Google owns YouTube. Three of Google’s five significant shareholders are BlackRock, The Vanguard Group and T. Rowe Price. The Vanguard Group is Pfizer’s highest shareholder. BlackRock is a major shareholder as well. T. Rowe Price and BlackRock are top shareholders of BioNTECH. BlackRock and Vanguard are top shareholders of Moderna. The largest shareholders of the MSM are BlackRock and Vanguard. I believe they own four of the six corporations that own the media. Big Pharma is a huge contributor of the CDC and the WHO. And let’s not get into how entwined these banks/corporations are with our “public servants” in DC.
It seems to me the conflicts of interest are never-ending and it’s why I don’t trust the government, the media nor big pharma. There is just too much money (and power) on the line. Of course YouTube and the other platforms including the MSM are not going to allow the likes of Weinstein, Malone, and many others to hurt their bottom line.
It’s scary how much power and control the 1% has over everything we read, hear and see. This explains why so many people are acting the way they do. I’m grateful to all those like Weinstein, Malone, McCullough, Kory, and all the other doctors, scientists and independent reporters etc… for having the courage to risk it all to save humanity.
Kudos in Triplicate to YOU for the only research that *counts ........ let's all say it together now : "FOLLOW THE MONEY" ! Never fails, never lies. That is why persons of "questionable repute" struggle to make following the money as *impossible to do
Great - though depressing point. It was nice to see Joe Rogan on Spotify run an "emergency" podcast last week to address this YouTube matter. Even nicer is that perhaps Spotify will take advantage of people like me who cancel their subscriptions to YouTube and will support democratic organizations committed to free speech. Fingers crossed that YouTube finally gets some real competition.
The answer is the courts. Joe Rogan is not going to get any Monopoly to stop censoring. No public pressure is going to do it. Only a legal bitch-slapping will suffice. If the supreme's don't reject this censorship regime, then it is legal and should continue to its logical conclusion.
I use alternative sites like brandnewtube. I always look for Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a lawyer heading Nuremberg2 interviews doctors, scientists, financial experts like Catherine Austin Fitts, independent journalists like Whitney Webb and others regarding all things related to the jab.
Here's an interesting article on Blackrock's new activist approach to investing. The main topic is that they're coercing companies to staff diversity and inclusion departments, but it also mentions evaluating companies on how they responded to covid and various other sociopolitical issues.
Blackrock and Vanguard each hold trillions in assets, making them among the most powerful forces on earth.
You may have noticed how large corporations are increasingly marching in lockstep on certain sociopolitical issues. Think for example of the universal support for BLM last year. This is why.
Look at the board of directors and senior leadership of all the organizations waving their BLM banners. There isn't a whiter group to be found in America. Racial diversity is a marketing campaign no one hands over power without a battle.
Yes. Should the marketing department research reveal that BLM and CRT were merely passing fads, and now cross-burnings and cereal boxes with swastikas are the latest rage....
This is nothing compared to Blackrock's Going Direct Reset plans. Catherine Austin Fitts explains it on the solari report. The woke bullshit is a distraction.
Have you read cynical theories? I'm curious if you'd think think wokeness is being used as a tool or if its truly taken over institutions. Perhaps certain organizations have ceded territory (by refusing to pick a fight with the woke or actively going along with certain demands) of some institutions in favor of loftier goals.
I have not read it. I think the woke/cancel culture might be another Operation Mockingbird. IMO, it serves the purpose of divide and conquer and it’s distracting. How convenient for our corporate overlords that the masses are not only justifying censorship (some of the comments on this thread alone give me the chills) but we the people’s national hobby now is to help promote censorship by ratting each other out. When I realized how much Silicon Valley (the epicenter of wokeness, cancel culture and censorship) is entwined with the deep state (for example Regina Dugans from DARPA works for Google and Facebook) I wouldn’t doubt everything happening right now is by design.
I respectfully disagree. It seems more and more unlikely, but a conscientious society, as consumers and investors, can change everything rather quickly, simply by voting with their feet and money.
This is what's so compelling about the idea of capitalism and a "free" market. Unlike with our democracy, change can be affected at any time and rather quickly - no need to wait for an election.
