4 ms·

>a group of vocal doctors who get ignored or suppressed by the media You make it sound so ominous. But if you look them up they have gotten a ton of coverage f

by tokai 5y ago

>a group of vocal doctors who get ignored or suppressed by the media You make it sound so ominous. But if you look them up they have gotten a ton of coverage from all kinds of media. Pierre Kory et. al. has also published (and are still publishing) numerous articles in (non hoax/predatory) science journals. Sure they are critiqued, but that is what happens when you go against a majority opinion (disciplinary not popular).

_jal 5y ago
> You make it sound so ominous It is like a group of folks only recently discovered the marketing value of being "banned". A lot of them apparently just noticed punk rock this decade, I guess. And so you get amazing spectacles like Bari Weiss whining about being shut of out public discourse... in the NYT and WSJ. I'm sure many of her intellectual adversaries would love to be shunned to a similar degree.
- EricE 5y ago
  Talking about bans is not an open debate about an actual subject - it's just more dodging/suppression of dissenting opinion. Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed and indeed you are doing the same. Deflecting to talking about bans/access, rather than the pro's/con's of treatments other than just the vaccines for COVID. Gives people like you the comfort of being open minded without actually being open minded.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed What are you talking about? You're dissenting right here. People do it in the national press daily, as they have been for literally years now on this particular topic. No, what certain people don't like is that their preferred narratives aren't taken as seriously as they want. So whining about "suppressing dissent" is a more palatable explanation for their butthurt, whether sincere (as you might be) or manufactured (like I was pointing to). My high-school band didn't suck after all. We were suppressed!
    - ccn0p 5y ago
      Dissenting and getting downvoted, kind of proving the point. My experience living in a county and working in an industry that are both dominated by one particular way of thinking given to them by authority figures (CDC, New York Times, etc.) is that if you step outside that way of thinking and pose fairly innocuous questions that challenge it, two things happen: you lose all credibility, and you get called pretty bad things (racist, conspiracist, etc). That alone is pretty detrimental to pushing the envelope with hard conversations. I have no doubt (and hear) that what I personally experience is also happening across the media and entertainment industry resulting in groupthink even inside the rooms that are supposed to be doing journalism and asking the hard questions that criticize and question authority. As I type these words, it's almost as if the root of this is whether you trust those in "authoritative" roles, or not. And fear for ones health turns us against each other if we feel like those authoritative figures are either helping, or hurting. Anyways. If you think what Bari does is whine, that's too bad. Of the growing band of "counter-narrative" folks (Glenn Greenwald, Bari, Matt Taibi, Russell Brand, etc.) she's rock solid in her reporting and I oftentimes feel like she's doing what journalism should be doing. Spend a bit more time actually reading (or listening) to her. She covers a gambit of topics.
      - _jal 5y ago
        > getting downvoted In the US, you're entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect, or even an audience. And I'm sorry, but if getting downvoted is political oppression to you, you need to grow some skin. > She covers a gambit of topics. I have read her. She's a boring and repetitive replacement-level whiner who's built a brand appealing to people with certain kinds of insecurities.
        ccn0p 5y ago
        You're entitled to your opinion about someones work and that's fine, but I would hardly call her work repetitive, whining, or an appeal to insecurity. When people get "cancelled", she interviews them to get their side of the story (Winston Marshall). When someone writes what seems like pretty groundbreaking work using experience from years at the CIA, she interviews them (Martin Gurri - Revolt of the Public). When everyone ostracized the Central Park Karen, she interviewed a friend who had interviewed Amy Cooper while she was basically in hiding to get the other side of the story. Feels like journalism to me.
EricE 5y ago
- nradov 5y ago
  Currently the Japanese ministry of health recommends that ivermectin only be used as a potential COVID treatment in clinical trials. It's not otherwise authorized. Some physicians do prescribe it off label, and it's possible that could have affected the course of the pandemic in Japan, but at this point we have no reliable data either way. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/ivermectin-japan-covid19-little-evidence/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/iverme...
ccn0p 5y ago
On that logic, if that's the case, then shouldn't a responsible "mainstream" media (CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc.) be talking about these published papers by Pierre Kory et al. even if positioned as "minority viewpoints"? Instead what we tend to see is fact checkers springing into action and media continuing to only push a single "majority" narrative further dividing all of us instead of uniting us together to have open dialogue and letting the best ideas win in the public space. It's all so bizarre.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  This is such a silly line of argument -- If someone writes a paper that says "the sky is pink" -- you would afford them no airtime at all, even as "minority viewpoints". These doctors are quacks, they get as much mainstream media coverage as quacks deserve.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    Listening to Robert Malone and numerous other scientists like Anders Tegnell and Dr. Peter McCoullough and other people with credentials that make your credentials look like those of an HVAC technician, it's strange that the HVAC technician would call them quacks. Just because you have the main stream media on your side doesn't mean your narrative isn't 'the sky is pink'. It could mean the emperor wears no clothes but is too unaware to see it.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      It's not the 'narrative' thats on the side of vaccines and actual useful therapeutics -- it's the vast majority of science. You sound exactly like my elderly obese neighbor whose rationale for not getting vaccinated is "all those doctors who aren't getting it have to know something I don't". If 99% of scientists and doctors are on one side, and you need to resort to credentialism instead of actual research to prop up those who are on the other, you're not really standing on solid ground. If ivermectin worked, it would have had signal in any of the dozens of trials we've run. If Malone had anything useful to say, he wouldn't be hanging out with Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson and lying about "inventing MRNA and DNA vaccines" and whether vaccines are cytotoxic. These people are frauds and we'd all be better for saying that plainly.

by tokai 5y ago

_jal 5y ago

> You make it sound so ominous It is like a group of folks only recently discovered the marketing value of being "banned". A lot of them apparently just noticed punk rock this decade, I guess. And so you get amazing spectacles like Bari Weiss whining about being shut of out public discourse... in the NYT and WSJ. I'm sure many of her intellectual adversaries would love to be shunned to a similar degree.

