Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
It also raises the genuine question of whether, not wanting to endorse censorship, nevertheless PH and other social media outlets are enabling mental illness, and those who prey on the afflicted.
It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
740EVTORQUES said:
It also raises the genuine question of whether, not wanting to endorse censorship, nevertheless PH and other social media outlets are enabling mental illness, and those who prey on the afflicted.
It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
To be honest, I have to disagree with you there. I think everyone should have the right to think and say what their beliefs are (assuming that sits within the lawful boundaries of tolerance) and unfortunately some of those things will be things which we might see as utter nonsense. If people want to believe something and it costs them, then thats on them, thats been life since the dawn of time. It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
What we really need to do is educate people more on how to understand the logic of data. Data is overwhelming the internet and our every day lives, unfortunately many are unable to understand it and interpret it, yet wield it like a weapon they have decades of training in. They think reading a chart or a table of data gives them insight, it doesn't. Its a very real failing in the CT threads seen daily.
There is a process to using data from understanding where it came from, the means it was collected, the context within which it was collected to be used, the caveats around it, sample sizes, significance testing, the hypothesis any headlines written against are trying to prove or disprove, so on and so forth. And you have to be open minded to getting a result you might not like.This is why CT always skip so many parts of the process and more importantly do it backwards, they have their conclusion and go find data to support it, often very much out of context from what it was intended for.
And who decides who acts as a fact checker in such things?
As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
Boringvolvodriver said:
And who decides who acts as a fact checker in such things?
As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
Well, just as we have established fact checkers (judges and guided juries) to decide about issues of law, we have mainstream medical bodies representing a vast amount of accumulated knowledge and wisdom, backed up by peer reviewed literature. And on the other hand we have doing your own research on the internet. They're not equal. A big problem is the way that the media seem obsessed with balance to the extent that they resort to one of a small number of countervailing views and see that as legitimate balance to a much larger number of mainstream views. You can apply that to Brexit, COVID, MMR any number of issues. Treating both with the same degree of credence is IMHO quite wrong, and misleading to people who may not be able to see through the fog, or who may lack the background to genuinely question. It's not about censorship, it's more about proper context to allow people to be properly informed.As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
That may seem patronising, but when did we ever not defer to experts when design with things outside of our knowledge. How many on here have deferred to a service tech for example?
740EVTORQUES said:
Well, just as we have established fact checkers (judges and guided juries) to decide about issues of law, we have mainstream medical bodies representing a vast amount of accumulated knowledge and wisdom, backed up by peer reviewed literature. And on the other hand we have doing your own research on the internet. They're not equal. A big problem is the way that the media seem obsessed with balance to the extent that they resort to one of a small number of countervailing views and see that as legitimate balance to a much larger number of mainstream views. You can apply that to Brexit, COVID, MMR any number of issues. Treating both with the same degree of credence is IMHO quite wrong, and misleading to people who may not be able to see through the fog, or who may lack the background to genuinely question. It's not about censorship, it's more about proper context to allow people to be properly informed.
That may seem patronising, but when did we ever not defer to experts when design with things outside of our knowledge. How many on here have deferred to a service tech for example?
The point is though, that in some cases, the experts have been proven to either be wrong or taken a slightly different view.That may seem patronising, but when did we ever not defer to experts when design with things outside of our knowledge. How many on here have deferred to a service tech for example?
Interesting that you mention judges and guided juries, if a court case was 100% correct in every case, then there would not be any requirement for an appeal court to review when something has gone wrong and of course there has never been any miscarriages of justice in the past.
I wonder how many people in the early days of the PO scandal coming to light were supportive of the PO and saying that they must be right?
I tend to agree with coldel above, that the answer is to actually teach people how to use data, look for different sources and apply a degree of critical thought.
Any one who has undertaken history will know the merit of checking a number of sources before one can confirm the true position although even then there is the issue that in general, history is written by the victors.
Since talking about covid seems acceptable again, I'll reply to some points on your post and await responses with interest.