Alphabet Inc, Google’s parent company, through Google Ventures is highly invested in Vaccitech, the biotech startup behind the COVID 19 vaccine AstraZeneca. Seems to me that the same investors, or “banksters” that own BigPharma, the MSM, the social media platforms and our politicians are the same ones that are trying to take away our freedom of speech and our body sovereignty.
We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not. That put a nice greasy stamp of ownership on all employees where your free time isn't really yours & it really isn't free.
Like the writer Charles Bukowski once said, “Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.”
My attitude towards any job I've ever had is one where I care about what I'm being paid to care about while I'm being paid to care about it. Once the time clock clicks as I exit, the company can go fuck itself sideways with a rusty nail studded 2x4 for all I care.
It's called being a professional.
I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business.
But then, the average American, for all of his/her/other yapping & blathering & fireworks watching about freedom, slowly, over time, gleefully whored that freedom away to a class of people who don't give a tinker's toot about them, let alone their illusory & compromised personal freedoms.
Removing Biden won't change that.
Reelecting Trump won't change that.
I'm not entirely sure that anything other than a total collapse will change anything.
Humans, for all of our narcissistic "gee ain't humanity great" backslapping bullshit are twisted little creatures that often don't appreciate what we have until we see it reflected in our rear view mirror.
"We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not."
In some cases, this can include testing for Nicotine; asking perspective employees about their medical status; asking if their parents are still alive, and if not, what they died of; being forced to sign NDAs, NCAs, and "intellectual property" "agreements" (after the "vaccines" are "approved", employers will be able to legally fire any employee that doesn't comply, you know, for "health and safety reasons"; and worst of all:
The fact that my employer can legally fire me for something I said while NOT on company time, NOT using company resources, NOT mentioning my employment with the company, and NOT mentioning the company or using its logo.
Yeah, isn't it great how employers are exempt from HIPAA?
As far as speech issues, they always use the excuse that the employee, even though he isn't being paid by the employer at the moment he speaks, still somehow magically is "representing the company."
Fuck that noise.
If you're not paying me we're not affiliated. I won't even billboard my own employer. They had a big name change recently, primarily because they were busted defrauding the Feds about patients that didn't exist & doctors visits that weren't happening, so they were ducking bad press.
They gave us all t-shirts to wear with the new name on it. I refused it. Gave mine to a client. Told them they could rent my chest but I don't do freebies.
"I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business."
About 16 years ago now, I had a "manager" that just LOVED to give career advice during bi-annual "performance reviews". This consisted of "discussing" certain "behaviors" (i.e. things completely unrelated to your abilities on the job, including why he was a manager, why he was so much more successful at life than I was, and I would never amount to anything unless I changed my ways). He also just LOVED new technology, and "theories" on "scientific management" (i.e. what ever fad was being touted by those over him). We were forced to wear an everchanging series of electronic devices, and attend more and more courses (on our own time, though we sometimes got a meal) - all in the name of "improving communication" and making us more "productive", of course. Failing to respond to emails, pages and phone calls (at all hours of the day and night, 24/7, including holiday weekends, where I once told him I couldn't come in to work because I was sick from bad BBQ pork and had explosive diarrhea) was punishable by public shaming and private counseling. Things came to a head between us when I refused to attend a three-day "voluntary" seminar (off-site, unpaid, and we were told that we were NOT allowed to have any family or friends visit us at the hotel at any time). I was publicly shamed in front of the entire section for my refusal and called names by him and my coworkers, including being told that my refusal could be "career ending". He laid me off two months after that. I managed to get rehired at the same company, but in a different department.
Luckily my main source of income is my own business. As my own boss I try not to belittle myself too much. I do 4 shifts on the weekend in order to have healthcare for my family.
The managers there are incompetent & ineffectual which is probably why I get away with my non-compliance. I doubt that the lot of them could successfully run a McD's drive thru.
But since they're also a crew of unimaginative drones they will soon trot out the CRT unconscious race bias struggle sessions just like every other dipshit company in America.
I need moral guidance from my employer about as much as I need them to give me a daily enema. In fact, I suspect this will be one long verbal enema.
Anyone who thinks this country is free should buy a house, pay it off & then stop paying the property tax so they can see who really owns what here in America. Spoiler alert: It isn't them.
Damn straight. My first encounter with that was the first time I saw someone wearing clothes advertising the clothing brand. It was that most blatant of offenders, "Tommy Hilfiger". Went something like this:
"Oh, you like The Who?"
