5 ms·

Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.

pjc50 7y ago
Yes. So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever? Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong information source is not the counter to another wrong information source.
- aww_dang 7y ago
  RE: 'YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice' WHO advice is the standard being proposed. Adults should be capable of consuming and evaluating information. The solution is not to regard everyone as a child who needs to be coddled. >'So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever' Let individual consumers determine their own standards. It is absurd to suggest that there would be no standards without platforms or supranational organizations determining them. When you choose to take a politically charged interpretation of a presser as your own standard, you establish this. Individuals can disagree. We can't make the world safe for everyone. If based upon your informational standards you think that the president told someone to inject bleach, that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru... > a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful. Steve, please. What is your interpretation of "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside"? I mean, it's kind of gibberish, not full sentences where one concept is logically related to another, but what do you think it means? Do you think it's a responsible thing to say after the deaths of people from self-administered chloroquine? Do you not think it refers to injections of disinfectant? Of course, part of how this tactic works is that for any interpretation I can offer you can say "that's not what he said/meant", because what he said is incoherent.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Alex3917 7y ago
      I mean there are medical textbooks that recommended injecting disinfectant for treating viruses, and there are no shortage of doctors who do it already in their practices. And if people are already doing it anyway, and as far as anyone can tell not immediately dying, then why shouldn't it be tested?
      - pjc50 7y ago
        [citation needed]
        Alex3917 7y ago
        http://www.oxygenhealingtherapies.com/my_ozone_doctor.com.html http://www.oxygenhealingtherapies.com/my_ozone_doctor.com.ht... https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048192335 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048192335
        pjc50 7y ago
        [non-garbage citations needed] (the first talks about ozone, which is a disinfectant but fundamentally cannot be taken internally as it's a gas, and it's slightly toxic https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-... ; the book mentions "Oxygen-Ozone therapy is a complementary approach less known than homeopathy and acupuncture" so that's obviously quackery as well)
        Alex3917 7y ago
        Do you not see how it's ironic that you're calling other people quacks, in the context of literally lobbying against using empirical evidence to decide whether or not something is safe and effective?

Yes. So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever? Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong information source is not the counter to another wrong information source.

aww_dang 7y ago
RE: 'YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice' WHO advice is the standard being proposed. Adults should be capable of consuming and evaluating information. The solution is not to regard everyone as a child who needs to be coddled. >'So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever' Let individual consumers determine their own standards. It is absurd to suggest that there would be no standards without platforms or supranational organizations determining them. When you choose to take a politically charged interpretation of a presser as your own standard, you establish this. Individuals can disagree. We can't make the world safe for everyone. If based upon your informational standards you think that the president told someone to inject bleach, that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru... > a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful. Steve, please. What is your interpretation of "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside"? I mean, it's kind of gibberish, not full sentences where one concept is logically related to another, but what do you think it means? Do you think it's a responsible thing to say after the deaths of people from self-administered chloroquine? Do you not think it refers to injections of disinfectant? Of course, part of how this tactic works is that for any interpretation I can offer you can say "that's not what he said/meant", because what he said is incoherent.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Alex3917 7y ago
    I mean there are medical textbooks that recommended injecting disinfectant for treating viruses, and there are no shortage of doctors who do it already in their practices. And if people are already doing it anyway, and as far as anyone can tell not immediately dying, then why shouldn't it be tested?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      [citation needed]
      - Alex3917 7y ago
        http://www.oxygenhealingtherapies.com/my_ozone_doctor.com.html http://www.oxygenhealingtherapies.com/my_ozone_doctor.com.ht... https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048192335 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048192335
        pjc50 7y ago
        [non-garbage citations needed] (the first talks about ozone, which is a disinfectant but fundamentally cannot be taken internally as it's a gas, and it's slightly toxic https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-... ; the book mentions "Oxygen-Ozone therapy is a complementary approach less known than homeopathy and acupuncture" so that's obviously quackery as well)
        Alex3917 7y ago
        Do you not see how it's ironic that you're calling other people quacks, in the context of literally lobbying against using empirical evidence to decide whether or not something is safe and effective?