I'll also argue the obsession with proving the vaccine was dangerous was directly fed by the efforts constantly made to downplay any vaccine risks no matter what they might have be due to the misguided fear of 'undermining confidence'. The UK spent months maintaining the AZN vaccine was not linked with ViTT despite clear evidence from europe showing that and only withdrew it from under 40s in May or Jun 2021. Despite obvious evidence from Israel who started early with the Pfizer ones in April 2021 where myocarditis was showing up, plenty were still maintaining that everyone of all ages should get that mRNA vaccine asap in summer 2021.
Chromegrill said:
Worth remembering a large majority of serious illness reported after vaccination in pharmacovigilance systems like VAERS or "yellow cards" is completely unrelated and coincidental. There's a myth that lots of complications never get reported therefore the official reports of vaccine side effects under-report complications. But when you think about it that can't be true otherwise how would something as rare as blood clots in the brain affecting maybe 1 in 50,000 people who received the AZ vaccine have been identified so rapidly? If only a small percentage of something affecting 1 in 50,000 people got reported, we'd still be years away from spotting the connection, it's precisely because so much "noise" gets reported that it's possible to spot the "signal" from patterns of rare conditions emerging.
Very true although VAERs and similar systems reporting always get dismissed by some as being 'self reported' as well so you can't have it both ways. It's either a useful system or it's not.Chromegrill said:
I thought Prof John Bell nailed it when he said, "If you don't want to get myocarditis, get vaccinated [against COVID]". Yes a (usually mild and transient) myocarditis was one of the few potentially serious side effects that was identified once entire populations became eligible for vaccination. Remember that even though the initial vaccine studies involved tens of thousands of volunteers it was too rare a complication to show up at that point, which rather highlights the point that it was very unlikely to affect the vast majority of people.
The conspiracy thereafter became an obsession with proving that the vaccine was dangerous, whilst ignoring that myocarditis is often caused by viruses, and the risk of myocarditis from the COVID virus was both much more likely and potentially more serious than the risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine. Considering that the COVID vaccine is essentially a strip of RNA that is one of the 30 or so genes making up the RNA code of the COVID virus, there is no plausible mechanism to explain how splicing out this one COVID gene and introducing it to the human body in isolation, rather than introducing the entire strip of COVID RNA that codes for the COVID virus, could be more hazardous than the virus. among the other 29 or so genes in the virus but excised from the vaccine are genes that turn off cellular defense mechanisms or encourage the body's immune system to mount a dysfunctional and potentially disproportional response that as we know can be fatal. So there's another conspiracy theory that seeks without any molecular plausibility, to maintain that the vaccine is somehow capable of doing more harm to the body than the virus of which the vaccine is effectively just a small subunit.
Apart from the fact that it was age dependent and the your quote above intentionally ignores that. Myocarditis was not a greater risk from infection than from vaccination in some circumstances - namely for those under 30 at their 2nd mRNA jabs especially if Moderna. It also excludes the pretty much certain likelihood of being infected by covid in the future so your myocarditis risk would be cumulative from any vaccine risk + infection risk. Now again for those above a certain age, the overal benefit was still in favour, massively so as age goes up but it certainly wasn't not obvious for younger people.The conspiracy thereafter became an obsession with proving that the vaccine was dangerous, whilst ignoring that myocarditis is often caused by viruses, and the risk of myocarditis from the COVID virus was both much more likely and potentially more serious than the risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine. Considering that the COVID vaccine is essentially a strip of RNA that is one of the 30 or so genes making up the RNA code of the COVID virus, there is no plausible mechanism to explain how splicing out this one COVID gene and introducing it to the human body in isolation, rather than introducing the entire strip of COVID RNA that codes for the COVID virus, could be more hazardous than the virus. among the other 29 or so genes in the virus but excised from the vaccine are genes that turn off cellular defense mechanisms or encourage the body's immune system to mount a dysfunctional and potentially disproportional response that as we know can be fatal. So there's another conspiracy theory that seeks without any molecular plausibility, to maintain that the vaccine is somehow capable of doing more harm to the body than the virus of which the vaccine is effectively just a small subunit.
