- This topic has 115 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I note that Mods are now censoring articles here too. Is Matt Taibi a slavering anti-vaxxer? Is the Mod responsible willing to come out and accuse him?
—
[ Mod: No, the mod noticed that you had reproduced a 3,000 word article in blockquote formatting without including any commentary of your own, and so the message was suspended for a few minutes so that it could be trimmed and an annotation added to that effect. Such a long quotation would have been removed no matter who posted it.Kindly refrain from impugning the integrity of moderators. ]
The link is here for the few with enough intellectual curiosity: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty-7bd
—
[ Mod: The link wasn’t removed from your earlier comment. Please offer some commentary on its contents if you would like it to remain. ]Total nonsense from the Mods. You’ve used the same logic to censor my own lenghty posts on the main blog, advising me instead to post lengthy items here, but lo and behold, can’t do it here either. Will we run out pixels? Admit it, you know full well that nobody here will click on links to information they do not want to read.
—
[ Mod: The point is that they have to be your own words – as clearly stated in Craig’s moderation guidelines.As you seem determined to have a running battle with moderators, you’re now on pre-mod. ]
J, 19:06:
– “…none whom seem to refer to what I’ve actually written…”
J, I keep asking you about your opinions, but you ignore it.
I’ve just had a general look at the ivermectin situation. There seems to be various research in progress, and calls for more research, specific types of research and in particular better quality research. There seems to be a general problem that many of the claims that ivermectin treats covid are based on administering doses ten times or more greater than the established dose.
Is antiviral pharmacology something you have been interested in for a long time? Or are you more intrigued by the possibility of international science conspiracies?
J, I have now read Matt Taibbi’s article at your substack.com link. It’s a fairly good article, and highly relevant to a paragraph of Craig’s post Assange Is Still in Jail. But it is not about ivermectin; it is about moderation policy tending towards censorship at Facebook and YouTube (Google), with a passing mention of Twitter.
Now there’s a lot I would write about that, having done some moderation myself and knowing some of the problems and what a nightmare it can be. But rather than risk you replying as if I were dirt again, I’ll just ask up front; would you rather I just shut up?
– “What I have to say is so dangerous to the elite that they’ll censor it, and I’ll prove it. I’ll start a forum with a highly divisive title, launch three preemptive paragraphs of serious moral denigration of other commenters, break a longstanding moderation policy and pick a fight with the mods, who’ll censor it for the links I’ll put in; just watch.”
J
You threw a whole lot of different examples of dissent against the prevailing ‘narrative’ about covid and suggested a binary choice, mixing videos from Bitchute and some more serious articles. I welcome the latter including the article by Matt Taibbi and the ivermectin controversy. These are genuine dilemmas and mixing them up with all sort of other denialists nonsense is supposed to catch us out?
As to the latter, yes ivermectin seems to have some action but a panel from the WHO has reviewed the evidence and decided that the existing data is not sufficient to include ivermectin in its recommendation for treatment and that carefully conducted RCTs are needed to do so. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
That was a debate amongst scientists. It may still be the case that ivermectin works unlike chloroquine, it is not potentially dangerous at least if people do not start taking the veterinary preparations.Yes we need serious discussions but we have to select our sources. I am still not sure what you believe in, in the side you have picked, and it is important for us to know. Do you believe that the virus exists and is a serious threat? Do you believe that the PCR is a reliable test or as some websites proclaim ignorantly that it has a 90% false positive rate?
Clark and I have disagreed in the past in other threads especially about whether the virus was a lab escape. We have exchanged opposite views but without accusing each other of ulterior motives. In fact as new evidence comes Clark may be right but who knows. Do not be like George Bush please and translate everything into “you are either for us or against us”.SA,
“…Bitchute, the well known extreme right wing alternative to youtube”
hilarious :-))))
Well, SA isn’t alone in that assessment. There’s a page for Bitchute on the Media Bias Fact Check site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
“Detailed Report
Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom (33/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY”It seems you’ve just betrayed your own political locus, Josh R. If Bitchute doesn’t count as right wing by your standards, then you’re clearly off the chart. Useful to know.
And this is from Hope not Hate
Bitchute exists to circumvent the moderation of mainstream platforms, and is an increasingly important hub for terrorist propaganda, incitement to racist violence and COVID-19 misinformation.Just for the sake of clarity josh R is presumably not J?