"Who?"
"Tommy. The Who's "Tommy", the rock oper..."
"Oh he's great! Love this shirt."
"Who's great?"
"Tommy. Tommy Hilfiger. This is one of his shirts."
"You should give it back."
Have since avoided branded clothing (okay, the little alligator was fine), which has saved me money and helped me avoid people who judge others by wardrobe branding. Fine example of a win/win.
Honestly if I needed my job to fulfill me I would be one sad & sorry little bunny who would probably be only one or two setbacks away from eating a bullet.
Or making everyone around me miserable with my constant whining.
Either way I can find better things to do with my time.
And they don't involve a boss.
Or an HR department.
Or a bogus, condescending seminar on Critical Race Theory & "Unconscious Racial Bias."
On Marky Ramone’s Punk Rock Blitzkrieg SiriusXM station, he has a voiceover tag saying “If you have a job where you can listen to this station at work, you have a good gig!”. My job gets my attention but it doesn’t get my angst or my soul. Office Space got it right.
@Steven… I guess I too was under the illusion we had body sovereignty. All the tactics employed to try to force this experimental gene therapy on everyone has been eye-opening for sure.
Yeah. "Save humanity". Via published Science. Great benefit in opening a map and attempting to count what remain of the Glaciers *anywhere that we had Fifty Years ago. You know, if we can find *valid maps that have not been altered by a then 74 year old child with a Sharpie.
I am hoping that you are not surprised to learn that people in the U.S. still talk about Al Capone and Legs Diamond either ! Not, of course in "every conversation", but you are welcome to do your own statistical research.
I am teaming up with Brian and I'm certain our Blue Ribbon Brain Trust will come up with some astounding results. These will, of course, be published as comments on Mr. Taibbi's substack.com page. I appreciate your interest, Atma. You have stimulated further research by one independent scientist and a struggling cunning linguist.
Are you talking about those glaciers that were supposed to melt by 2020 but didn't, and where the US government had to take down their signs that predicted doom?
Innit tho ? Yup, especially the BIG chunks of ice, like, you know .....
uh, Greenland. When I was growing up in Montana, my family took a trip to Glacier National Park. We saw around 143 Glaciers. I was 16 at the time.
I am now 73, and Glacier Park now has 26 Glaciers. Now, see, when these "chunks of ice" MELT the oceans RISE. When the oceans RISE, they change the WEATHER the world over. This is not a Chicken Little Idea, this is a "get off yer duff and look out a *WINDOW concept. Or, hire a small plane and fly over Glacier Park ! ONE of the things you will see, is that the curvature of the horizon alone will show you that the World is NOT FLAT. What we can call *that is "a good start" ...... then ....... ;-D
Truth. I’m a die hard free marketer-if you can build a better mousetrap, you deserve every cent from it. If you manipulate markets and make money from shenanigans w/out adding tangible value-don’t be surprised when the people, as Corrosion of Conformity say “Vote With a Bullet”.
Interesting. Are you speaking in purity terms when you refer to a "free market", such as an anarcho-capitalist would, a la Spooner? Or are you just being nihilistic?
Scarier still is how people only get "news-product" from one or two of their sources and think they know enough to make a decision. When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"
Yeah, they become aghast. "but but.. podcasts are... DANGEROUS!" ooo spooky ideas are dangerous. I am so fed up with this crap. How about, "I don't trust corporate influenced institutions anymore than I trust any politician's words. Perhaps, I trust those with less incentives to push a narrative and primary sources above everyone else?"
Hopefully Matt doesn't mind me shilling in the comments, but I'm going to. I've revitalized by substack and wouldn't mind more input. josephc.substack.com
"When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"
Wow, do you know my ex-"friend", Mark? Don't forget to add in not reading the NYT, not watching PBS, and not worshipping Elon Musk.
One of the problems here is that Brett doesn't seem to provide links to any sources of his discussion, he should. I think that nobody should be allowed to post anything without a valid link to a source especially when it comes to science. In his interview, his guest states that there's a serious health concern related to the vaccine without any reference to any data. That shouldn't be allowed as it shouldn't be allowed with any anti-vaxxer post.
You could read the scientific papers about the vaccines, drugs, viruses, Covid-19, etc. Valid information is out there and if you have problems understanding it you could watch or listen to scientific podcasts, such as microbe.tv/twiv, and contact real researchers.