I'll also argue the obsession with proving the vaccine was dangerous was directly fed by the efforts constantly made to downplay any vaccine risks no matter what they might have be due to the misguided fear of 'undermining confidence'. The UK spent months maintaining the AZN vaccine was not linked with ViTT despite clear evidence from europe showing that and only withdrew it from under 40s in May or Jun 2021. Despite obvious evidence from Israel who started early with the Pfizer ones in April 2021 where myocarditis was showing up, plenty were still maintaining that everyone of all ages should get that mRNA vaccine asap in summer 2021.
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.
It's also been quite illuminating to see how some(many?) health professionals were quick to simply parrot anything and everything they thought might be helpful for 'the greater good' irrespective of what actualy might have been happening or how damaging it might have been in terms of confidence in their sector for the rest of the population."Very true although VAERs and similar systems reporting always get dismissed by some as being 'self reported' as well so you can't have it both ways. It's either a useful system or it's not."
Well this isn't true in that sense. It is designed a particular way, with data collected using a particular method, to be used a particular way. As always, these factors are important.
The common mistake we see across all CT threads (and very commonly in social media posts) is that often things like this are presented in isolation as proof of something as complex as say vaccine side effects.
VAERS it would appear is a very small part of a wider process of vaccine understanding and knowledge building, it is not on its own a tool to decide if vaccines cause side effects. The data should not be used that way as it is incomplete, the sample is heavily skewed, there are no test vs controls, the list is endless.
Well this isn't true in that sense. It is designed a particular way, with data collected using a particular method, to be used a particular way. As always, these factors are important.
The common mistake we see across all CT threads (and very commonly in social media posts) is that often things like this are presented in isolation as proof of something as complex as say vaccine side effects.
VAERS it would appear is a very small part of a wider process of vaccine understanding and knowledge building, it is not on its own a tool to decide if vaccines cause side effects. The data should not be used that way as it is incomplete, the sample is heavily skewed, there are no test vs controls, the list is endless.
Boringvolvodriver said:
And who decides who acts as a fact checker in such things?
As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
and that's the post truth world we live in. Previously we overall trusted empirically-derived evidence as an indicator towards truth/facts. If we didn't understand what that meant, we trusted people that were verified experts. If we didn't know how to verify an expert, we trusted people who reached the public arena by virtue of their excellent contributions to the single body of knowledge which was 'science'. Yes we just had to sort of put faith in it for the most part, but it was accepted truth. As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
Now we have a parallel world including its own body of 'knowledge', 'experts' and means to 'verify' them, approaches to 'research', 'evidence' and of course its own 'facts'.
It's all pretty f
ked up now because for the vast majority of people, either of these worlds requires at some level just a bit of faith as it reaches the boundary of expertise and understanding. So, now it seems to be basically which do you prefer, rather than one refutes the other.
Well, years ago people would believe whatever they saw on the TV, as long as it complimented their core values and beliefs
Nothing has changed in that respect, the medium has changed from TV to social media and whatever else on the internet, but behaviours are still the same
For sure, there are a couple of worlds where scientists devote their lives to understanding something. Sure there are errors along the way, no scientist would ever say otherwise. There are also politicans who seek to gain advantage by bending the truth to retain public support and get another term in office. A CT would combine the two, and apply a single moniker.
In another world, there are people who as an aside try to educate themselves on subjects outside their skill set. Again, there are people that simply cannot overcome that gap and get things wrong. There are also people, much like politicians, who have taken it upon themselves to prove something is correct regardless of any contradicting evidence or their lack of genuine knowledge in the subject area.
Then there is another world, of people in between, who stay rational, take things as they come, try to be objective, and sometimes go against scientific opinion sometimes go with it. This group is by far and away the largest group. These aren't just blindly following authority as a CT would want others to believe, but they are sensible people making the best rational decision in an irrational world.
The false dilemma fallacy is a thing. The world isn't binary and the truth has many levels to it. But for sure, the majority of the truth doesn't exist in the extremes of that bell curve of people described above.
Nothing has changed in that respect, the medium has changed from TV to social media and whatever else on the internet, but behaviours are still the same
For sure, there are a couple of worlds where scientists devote their lives to understanding something. Sure there are errors along the way, no scientist would ever say otherwise. There are also politicans who seek to gain advantage by bending the truth to retain public support and get another term in office. A CT would combine the two, and apply a single moniker.
