4 ms·

No idea who this Monic Smit person is or if they're good, or bad, a criminal, misinformed, or a smart person doing good, but I do love how the discourse has bec

No idea who this Monic Smit person is or if they're good, or bad, a criminal, misinformed, or a smart person doing good, but I do love how the discourse has become so homogenous, orthodox and unipolar that any dissent from a full embrace of vaccine and government policy not only earns the title "anti-vax", but contains in that nouveau term-of-abuse the implicit notions both that: 1) dissent is bad, and 2) all dissidents are the same. It's like the Othering, abusive, zero-nuance, with-us-or-against-us wartime propaganda employed by every country in WWII. This is an effective tactic to sideline, silence and discredit anything that does not agree with the theory that vaccines, lockdowns and other transient emergences of government policy and corporate interest are the only solutions. The dogma that ivermectin and ICQ have "no quality scientific evidence" supporting their efficacy, is belied by the mountain of research demonstrating massive improvement[0][1]. Sad and a total scandal not covered by the mainstream media that: 1) effective generic, out-of-patent, well-tolerated treatments are being suppressed in favor of profitable proprietary experimental vaccines delivered with cartel-like shenanigans (including access being contingent upon a country NOT recommending HCQ/ivermectin and others); and, 2) researchers regularly use words like "ineffective", "no significant improvement" in their conclusion sections even when their results show improvement. Again, the same wartime propagandists' tactic is used. Support for HCQ or ivermectin is labelled as "crazy" and "stupid", and only stories that associate such ideas with people who display other crazy or stupid behaviors are promoted. Sadly, even people in biology and medicine display the same herd behavior, which lets me think, "These people do not know what they are saying is propaganda and wrong, they actually believe it!" In other words, they do not know that they are working as propagandists for whoever benefits, but they do so anyway, and willingly, likely corralled in no small degree, by the collective glee and individual dopamine rush of feeling, "We are so right, and smart! And that group there, man are they so wrong, and dumb!" I can't work out who benefits the most: vaccine making pharma companies, governments or someone else? [0]: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ [1]: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ edit: I guess I didn't read the audience of this article here that well, because I expected that these well-written and impassioned pleas for a bit of open-ness in the discourse, as well as criticism and questioning of the homogeneity would be well received here. I feel pretty sad they weren't because if people here don't think critically enough, or have courage enough, to think outside the blinders that are so obviously on our society at this time, then who will? You know: the smart, savvy, mostly financially independent tech workers...if they can't afford a bit of dissent, or critical inquiry, then who can, seriously?