I understand the complain, that you don't trust anyone, but there are ways of getting facts regardless of the power of the 1% and people need to start listening to experts and talking to experts.
They say if we knew how our financial system worked, there would be a revolution. Can't remember if it was Ford. Anyway, I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air, giving big corporations and banks loans with close to 0% interests, having the taxpayers foot the bailouts. The taxpayers also pay for the research that bigpharma then patents and profits from and the taxpayers are paying bigpharma for the jab and the campaign promoting the jab. I mean,how are all these states able to pay for the coercion lotteries? But that's just my guess. If I understood how the elite control the money and the government, I wouldn't need to follow people like Taibbi.
Well, conspicuous among the "we", who always respond first to emotional appeals, are those scientists etc. who tout themselves as being Above All That.
When I've had occasion to query them about non-scientific (e.g. political) matters, even if under the most relaxed of social etc. circumstances, I get quite "non-scientific" responses.
If I present a theory about, say, what I see as major prospects, of major Const. turmoil in the US w/in c. 30 years, the response I get is, not a "scientific" "*Why* do you think that?", but rather, an outburst of "That's ridiculous!!"
Whether one agrees with the claims of these people or not, why would you agree with Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter censoring anyone’s opinions? I’m sick and tired of nameless, faceless “moderators” determining what all of us can read, hear, or see. That’s the point.
The fact Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter can censor is very much in the same legalistic vein as the dismissal of Cosby's rape conviction. Power's lawyers find a way through a loophole...
From an objective sort of perspective (i actually don't know if i agree or disagree at this point), these are private companies. What i think is two things at this point - one, i don't think out regulatory and legal system has quite caught up with the reality of platforms as publishers and responsibility for content or not. Also, it may not seem it, but we do have some choices. I, for one, choose not to participate on Facebook or Twitter. I (stupidly) choose to use Google instead of Duck Duck Go, Gmail, and i watch videos on youtube (but entertainment, not news or info.) I can choose which media i consume. I can cross check. I'm not hogtied to any of them. And neither is anyone else.
The relationship between these powerful arbiters of information and the government officials responsible for regulating them creates an almost "quasi-government" action when they censor to please their regulators. We need a Teddy Roosevelt, breaking up monopolies needs to happen from the top.
Totally with you on breaking up monopolies. But all i can see happening is they get broken up, and you just get ghettoized tribal sites that break down like the media sites. Instead of ghettoized sections on the same site.
And after its heyday, someone (Justin Timberlake?) bought it, lost all of the sparkly glitter and ugly fonts and made it a rather nice looking music site for bands. But the ship had long sailed.
I demand that the federal government, exercising dictatorial powers in this time of epistemic emergency, bans all social media platforms with the exception of message boards and funds the resuscitation of GeoCities.
We should still have a platform where we can see rock videos though.
If they are censoring to please anyone in the government, there are Supreme Court precedents that could be marshaled to sue even private corporations for violating the First Amendment. One would need a really good lawyer to make the case, but as a start on the brief, consider:
Norwood v. Harrison (a case about civil rights law, not the First Amendment, but note the principle enunciated) quotes the district court finding in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."
While Marsh v. Alabama required free speech on private land in company town, over the objection of the company.
Modern caselaw treats monopolies mainly in terms of harm to the consumer. And this doesn't get to the problem we have. We can't break up companies just because they're too damn big even though that sort of accumulation of power is really what we are suffering with.
Harm to Americans is not the problem we have here??
Wat? This very piece by Matt showcases one example. When SM, fully in bed with govt, shapes the narrative and then refuses counter-discussion, that is very, very problematic. It's literally authoritarianism.
"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace--both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace...In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy...The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist...Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men...That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 1948
Good points. We can and should all crosscheck infirmation ourselves. I'm like you. Over the ladt year, I have wound up poring over at least a dozen peer reviewed medical and Obama-issued policing studies to figure out who's telling the truth. My search has led me to trust a handful of reporters like Taibbi, Greenwald, Crytal and Saagar and podcasters like Weinstein and Rogan.
It took a lot of time though. I don't have kids and, for months, my job was half as demanding as usual. I know few people with so much time to spend searching for reliable media sources. But, if people understood they're being led around by the nose by corporate shills, I'm sure more of them would make a greater effort. People would probably talk more in person about whom they trust and why. So, you're right, but I can't bear how long it will take for people to sense the urgency of the moment.
That's the thing, who has the time, or even the inclination. Not many. I feel like politics is kind of my duty, but it's not my passion. I skipped a lot of reporting over the last couple of years - Russiagate, Jan 6, most Trump hysteria, Jan 6, most Covid stuff - Fauci, Cuomo, etc. And i don't feel like i missed out on anything either.
Right. Politics and culture used to be a passion for me, but less since Trump was elected. I never came close to supporting him, but somehow couldn't hate him enough for my friends. No more sgarin articles as we used to, no more animated talks about policy or social trends. I've realized that, to whatever degree I care about what's really going on, I care alone, practically speaking. Sure, they're a few public personalities who share my perspectives, but almost no one I actually know or love. So I am beginning to follow your plan. I'll consume what I can bear to know alone and ignore the rest!
I couldn't hate Trump enough either. Not that i didn't, but as a longtime former New Yorker, i was just used to ignoring him. We would have been a lot better off if everyone had ignored him. Instead of "elevating him" as drooling dumbass Robby Mook advised, because then Hillary would have had it in the bag. What could possibly go wrong. Bernie was and is my guy, the rest of them can all fuck off.
These days i just leave the Democratic media to the Democrats, and i'll hang with my Indie homies on these parts. I do like Politico though. They just did a nice little hit piece on Harris which had the Dem spin machine on full time damage control.
I didn't pay much attention to journalism or politics prior to COVID. I did a little bit of activism against Trump when he was first elected, but after a few months I simply turned off "Trump TV" and tuned out. I didn't realize how bad journalism had gotten until lockdowns, when I had time to pay attention.
As these web sights evolve to th point where they eventually become the de facto medium through which citizens communicate, they become part of the common space we all need to occupy to feel included in a society. They need to be made as much like 'normal interaction' as possible or folks will be left to find other means of communication that are not so beneficial to society as whole maybe(well, not as beneficial as the open sharing of ideas would be). When two people are talking in park and they disagree, either of the can leave them th conversation and find someone else in the park to talk to. Neither gets to go make th grounds keeper spray a hose on th other till they either leave or modify th words they will allow to leave their mouths
Disagree. Just like someone can walk away from another in the park, we can walk away from one social media platform and move to another. People have already walked away and gone to other forums. Don't want to get involved with shitposting on FB or Twitter, then shitpost on TikTok, the MSM comment section of your choice. We're on one now, after shitposting on a comment section with Martians on the NTY, i'm shitposting here.
I have an online music group, have had various online art and photography groups, and a couple of political ones. I don't have to go into the Colosseum.
They don't gotta burn the urls they just remove um.
Also I'm sure this isn't a panacea for the above and likely problematic in its own right when you think too much about it, but aren't sites like the wayback machine something of a help for this problem (assuming it is beyond reproach, which of course it is not).
Regardless of whether one disagrees with Brett and Heather, they should absolutely have the right to discuss the topics that have gotten them demonetized. I think they are both very careful reasoned people who's contents is always interesting and worthwhile. I followed them over to Odysee. YouTube can suck it!
"Settled science" is your first clue that whatever follows will be political, and not scientific. NOTHING is ever settled in science. Its ALL subject to reexamination.
How fascinating that Politifact has taken a position on whether the spike proteins are harmful. It's doubtful they similarly express positions for medical treatments for other illnesses.
It's an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political.
Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute which receives funding from a number of sources (mostly left of center philanthropies) but very notably Bill Gates, who also contributes funds to Facebook's "fact-checking." In general, the entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism and cannot be trusted at all.
"[T]he entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism..."
Agreed. The only way to "check facts" is to allow open debate on them, record those debates permanently, and allow any number of competing indexes on those (permanent) records.
Here in FL the Poynter Institute has successfully infected the Tampa Bay Times with a neoliberal bent that becomes more pronounced with each passing day. They have for months now in 'news' articles been shaming people about not taking the vaccines, dumbing the discussion down to a vaccine-takers-good vs. vaccine-decliners-ignorant (-or black.) And the world view they describe in subtle and not so subtle ways is quite bleak...unless you are one of the 'smart' people they think themselves to be; apparently they and they alone, with their super smarts, will be able to survive the hellscape of ignorance and racism they are sure are the only causes of strife in the world. Deliberate acts of manufacturing consent masquerading as independent journalism. Much of this to see in our world today.