In another world, there are people who as an aside try to educate themselves on subjects outside their skill set. Again, there are people that simply cannot overcome that gap and get things wrong. There are also people, much like politicians, who have taken it upon themselves to prove something is correct regardless of any contradicting evidence or their lack of genuine knowledge in the subject area.
Then there is another world, of people in between, who stay rational, take things as they come, try to be objective, and sometimes go against scientific opinion sometimes go with it. This group is by far and away the largest group. These aren't just blindly following authority as a CT would want others to believe, but they are sensible people making the best rational decision in an irrational world.
The false dilemma fallacy is a thing. The world isn't binary and the truth has many levels to it. But for sure, the majority of the truth doesn't exist in the extremes of that bell curve of people described above.
Blown2CV said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
And who decides who acts as a fact checker in such things?
As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
and that's the post truth world we live in. Previously we overall trusted empirically-derived evidence as an indicator towards truth/facts. If we didn't understand what that meant, we trusted people that were verified experts. If we didn't know how to verify an expert, we trusted people who reached the public arena by virtue of their excellent contributions to the single body of knowledge which was 'science'. Yes we just had to sort of put faith in it for the most part, but it was accepted truth. As was once said, “who guards the guards” and one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
Social media and indeed msm has the ability to influence people who may be easily influenced and that is on both sides of any debate and at the end of the day opinions are like rectums, we all have one!
Now we have a parallel world including its own body of 'knowledge', 'experts' and means to 'verify' them, approaches to 'research', 'evidence' and of course its own 'facts'.
It's all pretty f
ked up now because for the vast majority of people, either of these worlds requires at some level just a bit of faith as it reaches the boundary of expertise and understanding. So, now it seems to be basically which do you prefer, rather than one refutes the other.
I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Dagnir said:
Strange times aren't they.
I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Adverts are propoganda?I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Most adverts are designed to increase brand reach and ROI. Something that has been around for hundreds of years.
Professor Angus Dalgleish explaining how vaccines and their boosters are causing cancer.
Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
Upinflames said:
Professor Angus Dalgleish explaining how vaccines and their boosters are causing cancer.
Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
well he appears to be talking about theories he has, including that there are government conspiracies around drug side effects...Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
740EVTORQUES said:
It also raises the genuine question of whether, not wanting to endorse censorship, nevertheless PH and other social media outlets are enabling mental illness, and those who prey on the afflicted.
It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
Cracking post. It's a difficult balancing act, but having a forum like that with restricted access where they can re-enforce their world views surely can't be healthy for anyone?
You only have to cast an eye across the pond to the MAGA lunatics to see how this sort of thing can wreak havoc with society. It's more than a curiosity.
Where does the responsibility to fact check some of the more obvious nonsense start on a forum like PH, and where should it start?
Remember, innocent people have died because of bad decisions made in a fog of misinformation.
To keep everybody extra safe, why not have some form of modulated language to limit the opportunity for anybody to dangerously disagree with any sort of consensus?
We could call it new speak.
Upinflames said:
Professor Angus Dalgleish explaining how vaccines and their boosters are causing cancer.
Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
"He is a co-founder of Onyvax, a company set up in 1998 to make novel vaccines for common solid tumours, where he is currently Research Director."Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
I thought big pharma was the enemy?
eldar said:
Odd how peer review research is ignored, unless the peer group is an obscure self appointed professor with no track record beyond chemtrails, moon landing, 911 and vaccine hysteria.
Have you noticed how often when someone's views are always referenced by their supporters with their honorific (even if, for example, their PhD is in using multimedia in nursing education rather than medicine) it turns out that they are a loony?otolith said:
eldar said:
Odd how peer review research is ignored, unless the peer group is an obscure self appointed professor with no track record beyond chemtrails, moon landing, 911 and vaccine hysteria.
Have you noticed how often when someone's views are always referenced by their supporters with their honorific (even if, for example, their PhD is in using multimedia in nursing education rather than medicine) it turns out that they are a loony?Do some proper research and get my satisfaction from educating people.
Or…
Talk misinformed but controversial nonsense, cashing in on those 3million vulnerable subscribers…
Decisions decisions.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff