4 ms·

Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo

Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.

shakna 5y ago
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions. [1] There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. More interested in promoting an alternative viewpoint than whether that viewpoint actually has merit. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/04/sharri-markson-says-youtube-suspension-of-sky-news-australia-is-cancellation-of-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/04/sharri-markson... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/02/sydney-covid-patient-in-westmead-hospital-after-overdosing-on-ivermectin-and-other-online-cures https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/02/sydne...
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  >> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them.
  - humanistbot 5y ago
    > Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.
    - mwint 5y ago
      It is scientific fact that countries which start censoring for “correctness” in increasingly many categories end up being Not Great places to live.
    - splintercell 5y ago
      Does the logic not work the other way? If you start defending censorship of a position, you have lost the debate.
      - arrow7000 5y ago
        It does not.
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      The debate wasn't about scientific fact. It was about whether a journalist was spreading misinformation and according to whom. The debate is about the Orwellian term "misinformation" and has less to do with science than with Scientism.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - quantumsolace 5y ago
      That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis). As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited. A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospitalization only tangentially connects those two medications to toxicity in hospital. It specifically says those drugs were taken among unnamed others and that the source of influence was unnamed online sources. The quoted doctor is very hand-wavy about connecting those drugs to the hospitalization, and it's unclear from the quote whether the primary reason the patient was admitted to hospital wasn't Covid: "The patient didn’t get severe toxicity from taking the ivermectin cocktail, “but it didn’t help their Covid either”, he said." I would be very skeptical of any claims around Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in The Guardian, which is a very biased news source. Especially after the recent Rolling Stone mendacity regarding claims of toxicity in Oklahoma, which was a complete fabrication nonetheless amplified on the left media. The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?
  - shakna 5y ago
    > The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no? Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence. She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative. I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? I'm not telling you not to be skeptical of this journalist. It seems like you're really projecting your own beliefs here.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Here is an interesting case where an international group has gone out of its way to stop treatment by spreading misinformation. https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  The above post is deliberately misleading since: 1) Nobody questions her WIV reporting. She has multiple sources and in 2021 they are the most likely explanations, not an "alternative." There are enough FOIA documents to prove a GoF coverup by Fauci and Daszak, and enough video to show what was happening inside WIV. The DOE reported in May 2020 that a corona lab leak was possible, and the only reason Fauci wasn't fired was to avoid making him a martyr - big mistake, since Fauci was able to coordinate a coverup for over a year. The head of WHO also admitted that a lab leak was possible in summer 2021. 2) Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are prescribed by medical doctors for corona, so that's a red herring. But that's a separate issue than her year-long, accurate WIV reporting. 3) Youtube bans anybody who doesn't agree with their narrative - it's a badge of honor at this point. The problem is that people like shakna are the ones who are in fact anti-science, just endlessly parroting MSM narratives instead of examining the facts. If you haven't followed the WIV investigation closely, then stop posting misinformation.

shakna 5y ago

Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions. [1] There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. More interested in promoting an alternative viewpoint than whether that viewpoint actually has merit. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/04/sharri-markson-says-youtube-suspension-of-sky-news-australia-is-cancellation-of-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/04/sharri-markson... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/02/sydney-covid-patient-in-westmead-hospital-after-overdosing-on-ivermectin-and-other-online-cures https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/02/sydne...

artificialLimbs 5y ago
>> Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. >> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  > Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice. In a debate about scientific facts, when you stop defending the content of a position and instead fall back to saying that it is not illegal to express that position, you've lost the debate.
  - mwint 5y ago
    It is scientific fact that countries which start censoring for “correctness” in increasingly many categories end up being Not Great places to live.
  - splintercell 5y ago
    Does the logic not work the other way? If you start defending censorship of a position, you have lost the debate.
    - arrow7000 5y ago
      It does not.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    The debate wasn't about scientific fact. It was about whether a journalist was spreading misinformation and according to whom. The debate is about the Orwellian term "misinformation" and has less to do with science than with Scientism.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - quantumsolace 5y ago
    That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis). As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited. A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.
ctrlp 5y ago
Regardless of the supposed merits or demerits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, the articles you cite don't support your claim very well. The piece on hospitalization only tangentially connects those two medications to toxicity in hospital. It specifically says those drugs were taken among unnamed others and that the source of influence was unnamed online sources. The quoted doctor is very hand-wavy about connecting those drugs to the hospitalization, and it's unclear from the quote whether the primary reason the patient was admitted to hospital wasn't Covid: "The patient didn’t get severe toxicity from taking the ivermectin cocktail, “but it didn’t help their Covid either”, he said." I would be very skeptical of any claims around Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in The Guardian, which is a very biased news source. Especially after the recent Rolling Stone mendacity regarding claims of toxicity in Oklahoma, which was a complete fabrication nonetheless amplified on the left media. The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no?
- shakna 5y ago
  > The other article you cite disapprovingly mentions the author was claiming "lab leak" back in May 2020. That would seem a mark in favor of her reporting, no? Not unless said reporting at the time actually had evidence to support the claim. A reporter has a duty to report based on actual evidence. She has repeated misinformation, without that evidence, an argument you just used to dismiss the entirety of the Guardian, for all time, on one subject matter. Should that not equally apply to this reporter, then?
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    What is your evidence that she didn't have evidence? Lots of credible people were saying lab leak in 2020. I was there and following it closely. It wasn't hard to come by if you employed basic skepticism of the mainstream narrative. I didn't dismiss the entirety of The Guardian for all time (straw-man, anyone?), I said I would be skeptical of anything they publish related to a contested narrative because they have shown repeated bias. What's wrong with that? I'm not telling you not to be skeptical of this journalist. It seems like you're really projecting your own beliefs here.
naruvimama 5y ago
Here is an interesting case where an international group has gone out of its way to stop treatment by spreading misinformation. https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI https://youtu.be/eD9BYCYwsUI
redis_mlc 5y ago
The above post is deliberately misleading since: 1) Nobody questions her WIV reporting. She has multiple sources and in 2021 they are the most likely explanations, not an "alternative." There are enough FOIA documents to prove a GoF coverup by Fauci and Daszak, and enough video to show what was happening inside WIV. The DOE reported in May 2020 that a corona lab leak was possible, and the only reason Fauci wasn't fired was to avoid making him a martyr - big mistake, since Fauci was able to coordinate a coverup for over a year. The head of WHO also admitted that a lab leak was possible in summer 2021. 2) Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are prescribed by medical doctors for corona, so that's a red herring. But that's a separate issue than her year-long, accurate WIV reporting. 3) Youtube bans anybody who doesn't agree with their narrative - it's a badge of honor at this point. The problem is that people like shakna are the ones who are in fact anti-science, just endlessly parroting MSM narratives instead of examining the facts. If you haven't followed the WIV investigation closely, then stop posting misinformation.