Gates does not "contribute funds to Facebook's fact-checking." The Gates Foundation donated 380 grand to the Poynter Institute, which is working in conjunction with Facebook on a global fact-checking project.
Fair enough. Gates also contributed approximately $250M to the following
"the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups."
Thanks for keeping up with Gates so I don't have to. No longer just the nerd from microsoft, more than a dabbler in ag real estate, and a tinkerer of nuclear power---a Goldfinger in a V-neck sweater.
If not, they can always check out the comments here on TK---the majority of commenters here are all trained virologists, and up to date on all the latest science and research.
I thought all the amateur medical harrrummpphhing by all the Ivermectin enthusiasts here on the TK threads was "an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political."
I watched Weinstein's Youtube discussion of the mRNA vaccine with Robert Malone. As a physician, I didn't find his discussion particularly convincing, nor that of Dr. Malone. Three or four hundred million people have now been vaccinated and we are not seeing a lot of serious side effects, which we would almost have certainly seen by now if there really was a problem. The issue, as I see it, is that Weinstein is making a living with his Youtube channel and obviously, he is motivated to increase his income by generating controversy. There's a heck of a lot of content on Youtube and careful, well-reasoned discussion probably would generate less income than outlandish claims. As a physician, I'm used to reading medical journals and I have enough statistical training to evaluate the evidence. That's not true for the majority of people exposed to this kind of programming. I'd have found Weinstein's program a lot more interesting if he had brought on an active mRNA researcher to debate Dr. Malone. (I don't think Dr. Malone is "in his dotage" at age 60, but he's clearly not involved with this kind of work anymore.) Weinstein is a smart guy, but he's not a physician, and not a virologist. His show needs to be a little more balanced if he wants to be taken seriously.
I think that you have a good point about freedom of expression. But Youtube is a private platform and Weinstein and Malone are completely free to develop their own website and place their content on their own website. Nobody can force the NY Times to publish my scribblings, or CNN to broadcast my ravings, and most people would think it okay that I not be given those platforms. The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility.
YouTube, etc. can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be immune from responsibility for content, like a common carrier, then exercise editorial control over that content like a newspaper. Sooner or later they’ll be made to pick one, or one will be picked for them.
Mark Parler was a really good alternative to Youtube but unfortunately Youtube did what good monopolies did-- they paid off- sorry gave campaign contributions , called in favours etc of their paid stooges and had it tied up and squashed. Think 1940s.
If the power company was also allowing you to transmit video/text through their power lines, sure. There was a method for using the power grid for data transmission created way back. It never got off the ground, but it worked. An example of something that could have been, would have changed how our world works, and everyone would think it was inevitable and the only obvious way.
Sure they do. What we don't have is "common carriers forced to pay you." I am certain that the only question in anyone's mind is what they do and don't want censored.
We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children,etc..
"We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children"
Except for porn (the kinds that don't embody actual recorded crimes), all the others are incitement to commit crimes ... which itself is a crime. I wouldn't call prohibiting incitement "censorship".
I think it's also about whether YouTube is an extension of whatever corporate interest makes it worth their while... big pharma in this moment. Since there are no laws against 2 companies working together privately, we can't even demand an investigation.
Public utility. Given current technology, no speech should be censored or deplatformed except in the very rare cases where it presents a clear and immediate danger. It does not matter whether the would-be censor is the government or a nearly monopolistic private corporation. In fact, the latter is worse, since government is at least somewhat democratic, whereas corporations, as Chomsky has rightly characterized them, are unaccountable private tyrannies.
Social media is a primary means of discourse these days. That aside, your metaphor is especially stupid — unless and until Facebook starts serving alcohol. Your comments here are just laughable. But even taking up your bar example: have you ever been tossed from a bar for having discussions about subjects the bar owner didn’t want discussed? LOL.
Hilariously, if you bring topics that typically involve free speech discussions (religion and politics) to a bar it’s not unreasonable to remove you from the establishment.