EricE 5y ago
Talking about bans is not an open debate about an actual subject - it's just more dodging/suppression of dissenting opinion. Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed and indeed you are doing the same. Deflecting to talking about bans/access, rather than the pro's/con's of treatments other than just the vaccines for COVID. Gives people like you the comfort of being open minded without actually being open minded.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed What are you talking about? You're dissenting right here. People do it in the national press daily, as they have been for literally years now on this particular topic. No, what certain people don't like is that their preferred narratives aren't taken as seriously as they want. So whining about "suppressing dissent" is a more palatable explanation for their butthurt, whether sincere (as you might be) or manufactured (like I was pointing to). My high-school band didn't suck after all. We were suppressed!
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    Dissenting and getting downvoted, kind of proving the point. My experience living in a county and working in an industry that are both dominated by one particular way of thinking given to them by authority figures (CDC, New York Times, etc.) is that if you step outside that way of thinking and pose fairly innocuous questions that challenge it, two things happen: you lose all credibility, and you get called pretty bad things (racist, conspiracist, etc). That alone is pretty detrimental to pushing the envelope with hard conversations. I have no doubt (and hear) that what I personally experience is also happening across the media and entertainment industry resulting in groupthink even inside the rooms that are supposed to be doing journalism and asking the hard questions that criticize and question authority. As I type these words, it's almost as if the root of this is whether you trust those in "authoritative" roles, or not. And fear for ones health turns us against each other if we feel like those authoritative figures are either helping, or hurting. Anyways. If you think what Bari does is whine, that's too bad. Of the growing band of "counter-narrative" folks (Glenn Greenwald, Bari, Matt Taibi, Russell Brand, etc.) she's rock solid in her reporting and I oftentimes feel like she's doing what journalism should be doing. Spend a bit more time actually reading (or listening) to her. She covers a gambit of topics.
    - _jal 5y ago
      > getting downvoted In the US, you're entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect, or even an audience. And I'm sorry, but if getting downvoted is political oppression to you, you need to grow some skin. > She covers a gambit of topics. I have read her. She's a boring and repetitive replacement-level whiner who's built a brand appealing to people with certain kinds of insecurities.
      - ccn0p 5y ago
        You're entitled to your opinion about someones work and that's fine, but I would hardly call her work repetitive, whining, or an appeal to insecurity. When people get "cancelled", she interviews them to get their side of the story (Winston Marshall). When someone writes what seems like pretty groundbreaking work using experience from years at the CIA, she interviews them (Martin Gurri - Revolt of the Public). When everyone ostracized the Central Park Karen, she interviewed a friend who had interviewed Amy Cooper while she was basically in hiding to get the other side of the story. Feels like journalism to me.

EricE 5y ago

nradov 5y ago
Currently the Japanese ministry of health recommends that ivermectin only be used as a potential COVID treatment in clinical trials. It's not otherwise authorized. Some physicians do prescribe it off label, and it's possible that could have affected the course of the pandemic in Japan, but at this point we have no reliable data either way. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/ivermectin-japan-covid19-little-evidence/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/iverme...

ccn0p 5y ago

On that logic, if that's the case, then shouldn't a responsible "mainstream" media (CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc.) be talking about these published papers by Pierre Kory et al. even if positioned as "minority viewpoints"? Instead what we tend to see is fact checkers springing into action and media continuing to only push a single "majority" narrative further dividing all of us instead of uniting us together to have open dialogue and letting the best ideas win in the public space. It's all so bizarre.

mikeyouse 5y ago
This is such a silly line of argument -- If someone writes a paper that says "the sky is pink" -- you would afford them no airtime at all, even as "minority viewpoints". These doctors are quacks, they get as much mainstream media coverage as quacks deserve.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Listening to Robert Malone and numerous other scientists like Anders Tegnell and Dr. Peter McCoullough and other people with credentials that make your credentials look like those of an HVAC technician, it's strange that the HVAC technician would call them quacks. Just because you have the main stream media on your side doesn't mean your narrative isn't 'the sky is pink'. It could mean the emperor wears no clothes but is too unaware to see it.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    It's not the 'narrative' thats on the side of vaccines and actual useful therapeutics -- it's the vast majority of science. You sound exactly like my elderly obese neighbor whose rationale for not getting vaccinated is "all those doctors who aren't getting it have to know something I don't". If 99% of scientists and doctors are on one side, and you need to resort to credentialism instead of actual research to prop up those who are on the other, you're not really standing on solid ground. If ivermectin worked, it would have had signal in any of the dozens of trials we've run. If Malone had anything useful to say, he wouldn't be hanging out with Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson and lying about "inventing MRNA and DNA vaccines" and whether vaccines are cytotoxic. These people are frauds and we'd all be better for saying that plainly.