And just to be clear:
“This report shows:
- That absence of moderation and willingness to host hateful content is the unique selling point of the platform
- That the platform is dominated by content and producers that have been, or would be, removed from other platforms
- That BitChute is knowingly playing host to terrorist propaganda and incitement to violence. Our research has identified 114 videos in support of proscribed terrorist groups on BitChute, including 23 videos in support of National Action and 86 videos promoting the Islamic State group.
- That BitChute actively promotes conspiracy theories and misinformation.”
Here’s a couple of fact checker refutations of the dodgy speculations about vaccine cytotoxicity in that video featuring Weinstein, Malone and Kirsch:
“Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines are not ‘cytotoxic’
Posts are sharing the false statement that the spike protein in COVID-19 vaccines is cytotoxic, suggesting that it kills or damages cells. There is no evidence to support this.
[ … ] VERDICT
False. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are cytotoxic (toxic to cells).”“No sign that the COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein is toxic or ‘cytotoxic’
[ … ] Bret Weinstein, who is identified in the video as an evolutionary biologist, is the one who says the spike protein in the vaccines “is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic.”Dr. Robert Malone, identified in the video as the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, said he sent “manuscripts” months ago to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration claiming the spike protein posed a health risk. “And their determination was that they didn’t think that that was sufficient documentation of the risk that the spike was biologically active,” he said.
The third person in the video is identified as “serial entrepreneur” Steve Kirsch, who said he is an engineer. He cited a claim by Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle that the vaccine doesn’t stay in the shoulder, where it’s injected, but “goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart.”
Bridle’s claim: False
We rated False Bridle’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein means people are being inoculated “with a toxin.”Experts told PolitiFact there is no evidence to back his allegation that the spike protein produces a toxin that could cause serious health problems.”
Of course a diehard conspiracy theorist won’t take any heed of fact checker sites – “facts? who needs ’em?” – but the scientific sources for their verdicts are fully declared, so you can take it up with the scientists.
After a little more digging about I found this site, primarily undermining Bridle’s claims with cited references to the relevant papers. This piece gives an explanation of the difference between virus produced spike protein and vaccine produced spke protien.
The evidence for the widespread distribution of “spike protein” comes from this leaked confidential Pfizer biodistribution study.
It should be noted that they infer from the distribution of the lipid nano particles where the vaccine mRNA contained within them may reach. The mRNA thus distributed is NOT, I repeat, NOT spike protein. It is mRNA that codes for the modified spike protein used in the vaccine and won’t become translated into the modified spike protein until it enters a cell. The modified spike protein coded for in the vaccine mRNA is modified such that it does not escape the cell in the way the virus does but is instead anchored to the cell membrane and is thus presented to the immune system.J, perhaps you could state your opinion, why you hold that opinion and cite the relevant literature you base that opinion on. Rather than have me listen to 4 or 5 hours of video you could summarise and link to the relevant ivermectin studies that you find most convincing.
Here is another link addressing some of the referred to studies used to infer vaccines are dangerous, Specifically, I’d draw your attention the the last part addressing the study that found 11 of 13 people vaccinated had spike protein detected in their blood after vaccination despite the vaccine manufacturers claiming the spike protein doesn’t enter the blood and is modified as explained above to stay anchored to the cell wall.
Spoiler, the amount is minuscule (picograms) and transient and may be related to protease enzymatic events or leakage from the immune cells lysing the cell exposing the spike protein. Plus, it’s only part of the spike protein.
Dawg
brilliant!
another day, another rib tickler :-))Bitchute is a ‘platform’, I don’t think you need a political affiliation card to use it.
Can’t say I’ve navigated the actual site, just see anti imperialists, Palestinian justice advocates, un-doctors, un-scientists, etc. providing links to their content stored on Bitchute.Voices who are deemed “Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech” by whichever particular, self appointed Ministry of Truth you favour.
Some I find useful, some I don’t.
I just ‘right click’, ‘save as’ & Bob’s your uncle. No funny handshakes or political conformity assessments :-))
I’ve never really been inclined to rely on a third party to tell me what to read, watch or think. Nor have I ever been inclined to think that I’m uniquely placed to discern the validity of opinions whilst everyone else is too daft to do likewise & therefore needs ‘Nanny’ to do it for them.
As to having “betrayed (my) political locus”, I wish there was an emoji I could post showing me bawling my little heart out, but I guess “Boo Hoo” will have to suffice.
Does that mean I’m now “the wrong kind of Lefty”? or maybe a “self hating socialist”?
:-)))
Labels, gotta luv ’em.And regarding being “…clearly off the chart. Useful to know”, I think I’m probably quite happy not being on whatever chart you’re referring to & I trust that that is also “useful to know”.
SA
“Just for the sake of clarity josh R is presumably not J?”
One moniker says “josh R” and one says “J”, that ought to be all the “clarity” you need, unless you’re working on some outlandish conspiracy theory.
[‘rolling eyes’ emoji]Regarding “This report shows…”, I commented above how I don’t favour having some self appointed “Truth Nanny” tell me who or what I can consider or engage with.
I don’t know a lot on the subject, but I imagine there’s a fact checker out there for whichever political or establishment bias you favour.I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not someone on-the-line right now, being told that craigmurray.org.uk is:
“an internet blogger who “describes himself as a “journalist in new media”.
Whatever that may involve” & hosts conspiracy theories debunking firmly established & “fact checked” Skripal narratives”
:-)))An alternative reading of the 4 points you cite could just as easily demolish their validity as reinforce it:
1.
“absence of moderation”
I think many, on either side of a political conversation, have been “moderated” out of sight at some point, on pooTube, Twit or the virtual Face. Seeking an alternative does not necessarily infer a penchant for goose-stepping.
I appreciate that it must be a difficult job to keep threads on some sites, such as this one, civil & navigable, but that unquestionably involves practicing some exclusion & bias.
That might make sense on a privately run website more so than it does on a universally inclusive & self defined “Free Speech” website.“willingness to host hateful content is the unique selling point of the platform”
Or maybe a “willingness to host all content” is their unique selling point?
Haven’t gone to the home page to read their “about” page, but I doubt they list their “selling points” in such an inflammatory way.2.
“dominated by content and producers….removed from other platforms”
So if pooTube & the Face have determined something is ‘verboten’ then it must be?
Pllllleeeease!3.
“Our research has identified 114 videos in support of proscribed terrorist groups” blah blah blah
114 out of how many videos on their site?
& I guess “proscribed” would be Hamas & Hezbollah, the Iranian army, let alone the plethora of environmental or domestic ‘terrorists’ being added to the list in increasing numbers.
And “support” can be?…… well, anything you want really where a statement doesn’t include “they’re the Evil ones!!”Saying that, looks like I’m only a ‘hop, skip & a jump’ away from being part of a “proscribed terrorist” group myself:
ooops! did I cite The Guardian !?! shouldn’t they be consigned to the dustbin for their bias, fake news & conspiracy theories? Let me link to the original & perhaps more ‘politisch korrekt’ source:
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/22/socialists-counterterrorism-political-terrorists-navy-antifa/
oh, but then what about Greenwald-Biden Laptop?? it’s all sooooo confusing, guess I ought to check with ‘Nanny’, oh, but wait! what’s that grey stuff lurking between my ears? what could that possibly be there for??
Could I possibly be capable of agreeing with someone on one subject but disagreeing with them on another? or…Must….I…Conform…..??….Must….I…..Inform…..On….Unconformers….???? Do….Not…Interact…Do…….Not……Interact…..
(said in a Dalek voice) :-)))“no sentient human being should ever agree with any other on absolutely everything – if you do, one of you is not actually thinking.”
— CM4.
“…actively promotes conspiracy theories and misinformation.”
& if you’re unaware, by now, of how those 2 accusations can be politically manipulated, then nothing I can say will be of much interest to you.
Let alone the undeniable ‘fact’ that too many “mainstream press” sources, with all their “subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not”, are forever promoting more ‘palatable’ & ‘established’ bull sh!t.But at the end of the day, aside from my nit-picking & thinly veiled, dismissive contempt of your reasoning, I guess my ideological intransigence precludes our finding very much to agree on with regards to this subject (even where underlying ‘agreements’ may well exist).
I’m starting to feel a bit old fashioned when the following ideological ‘pillar’ still appeals to me:
“if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”
— Noam Chomsky“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
— VoltaireIncidentally, all these attacks on those whose opinions you deem despicable are, in the digital age, just a fruitless effort of sticking your thumb in the dyke.
As an open access progression from the telephone & the telly, the internet is infinitely capable of circumventing authoritarian attempts at censorship & providing a space for everyone.
The law is fully capable of prosecuting threats of violence, libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc. I don’t think just telling people to “shut up!” is a useful or sensible suggestion, otherwise the police would just do that – stand on the corner telling everyone to shut up & hitting them over the head with a billy club if they don’t…..hmmmmm, reminds me of some less seemly communities I’ve come across around the world….
And ultimately, if you’re so happy to silence others, don’t be surprised if one day it is you being consigned to the ‘verboten’ dustbin.
Good luck with the ‘fact checked’ contributions (SA +2….or 3?). It doesn’t go unnoticed & I can see a lot of time & effort goes into it, I’m sure someone appreciates it,,,, somewhere.
It really doesn’t matter whether it’s on YouTube, BitChute or Stormfront; the important point is that it’s not in the scientific literature.
Why does this matter? Because the workings of vaccines are a highly technical subject, and therefore claims about them have to be scrutinised and discussed by people with appropriate technical background, knowledge and experience. For instance, you could go to Facebook to investigate whether you can replace a 2005 Citroen 17380 diesel injector pump with a 2003 Peugeot 17014 so long as you adjust the rail pressure up to match the Citroen engine’s greater compression ratio, but you’d get a much higher proportion of informed discussion on a forum frequented by diesel mechanics.
When a supposedly scientific assertion isn’t in the scientific literature, you need to ask yourself why. It certainly isn’t because it’s being censored on YouTube. YouTube is not a gateway to The Lancet. More likely it’s that the assertion would last about as long as a snowball in hell.
I find quite amusing the outrage surrounding a few doctors getting “censored” on Facebook etc. This has been happening to critics of Israel for nearly a decade. Private corporate websites never were suitable environments for political advocacy. Nor were they ever suitable for scientific discussion.
– “One moniker says “josh R” and one says “J”, that ought to be all the “clarity” you need…”
…and it would be, if sock puppetry wasn’t so prevalent among outlandish conspiracy theorists.
Further to points already raised, Matt Taibbi interviews Bret Weinstein:
– “Consider this bizarre fact. In Sept. 2020, Politifact “fact checked” the lab leak hypothesis and declared it a “pants on fire lie.” Politifact was forced to walk that conclusion back in May 2021. My flow chart had a lab leak at almost 90% as of April 2020. In June of 2021 Politifact “fact checked” the assertion (made on the DarkHorse Podcast by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology) that “spike protein is cytotoxic.” They declared it false. How did they end up the arbiter of factual authority in this case? Shouldn’t the presumption be with Dr. Malone, and with DarkHorse?”
But again, this is about moderation policy on large social media websites – the question isn’t whether Weinstein or anyone else should be “censored” by YouTube; Weinstein has his own website which YouTube cannot censor.
The point is that YouTube makes money for (and from) Weinstein via advertising, but may stop doing so. Ceasing to derive income from media one produces is not the same as censorship. YouTube are not equipped to check Weinstein’s advice; in fact no one is, because the matters under discussion are not well understood yet. However, YouTube are making money by promoting Weinstein’s media, and if that media contains advice that turns out to be lethal, YouTube could rightly get sued for promoting it. YouTube doesn’t promote Weinstein out of altruism. YouTube is corporate media; its intended purpose is to make money by selling audiences to advertisers.
Capitalism convolutes everything. How am I to “pick a side” on a Möbius loop of communication for the wrong reasons?
Peter Hammill – The Moebius Loop (song) – YouTube (3m 19s)
josh R
Just to put context to why I made my comment on you and J. Just as you started commenting, J stopped. This may just be a coincidence of course but it also followed the fact that J had been issued a warning by the moderators as he resorted to attacking them, and sadly my experience is when this has happened in the past, sock puppetry ensues. Sorry if that has offended you.
Because of the nature of the internet it is wise to choose sources of information and quotes and links. If you link something then I need to check that it comes from a trustworthy source. I know my personal checks and bias is how I determine trustworthiness, and it is a matter of personal experience ands preferences. I cannot check every link that is posted and then answer your queries in detail, that really is not the purpose of such a forum.In the case of BitChute, it is somewhat naïve in my view to think that they are arbiters of free speech and to believe this just on the basis that they take censored material from elsewhere. Bitchute also censor their contents and if you want to also see why it is a bad site, read their Trustpilot reviews. But there are other ways of judging: examine the contents for yourself and please link to me something from BitChute to disprove what I said. In the case of those posted by J, I could quickly determine that they are not trustworthy, again my personal judgement based on my personal knowledge and experience. By the way this is not me claiming any superiority of knowledge, just me filtering what information is useful to me and what is not.