reilly3000 5y ago
Your breathless attempt to parrot Hanity on HN isn’t well received because it’s unscientific. You issued cultural criticism, which is welcome, but it isn’t about facts or figures. If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received. Do your own research. Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls. Here’s a decent assessment of what is going on with Ivermectin right now: lots of people getting sick from it, and nobody getting cured of COVID-19 from it. Because it’s an anti-parasite drug, not an anti-viral. Ever consider you’re getting played? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-republicans-rand-paul-b1911392.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-rep...
- foolzcrow 5y ago
  This is not true. Ivermectin has over 8 studies and they all came back positive. They want us injected so badly that no lie is off the table. Why are you all starting a civil war with them?
- graderjs 5y ago
  Plenty of breaths in here for me. You got to work on your reading. Or your breathing? Slow down, take it one step at a time. Your hysterical association with Hannity to try to dismiss shows your bias-- just because you associate an idea with someone you try to discredit does not mean the idea itself is discredited. Maybe you need to read the science. I linked. Hilarious that your critique doesn't even relate to what I said. Because, "unscientific?" hahah--so I guess, thank you for volunteering to refute the 350 trials in the two links? This is great. " If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received." This is so hilarious. That's exactly what is on that page. Study after study, examined and collated. It shows you didn't even click through to the links, or if you did, you didn't bother to give them the time of day? Or you're being deliberately deceptive, or are so convinced of your righteousness (or blinded by the prevailing dogma, or just don't care?) that you're lying about it? Who even does that? The links are right there, anyone can see you're lying. It's like you don't even care about this truth. This is perfect, it perfectly encapsulates the state of the discourse. Thank you, truly, for exposing yourself so vulnerably and totally. This is brilliant, really brilliant. And if this was satire, well done--I mean, this was great satire. Really nailed the irrational rejections of science. Perfect. Down pat. But if not satire, then, man, you--haha--self-righteously launch into this tirade decrying all the things you yourself are doing! What can this be, except projection? Brilliant, beautiful, pre-emptive projection. "Do your own research." Apart from everything else that's abusive about this--I mean--it's so offensive and abusive of you to assume someone hasn't done so, simply because their conclusions are different to yours? And when they've linked research? Is that the strongest rebuttal you can come up with? And when it's totally false. So, "do your own research"--This is exactly what I think you know you need to be doing! And I think, deep down you must fear that. That's why you're exposing yourself with all these criticisms you're trying to level at me, is exactly what you're doing! Haha, this is perfect! It exactly mimics what I thought is going on in the discourse at this time. The level of irrationality, and the weakness of refutation speaks at the cultish adoration of the prevailing dogma. You're just parroting the orthodox, from the media as well, while decrying the media and telling people to turn it off. This is hilarious! And you can't even engage with dissent--scientific dissent--so you're just lying about what you pretend you're dismissing. " Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls." This is so hilarious, every study, with publication links, commentary, and the results are collated. You're misrepresenting this site because you can't deal with one of these studies that challenges the dogma you seem to believe, and actually refute it. Perfect confirmation bias. Love you so much for showing how it works in practice--the machinery of delusion and confirmation bias, how you have to invent all this claptrap just to avoid seeing something that's in front of your face but that goes against what you've been told--probably on the TV, radio, social media and YouTube, no less, right? That site is literally paper after paper. Hundreds of peer reviewed articles. Turn off the TV, etc, is a pro-tip but one you need to take. Hmm, but I guess the biggest give away is how you compulsively react that because I have this view, I must be doing all these "bad" things (that you clearly are doing yourself), when in fact I'm doing the exact opposite here of what you say I'm doing, and it seems you are the one who has done the things you condemn. This is such perfect projective confirmation bias, I'm honestly confused--why would you do this?--unless you don't realize what you're doing. And I think that's fair, these are confusing times. It's hard, I get that. But I can't--I just can't ignore how hilarious and perfect, your airquotes "rebuttal" is. That you so much for epitomizing the state of the discourse in this amazingly un-selfaware set of accusations that seem to perfectly describe how you must have arrived at this dogma. I mean you must consider everyday you're getting played, right? That's why you live with such blinders on, because that truth must be unbearable to face, isn't it? I feel sorry for you if you're sincere here, but that doesn't excuse you being so dismissive of someone else's good-faith sincerity here. You need to work on yourself, you know--be more open-minded--and think critically about things. Otherwise you're just helping those bloodthirsty trolls you pretend you're against--and whoever else benefits from people not really thinking about these things. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you know, you did say all that shit, with your really unjustified attempt to, you know, not even look at what I'm saying, but pretend you were addressing it. I mean that's not cool. But anyway, hope you learn better for next time. Have a good one! :P ;) xx edit: OMG, and you're at Snopes.com--the fact checkers!--this can't get better. This perfectly encapsulates the discourse, but you have the face to say all this, when you have this moral responsibility to truth, and this is how you act?! Oh, man. You're doing a bad thing there, I hope you take some responsibility for that and start doing some good with the position you have. But, man, maybe you don't have a choice right? Maybe the bosses don't let you? But, man, you should quit. If that's what passes for truth there, you should quit. That's irresponsible, and dangerous, to so many people. That you hold this position, while thinking like this, lying about the source, and you're whole job is about truth for people. That's wrong. Fuck, I mean...maybe you just--maybe you saw that and this is how you deal with it. By just drowning it in delusion and throwing your pent-up self-reflected hostility at anyone who challenges the dogma and reminds you of the lie you're living. Man, I get it, it must be tough, but...you should make a change. I hope you do something better in future, dude. Wow. Please. Cya 'round.

reilly3000 5y ago

Your breathless attempt to parrot Hanity on HN isn’t well received because it’s unscientific. You issued cultural criticism, which is welcome, but it isn’t about facts or figures. If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received. Do your own research. Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls. Here’s a decent assessment of what is going on with Ivermectin right now: lots of people getting sick from it, and nobody getting cured of COVID-19 from it. Because it’s an anti-parasite drug, not an anti-viral. Ever consider you’re getting played? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-republicans-rand-paul-b1911392.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ivermectin-dewormer-rep...

