4 ms·

Alright, so lets not look at the signers, let's look at the clearly listed authors on that page: > Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Unive

Alright, so lets not look at the signers, let's look at the clearly listed authors on that page: > Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist > Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development > Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert > Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health Some of these people have done interviews too. You can go look them up on major news programs. > Hint: if a doctor or researcher can only publish their findings on YouTube/Facebook/Instagram, they don't have anything worthwhile to say We're talking about an ongoing crisis where we see clear censorship in media, big tech and academic publications. People are basing world changing decisions off pre-prints and pre-pubs. Does it really matter where a doctor or researcher publishes their views so long as it is a real doctor or researcher? Why does the platform make their opinion invalid?

IgorPartola 6y ago
I repeat, I was just able to use a fake name to sign that document. Nothing prevents anyone from signing it as any of those people. Just for giggles, I just literally signed it a second time as "Dr. DJ Sumdog, PhD, associate professor at Hacker News". Check your email to complete the process. Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration. The medical and public health communities have soundly rejected this declaration. This declaration makes no sense if you examine it with any kind of critical eye. Start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#R... and from there check the linked sources. There is no censorship in the media regarding medical research of COVID-19. There is fact checking. Just because you believe something that is false and the media isn't reporting that falsehood as fact does not mean the media is censoring you. It means it's false. Occam's Razor will quickly tell you that the chances of a global conspiracy are much lower than the chances of what you are saying here being false. Think about just how many people would have to know about this conspiracy and all of them would keep it perfectly secret. Every news organization in the world would have to collectively conspire to keep the truth from us, right? Every journalist, every editor, every publisher, every news anchor, every weatherman, every sportscaster, every public official. Do you know how quickly that would unravel? I know it's easy to believe a conspiracy because it's so appealing but it's just not what is going on. The platform is an indirect indication: if the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit. Think critically for a moment the way they taught in you middle school and realize that what you are quoting are unverified unreliable sources and fringe ideas. If you were saying that drinking motor oil cures COVID you'd have about as much credibility. I am done trying to argue with you because you are not worth arguing about, but I do beg you to use your head and think instead of falling for every damn hoax out there like you seem to have. Happy New Year and stay safe.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration There are also conflicts with Fauci has his strong connections to the Gavi health alliance and many big pharma companies. Some of them might have conflicts, but all of them? And even if they do, what about the arguments themselves? Science is not a consensus. > There is no censorship in the media regarding medical research of COVID-19. There is fact checking You have got to be fucking kidding me?! The Hunter Biden story, published by one of the largest newspapers in the United States (the NY Post) was censored on every major platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and was it was later found that he was under active investigation by the FBI. We are in one of the absolutely worst eras of censorship of our times. It has grown ti 1984 levels of insanity by Big Tech and Big Media. You cannot possible be saying there is no big media censorship and it's all "Fact Checking". That's total fucking bullshit. We have cases where the news media contradicts their own headlines within their own articles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA) and literally fact checks opinions and hyperbolas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM) > The platform is an indirect indication: if the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit. You are essentially saying "The Media is the Message." It's a massive logical error. Remember at one time, the major scientific publications said black people were inferior to whites due to their skull size. It was provable science at that time. Science is not about majority rule, it's about examination and facts that can be reproduced by others. > it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit That's assuming the result based on the medium. You realize a bunch of researches got totally baseless papers published in respected grievance study journals, right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/gri... furthermore, there have been many cases where the medium has been banned throughout history, by the academic and scientific communities, for things that are commonly accepted as fact today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA I feel like your arguments are very similar to those that advocate creationism. It's religion in the guise of science.

IgorPartola 6y ago

I repeat, I was just able to use a fake name to sign that document. Nothing prevents anyone from signing it as any of those people. Just for giggles, I just literally signed it a second time as "Dr. DJ Sumdog, PhD, associate professor at Hacker News". Check your email to complete the process. Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration. The medical and public health communities have soundly rejected this declaration. This declaration makes no sense if you examine it with any kind of critical eye. Start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#R... and from there check the linked sources. There is no censorship in the media regarding medical research of COVID-19. There is fact checking. Just because you believe something that is false and the media isn't reporting that falsehood as fact does not mean the media is censoring you. It means it's false. Occam's Razor will quickly tell you that the chances of a global conspiracy are much lower than the chances of what you are saying here being false. Think about just how many people would have to know about this conspiracy and all of them would keep it perfectly secret. Every news organization in the world would have to collectively conspire to keep the truth from us, right? Every journalist, every editor, every publisher, every news anchor, every weatherman, every sportscaster, every public official. Do you know how quickly that would unravel? I know it's easy to believe a conspiracy because it's so appealing but it's just not what is going on. The platform is an indirect indication: if the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit. Think critically for a moment the way they taught in you middle school and realize that what you are quoting are unverified unreliable sources and fringe ideas. If you were saying that drinking motor oil cures COVID you'd have about as much credibility. I am done trying to argue with you because you are not worth arguing about, but I do beg you to use your head and think instead of falling for every damn hoax out there like you seem to have. Happy New Year and stay safe.

djsumdog 6y ago
> Furthermore, the people you listed above have been found to have conflicts of interest regarding this declaration There are also conflicts with Fauci has his strong connections to the Gavi health alliance and many big pharma companies. Some of them might have conflicts, but all of them? And even if they do, what about the arguments themselves? Science is not a consensus. > There is no censorship in the media regarding medical research of COVID-19. There is fact checking You have got to be fucking kidding me?! The Hunter Biden story, published by one of the largest newspapers in the United States (the NY Post) was censored on every major platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and was it was later found that he was under active investigation by the FBI. We are in one of the absolutely worst eras of censorship of our times. It has grown ti 1984 levels of insanity by Big Tech and Big Media. You cannot possible be saying there is no big media censorship and it's all "Fact Checking". That's total fucking bullshit. We have cases where the news media contradicts their own headlines within their own articles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA) and literally fact checks opinions and hyperbolas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPruYq320MM) > The platform is an indirect indication: if the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit. You are essentially saying "The Media is the Message." It's a massive logical error. Remember at one time, the major scientific publications said black people were inferior to whites due to their skull size. It was provable science at that time. Science is not about majority rule, it's about examination and facts that can be reproduced by others. > it's most likely because your hypothesis is bullshit That's assuming the result based on the medium. You realize a bunch of researches got totally baseless papers published in respected grievance study journals, right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/gri... furthermore, there have been many cases where the medium has been banned throughout history, by the academic and scientific communities, for things that are commonly accepted as fact today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA I feel like your arguments are very similar to those that advocate creationism. It's religion in the guise of science.