This question of reliability of any website is also not a fixed parameter. I can give you many examples of websites I used to visit frequently because of their reporting on some issues, that then were completely of views alien to me in others. I will not give specific examples.Not every opinion is equal and worthy of debate or consideration. There has to be some base of fact and methodology in order to analyse and inform oneself as to how the information can be useful. You quoted the Guardian in one of your links. Nothing wrong with that, the Guardian does some excellent reporting in some areas but very poor and biased in others. If I want to live in a self confirming echochamber, I could be very proscriptive in what I read, but I read even some conspiracy sites in order to keep tabs of what the current arguments are.
There’s also an issue here about format. Video and podcasts are essentially best suited to entertainment – in a broad sense that includes documentary films etc. Yes, you can get an overview of an issue from a documentary film, but to really study and discuss issues, you need written material with tabulated and graphed data; “printed” is out of date, but the material needs to be static so that you can consider it in your own time, checking and cross-referencing to other sources. You can study from video, eg. by making notes, pausing when a graph is displayed, and occasionally rewinding a few seconds to check if you really understood the last sentence, but it’s far from convenient.
Unfortunately, video and podcast are well suited to promoting a particular case in a convincing way; the producer has default control of the viewer or listener’s attention, certain points can be emphasised and others glossed over or not raised at all.
At the opposite end of the spectrum we have scientific papers, in which a format has been agreed upon and developed specifically to enhance comprehensibility and critical analysis. Overview, methods, results and discussion are all clearly separated, and all citations listed.
Here is a good synopsis of the data on myocarditis/pericarditis cases amongst vaccinees in the USA. There is comparitive data on those conditions happening mostly amongst vaccinated younger people and the effects of covid on the same group.
J, I have now followed your second Bitchute link from your original post. I was presented with a video titled “Gilad Atzmon discusses Israel: A Guinea Pig Nation” posted by “Chembuster – Global March against Chemtrails”, reposted from The Unz Review, well known for racism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The video’s notes link to a BeforeItsNews article titled “Operation Vaxx-All Deplorables: Codename; Satan’s Poker”. The comments beneath the linked video include:
– 22grena – Israel is the Pied Piper. Anyone who believes Covid is a natural event and China had anything to do with it is very naive. Covid was born in Tel Aviv.
– shlomo_shoahstein – It’s all Jewish lies.
– Gnosticnihlist – Medical professionals are bought off. Big pharmaceutical and Rockefeller foundation money $$&. Good. Vaxx is working. Depopulation and sterilization is good.
– – – – – – – –J, don’t such things make you cautious? They are red flags for conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism, yet you have linked them at this site without any kind of warning or disclaimer. This could be how I came to accuse you of anti-Semitism on the previous occasion you referred to but omitted linking to.
Gilad Atzmon’s arguments should also provoke caution. He blurts out lots of Israeli vaccination, infection, hospitalisation and death statistics, but without any graphs against time that are essential for making any sense of them. Instead he goes on about Netanyahu’s election prospects.
J, Atzmon’s arguments are clearly political. They are neither scientific nor medical. They are not epidemiological, virological nor immunological; such aspects as Atzmon includes are merely to further his political argument. Can you not tell politics from science?
J, do you not notice when you’re in a dodgy internet neighbourhood? Doesn’t it raise your suspicions and make you more wary?
For your information, my experience of conspiracy theory is that nearly every claim is also available in a nearly identical anti-Semitic version, because the perpetually undefined “Them” of conspiracy theory acts as a stand-in or code for “Jews”. This is where anti-Semitism differs from most other prejudice – whereas most racism typically depicts non-whites as inferior, eg. stupid, immoral and incapable of social organisation, anti-Semitism depicts Jews as dangerously superior, socially organising (ie. manipulating) the entire world from behind the scenes – eg. cartoons depicting a hook-nosed puppet-master.
My experience is that anti-Semites surreptitiously use conspiracy theory to promote mythologies which support their hateful ideology. There are multiple examples – the Moon landings were faked (by a Jew; they’re laughing at us), Sandy Hook was staged (by Mossad, like the IDF shoot Palestinian children), the cure for cancer is suppressed (because the Talmud prohibits all Jewish doctors from ever curing any Gentile) – and it is up to each of us to recognise such subterfuge and discredit it.
