6 ms·
> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.
by saulpw 3y ago
> a capable public can make this determination
The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.
- believecty 3y ago[flagged]
- deanCommie 3y agoI just want to be clarify, is your point that the MRNA vaccines do not work, but ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine do? I don't have a response, I just want to make sure I understand precisely what your statement meant.
- criddell 3y agoI think they probably agree with saulpw and referencing the COVID stuff is a funny way to make that point.
- entropicdrifter 3y agoI'd love to believe that, but they made a new account just to make that comment. I'm guessing it's unironic.
- believecty 3y agoOn HN, you have to frequently make a new account. Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned.
- entropicdrifter 3y ago>Accounts guilty of wrong-think quickly get shadowbanned. Have you considered the possibility that you're being ignored because you're unpopular and the algorithms just make that more convenient? Nah, you're right, everyone's out to get you
- ForOldHack 3y agoThe point is, his post is from a lunatical radical conspiracy theorist, and can only be construed as 'The sheeple did no research." Personally, I received 3 mRNA vaccines, and I got a-symptomatic Covid-19. No symptoms. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were shown to do nothing, except the placebo effect, lure the sheeple into a false sense of security, and then Un-alive them, like Herman Cain. I would pump this post full of references, as there are a few hundred, but ... just do not waste your time.
- wubrr 3y agoYou shouldn't insult people just because you disagree with their point. Your anecdotal experience isn't exactly meaningful here, especially when that's the only 'evidence' you include instead of the 'few hundred references' you supposedly have (read?). I got 2 mRNA vaccines, and I got non-asymptomatic covid twice after getting the vaccines. I'd like to see more discussion on this topic in an open, respectful manner. Your comment is the opposite of that.
- baseballdork 3y agoPerfect example of the point you were replying to.
- nemothekid 3y ago>Turns out hcq, ivm worked and the mrna shots - not so much. Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have not shown to be anywhere near the efficiency of MRNA vaccines, and the fact that they continue to muddy the waters cast a large doubt on whether the general public is capable of independent inquiry.
- believecty 3y agoc19study.com You're wrong.
- nemothekid 3y agoThis meta-analysis site has been shilled since the early days of COVID and has given thousands of people, who have no business trying to parse medical data, a false sense of understanding of these dubious medical reports. This is despite the fact that no governing medical body has approved or shown the efficacy of these drugs; even those bodies that have no economic bias, such as China or Russia. I'm not enthused at the idea of various "nsa-study.com" sites popping up claiming god-knows-what poorly backed up by poorly understood NSA nginx logs.
- believecty 3y ago"Shilled". I love how you just dismiss evidence that demonstrates how wrong you are by insulting it. Go get your 10th booster vaxxie.
- nemothekid 3y agoI didn't dismiss it by insulting it. I dismissed it because despite the "evidence" no one has seen consistent results. If IVM and HCQ are so cheap and widely available, why hadn't China and Russia reported any success using these drugs? What motivation does China have in continuing to buy MRNA vaccines and prop up American pharma companies? Both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have easily made generics, and yet China and Russia stuck with vaccines and saw no success with alternatives. Somehow the greatest minds of c19study.com came to great conclusions, but the people in charge of spending money and saving lives - in the West and abroad - opted not to use ivm. You ignored my entire post in order tone police me.
- Zigurd 3y agoIn a total of three comments, this guy (and it IS a guy, for sure) accumulated -9 karma and provided another data point that crackpottery is always interdisciplinary: 2 on vaccines, and one on FEMA conspiracy theories. Bravo. Take a bow.
- johannes1234321 3y agoTrue the average person can't do that. However there are many organisations who can analyze different aspects from different perspectives and pull out consumable information from it. By having the raw material available this then can be cross-ckecked. If it's kept secret you need complete trust.
- entropicdrifter 3y agoUnfortunately there are several times as many organizations who will take an undecipherable wall of text as an excuse to push their pre-existing beliefs and agendas with cherry-picked out of context quotes, intentionally misleading interpretations, and bad faith arguments. Bad faith actors would use it and a pile of techniques used mainly by religions and cults in order to try to seize power.
- saghm 3y agoSure, but they do that anyways, and it's not like holding the documents in secrecy is somehow crippling the ability of bad-faith actors to act in bad faith. If anything, it allows them to claim things _without_ good faith actors being able to scrutinize their claims.
- johannes1234321 3y agoYou don't need documents to tell lies. You can invent arbitrary secret sources. However you need documents to disprove lies.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoI for one do not wish to give America's enemies access to all of our classified information.
- johannes1234321 3y agoFor that it's too late. The docetns are at British The Guardian and German Der Spiegel and the person extracting those initially sits in Russia and who knows who got copies or extracted them.
- mock-possum 3y agoWe are all the public. Including the people who wrote these documents originally. It can’t be that hard.
- jerf 3y agoThe public is not capable of creating an open source ecosystem of highly technical software spanning almost every software genre with multiple options across decades. The public is not just the bottom most or the average member. It's everyone. If "the public" is not capable of understanding this information neither are the members of "the public" normally producing and consuming this information.
- olddustytrail 3y agoYes I am. You might not be but don't I count as "the public"?
- noman-land 3y agoWhether you like it or not, this is not your determination to make.
- jimjimjim 3y agoThis is the crux of it. You, me, that guy, we might be capable. But the Public certainly is not capable, never has been, never will be.
- mardifoufs 3y agoIf that's how you perceive the public, that's an inherently anti democratic view imo. If they can't read documents that journalists have access to, how could they be given the power to decide who is leading them?