A priest and a scientist walk into a bar. The priest orders a bourbon on the rocks and demands that the scientist accept the myth of a virgin birth and the scientist orders a Moscow Mule and insists that, although no cases have ever been documented of COVID-19 being transmitted to a human by an animal, we must all believe in the New Holy Trinity (Fauci, Daczak, and the Bat Lady). The bartender throws them both out and reminds them that there was once a time when they could freely debate these miracles on the worldwide Web.
You Tube is a monopoly -- The NY Times is not. You tube is owned by Facebook. Guess who funded that after the twins took their money and ran. Wow you are comparing the business model/function of the NY Times with You Tube--really?
BTW both doctors do. One has a P-O-D-C-A-S-T-- listen to it sometime- great guests.
The bottom line is the issue is censorship. You seems very upset about the money issue-- nothing is stopping you from trying it.
Yeah and when they do actually make a competitor that’s taking off, like Parler, the tech monopolies collude to remove it from the internet within 24 hours. Apple and Google removed it from their App Stores and Amazon removed its hosting within 24 hours, and it’s only now getting back online, several months later.
You're assuming that most people are like you, a common failing among liberals. It appears to me that most are NOT discerning, they are NOT critical thinkers, they are NOT capable of making informed decisions...they ARE easily grifted, they ARE easily victimized by smooth talkers, and they mostly get their news from Facebook...need I say more?
I never said that. But a private entity, such as YT, determines what's in their best interest to publish or not publish. People can then go say what they want somewhere else...maybe hop up on a milk crate on a street corner somewhere and say it. Don't get pissed at YT for looking out for themselves, not to mention calling it censorship.
YT's best financial interest is to let the batshit crazy roll, Alex Jones style. That sells, and the people it sells to are gullible and easy to target.
Funny thing about folks like The Strongest... in their pecking order, they always see themselves on top. When you look closely, you see just another idiot with an opinion.
I'd trust a three hundred million retards over folks like that. How could it be worse than we have now? At least retards aren't clever enough to fuck us the way our oligarchs and politicians do.
4k calories/day of sugar, fried food and delicious carbs?
Perfect safety?
Then we'll be living in the world the narcissists project other people wanting. It's selection bias. They think everyone is like the people they see on the internet, when that's the only people they see.
I think they're in for a shock, hopefully an entertaining one.
So democracy is a bad idea? Not that we have it, or have had for quite a long time. (Page and Siegel proved this with an elaborate study, som eyears ago now.)
Who knows? I sure don't! But I will say it's turning out to be 'not as advertised', that's for certain. And I would argue the reason is because of too many uninformed dimwits that think Facebook and such are good sources of info. Democracy requires an educated discerning public, and trustworthy sources of info...we have neither of these.
Just fyi, "The major difference between a democracy and a republic is that a republic is a form of government whereas a democracy is an ideology that helps shape how a government is run. Put another way: a republic is the system of government that allows a country to be democratic!"
It really isn’t about whether you, after hearing the material and evaluating it, think it should be taken “seriously.” It’s about whether people should be able to hear and evaluate it as you have. As for your take that we ordinary people can’t be trusted to hear and evaluate the information — I don’t need you making those decisions for me. If you are so concerned, get on YouTube and air your concerns.
When a journalist writes a story, if the professional standards include fact checking. Stories with "facts" that cannot be verified are not supposed to run. @matt taibbi knows this very well -- he has made reference to it in his stories. A journalist cannot run a story that says that Donald Trump is a cannibal, or that Nancy Pelosi makes child porn without having proof of that, and if they do, they can expect consequences.
Those who read or listen to media have an expectation that what they read has some basic soundness to it.
Matt Taibbi has made a name for himself debunking stories like Russiagate that are lies. But those stories did get created through channels (that should be cleaned out) which had those falsehoods represented as facts. And here he is defending a different kind of Russiagate when it is being (correctly) attacked as false and calling it "censorship". This implies that Matt thinks that the Russiagate story should have been run in the first place, and that all those involved in the machinations to create the Russiagate lies should be defended.
Here we have a "story" in which most of the facts do not check out. They are just false. That means that this journalist, Bret Weinstein did not bother to try to check them, and he has the nominal background to at least try to do so. Nor did Bret ask serious questions of his guests claims. That he did not do so, and that he has not done anything to listen to, nor give time to information that debunks what his guests were saying, violates basic standards of journalism. That is why I am saying that Matt is on the wrong side of this.