foolzcrow 5y ago
This is not true. Ivermectin has over 8 studies and they all came back positive. They want us injected so badly that no lie is off the table. Why are you all starting a civil war with them?
graderjs 5y ago
Plenty of breaths in here for me. You got to work on your reading. Or your breathing? Slow down, take it one step at a time. Your hysterical association with Hannity to try to dismiss shows your bias-- just because you associate an idea with someone you try to discredit does not mean the idea itself is discredited. Maybe you need to read the science. I linked. Hilarious that your critique doesn't even relate to what I said. Because, "unscientific?" hahah--so I guess, thank you for volunteering to refute the 350 trials in the two links? This is great. " If you had linked to an NIH study about Ivermectin and showed that the authors of the paper made an error in their statistical analysis that may have been better received." This is so hilarious. That's exactly what is on that page. Study after study, examined and collated. It shows you didn't even click through to the links, or if you did, you didn't bother to give them the time of day? Or you're being deliberately deceptive, or are so convinced of your righteousness (or blinded by the prevailing dogma, or just don't care?) that you're lying about it? Who even does that? The links are right there, anyone can see you're lying. It's like you don't even care about this truth. This is perfect, it perfectly encapsulates the state of the discourse. Thank you, truly, for exposing yourself so vulnerably and totally. This is brilliant, really brilliant. And if this was satire, well done--I mean, this was great satire. Really nailed the irrational rejections of science. Perfect. Down pat. But if not satire, then, man, you--haha--self-righteously launch into this tirade decrying all the things you yourself are doing! What can this be, except projection? Brilliant, beautiful, pre-emptive projection. "Do your own research." Apart from everything else that's abusive about this--I mean--it's so offensive and abusive of you to assume someone hasn't done so, simply because their conclusions are different to yours? And when they've linked research? Is that the strongest rebuttal you can come up with? And when it's totally false. So, "do your own research"--This is exactly what I think you know you need to be doing! And I think, deep down you must fear that. That's why you're exposing yourself with all these criticisms you're trying to level at me, is exactly what you're doing! Haha, this is perfect! It exactly mimics what I thought is going on in the discourse at this time. The level of irrationality, and the weakness of refutation speaks at the cultish adoration of the prevailing dogma. You're just parroting the orthodox, from the media as well, while decrying the media and telling people to turn it off. This is hilarious! And you can't even engage with dissent--scientific dissent--so you're just lying about what you pretend you're dismissing. " Pro-tip: that involves turning off the TV, radio, social media, and YouTube. It usually starts with reading dozens of peer-reviewed articles and being open to wherever the findings may lead you. The site you referenced contains a lot of hogwash that doesn’t pass muster, like non peer-reviewed studies, press releases, data from 2017 about parasite treatments, etc. It’s styled to appear convincing, but it appears to me to be the work of bloodthirsty trolls." This is so hilarious, every study, with publication links, commentary, and the results are collated. You're misrepresenting this site because you can't deal with one of these studies that challenges the dogma you seem to believe, and actually refute it. Perfect confirmation bias. Love you so much for showing how it works in practice--the machinery of delusion and confirmation bias, how you have to invent all this claptrap just to avoid seeing something that's in front of your face but that goes against what you've been told--probably on the TV, radio, social media and YouTube, no less, right? That site is literally paper after paper. Hundreds of peer reviewed articles. Turn off the TV, etc, is a pro-tip but one you need to take. Hmm, but I guess the biggest give away is how you compulsively react that because I have this view, I must be doing all these "bad" things (that you clearly are doing yourself), when in fact I'm doing the exact opposite here of what you say I'm doing, and it seems you are the one who has done the things you condemn. This is such perfect projective confirmation bias, I'm honestly confused--why would you do this?--unless you don't realize what you're doing. And I think that's fair, these are confusing times. It's hard, I get that. But I can't--I just can't ignore how hilarious and perfect, your airquotes "rebuttal" is. That you so much for epitomizing the state of the discourse in this amazingly un-selfaware set of accusations that seem to perfectly describe how you must have arrived at this dogma. I mean you must consider everyday you're getting played, right? That's why you live with such blinders on, because that truth must be unbearable to face, isn't it? I feel sorry for you if you're sincere here, but that doesn't excuse you being so dismissive of someone else's good-faith sincerity here. You need to work on yourself, you know--be more open-minded--and think critically about things. Otherwise you're just helping those bloodthirsty trolls you pretend you're against--and whoever else benefits from people not really thinking about these things. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you know, you did say all that shit, with your really unjustified attempt to, you know, not even look at what I'm saying, but pretend you were addressing it. I mean that's not cool. But anyway, hope you learn better for next time. Have a good one! :P ;) xx edit: OMG, and you're at Snopes.com--the fact checkers!--this can't get better. This perfectly encapsulates the discourse, but you have the face to say all this, when you have this moral responsibility to truth, and this is how you act?! Oh, man. You're doing a bad thing there, I hope you take some responsibility for that and start doing some good with the position you have. But, man, maybe you don't have a choice right? Maybe the bosses don't let you? But, man, you should quit. If that's what passes for truth there, you should quit. That's irresponsible, and dangerous, to so many people. That you hold this position, while thinking like this, lying about the source, and you're whole job is about truth for people. That's wrong. Fuck, I mean...maybe you just--maybe you saw that and this is how you deal with it. By just drowning it in delusion and throwing your pent-up self-reflected hostility at anyone who challenges the dogma and reminds you of the lie you're living. Man, I get it, it must be tough, but...you should make a change. I hope you do something better in future, dude. Wow. Please. Cya 'round.