'm told.

My journey to the truth started when it became clear people weren't dropping dead in the streets, and that half the scientists advising on the COVID response were psychologists.

Not sure what's on Netflix though

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 17th April 21:12

[Unreal]

Hants PHer said:

BigMon said:

The ones who I can debate sensibly with like Elysium or Hants PHer have no need of such lists.

You keep getting your info from zerohedge and the like. I and others like me will keep occasionally pointing out it's pish due to it being, erm, pish.

Why thank you kind sir. You, and others, may have noticed that I no longer engage with r3g. I regard him as a deluded zealot who cannot be reasoned with. He has decided that the Covid vaccines (well, the mRNA ones anyway) are the cause of 'turbo cancers', heart disease and goodness knows what else. Sheffield United's terrible season is probably included.

My advice? As per Jehovah's Witnesses, save your breath to cool your porridge and simply ignore him. Oh, and you're correct about the Zerohedge pish.

For what it's worth, I have an open mind about the extent of vaccine damage. I'm content to wait for as long as it takes for evidence to accumulate or not. Experience has shown me that the truth often emerges decades later so I won't be holding my breath. I expect to see another pandemic before I see definitive proof one way or the other in terms of vaccine damage.

However, I do think it's a fair question to ask those that dismiss others' sources to name some of their own that they consider reliable.

[isaldiri]

One doesn't really need to defend brushing off crap from zerohedge as exactly the nonsense that it is.........

[Unreal]

isaldiri said:

One doesn't really need to defend brushing off crap from zerohedge as exactly the nonsense that it is.........

Well, it may be a widely held opinion and it may be correct but if you're going to dismiss something as nonsense then I believe you should be willing to say where the sense can be found.

I'm sure if I dismissed BBC reporting and fact checking as pish I'd be challenged to explain where I get my facts from and I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't say.

[BigMon]

Unreal said:

Well, it may be a widely held opinion and it may be correct but if you're going to dismiss something as nonsense then I believe you should be willing to say where the sense can be found.

I'm sure if I dismissed BBC reporting and fact checking as pish I'd be challenged to explain where I get my facts from and I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't say.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense uses a wide range of sources and uses their own judgment as to the integrity of each.

I don't have one particular source. I'm not a scientist so am in no position to offer informed critique on whether the vaccine is responsible for the vast majority of ailments listed here and, until the study I mentioned earlier is done, I don't think anyone can.

So until that point it's all just hearsay isn't it. I'm no vaccine zealot and it may be causing all these issues but if it is I don't think the scientific data about it will be revealed on sites like YouTube or Zerohedge.

[Unreal]

BigMon said:

Unreal said:

Well, it may be a widely held opinion and it may be correct but if you're going to dismiss something as nonsense then I believe you should be willing to say where the sense can be found.

I'm sure if I dismissed BBC reporting and fact checking as pish I'd be challenged to explain where I get my facts from and I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't say.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense uses a wide range of sources and uses their own judgment as to the integrity of each.

I don't have one particular source. I'm not a scientist so am in no position to offer informed critique on whether the vaccine is responsible for the vast majority of ailments listed here and, until the study I mentioned earlier is done, I don't think anyone can.

So until that point it's all just hearsay isn't it. I'm no vaccine zealot and it may be causing all these issues but if it is I don't think the scientific data about it will be revealed on sites like YouTube or Zerohedge.

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.

[isaldiri]

Unreal said:

isaldiri said:

One doesn't really need to defend brushing off crap from zerohedge as exactly the nonsense that it is.........

Well, it may be a widely held opinion and it may be correct but if you're going to dismiss something as nonsense then I believe you should be willing to say where the sense can be found.

I'm sure if I dismissed BBC reporting and fact checking as pish I'd be challenged to explain where I get my facts from and I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't say.

Well, as I said, just follow any article to the underlying report/study and read it and see how it lines up with the original article and whether one can reasonably corroborate what's being said from other sources who aren't always saying the same things.

Having done that, one can make up one's mind as to what to think of zerohedge and I'm quite content to dismiss anything they write as nonsense because whenever i looked somewhat more carefully, it's usually garbage (on any topic) so i can reasonably expect anything else to usually be garbage. Exactly the same as the nonsense being spewed out by eric feigl ding, susan michie et al which I'm equally happy to simply dismiss as utter crap. Ymmv.

[Unreal]

isaldiri said:

Unreal said:

isaldiri said:

One doesn't really need to defend brushing off crap from zerohedge as exactly the nonsense that it is.........

Well, it may be a widely held opinion and it may be correct but if you're going to dismiss something as nonsense then I believe you should be willing to say where the sense can be found.

I'm sure if I dismissed BBC reporting and fact checking as pish I'd be challenged to explain where I get my facts from and I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't say.

Well, as I said, just follow any article to the underlying report/study and read it and see how it lines up with the original article and whether one can reasonably corroborate what's being said from other sources who aren't always saying the same things.

Having done that, one can make up one's mind as to what to think of zerohedge and I'm quite content to dismiss anything they write as nonsense because whenever i looked somewhat more carefully, it's usually garbage (on any topic) so i can reasonably expect anything else to usually be garbage. Exactly the same as the nonsense being spewed out by eric feigl ding, susan michie et al which I'm equally happy to simply dismiss as utter crap. Ymmv.

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.

[BigMon]

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.

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.

[Unreal]

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Unreal on Thursday 18th April 09:24

[isaldiri]

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?

[BigMon]

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.

Edited by Unreal on Thursday 18th April 09:24

True, but we're not in a pandemic now. They were exceptional times.

It doesn't excuse what you've mentioned admittedly, but I don't think that's happening now.

[alangla]

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.

Edited by Unreal on Thursday 18th April 09:24

Looks like the bizarre tribute video that STV made to Sturgeon has disappeared from YouTube. Now THAT was probably North Korean.

[eldar]

Don't vaccinate your pet. They'll get autism. A scarily widespread belief.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-dogs-pets-ant...

[Unreal]

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?

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.

[isaldiri]

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.