The above is also why I say that Bret Weinstein has no business calling foul, nor saying that he is being "censored". He is getting appropriate consequences for violating basic standards of journalism. Without those standards, the people cannot be informed, and democracy becomes ungovernable. We see this developing right before us.
Most people do not have the background, or skills/training, etc. to evaluate claims about vaccines, epidemiology, etc.. Given that this is something that causes mass death, it is important to make sure facts are checked.
You have this comically wrong, Brian. Even as Matt was debunking “Russiagate” he never called for deplatforming voices reporting on Russiagate. He opposed information with information. The rest of what you get to here is a claim that YouTube or Facebook can determine which facts are “correct,” and should then take steps to keep “bad information” from us. It is f*cked up and decidedly illiberal.
Not that I recall. Matt noted (lamented) repeatedly that there was no “accountability” for constantly misreporting on Russiagate, but I never took that to mean “firing.” I took it to mean reputationally.
Brian I haven’t read most comments here, so if you already set the record straight I didn’t see it.
Why not make a positive contribution to the thread here and describe — in intelligent layman’s terms as best you can — where Dr. Malone and Prof. Weinstein are wrong and why?
I did from the start. Malone is making it up. There's no evidence his claims of cytotoxicity are true. And, his claim to being "the inventor" of RNA and DNA vaccines is easily debunked by looking up that thread of patents. The first inventor of nucleic acid vaccines is 4357421, Emtage et al. Nov 2 1982. To get issued then it had to be submitted in the 70's, years before Malone was in college. Then, my mentor, Gary Rhodes, was on a bare DNA patent issued in 1989. After Malone left Vical, Gary Rhodes took over the DNA vaccine that Malone had been working on. Gary invented his method independently. But Gary didn't claim he was "the guy". This stuff was obvious to many people from the start of molecular biology.
(Bret Weinstein is acting as journalist. I address his journalistic standards issues above.)
mRNA vaccines for other diseases have been studied but these are the first mRNA vaccines to go into humans with no Ph I or Ph II clinical trials. In the real world <20% of all Ph I programs move to PhII They went straight to the largest Ph III in HISTORY on an EUA - why might that be? Is it the severity of the virus? Is the virus an opportunity? Who knows. meanwhile at least 17 other countries are using Ivermectin as a primary or secondary treatment protocol with results that are “statistically significant” (understatement)at the very least. It’s not that hard to find this information - and unless you want to cite CURRENT information w real world data then a history lesson of outdated DNA technology is not relevant to any mRNA vaccine and def not this one.
Proceeding on the assumption that you are who and what you say you are, and not a troll...
"When a journalist writes a story, if the professional standards include fact checking. Stories with "facts" that cannot be verified are not supposed to run."
"That means that this journalist, Bret Weinstein did not bother to try to check them"
Interesting that you refer to Weinstein as a "journalist", when I'm 97% sure he never made that claim about himself.
Here's a thought, Brian, how'z about you start your own channel, and debunk what Bret has to say. This is, of course, predicated on the as yet unproven assumption that you can.
"Given that this is something that causes mass death,"
Covid "deaths" worldwide, so far ~3,969,468
Malnutrition kills some 3 million children, per year. More people die from malnutrition than AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria...combined.
You are absolutely incorrect that the facts presented by Weinstein w Koury etc are wrong. Just as those who decided to give credence to the lab-leak hypothesis (now theory) waited to go public until AFTER Trump left office.
You are spreading misinformation and s/b cancelled immediately. Or should you. Go work in the pharma industry for 10m - specifically one of many who develop mRNA and other cellular therapeutics. Then get back to me. Also - most Drs don’t report AEs SAEs or even deaths to FDA reporting system FOR ANY DRUG, DEVICE OR BIOLOGICAL. They are required to do so whether or not THEY think the event is related. Why are there underreports ? Because Drs are buying into the “safe and effective” mantra - so they are making decisions about whether to report. See above. But Mostly because individuals aren’t told and don’t know what an AE is or how to report it. Do you know what constitutes an AE? I do. And I can tell you they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT ACCURATELY REPORTED. Therefore no substantive useful safety profile of this
B Price i cannot link directly to you response on this thread (for whatever ridiculous reason). There’s simply no way to Quantitatively prove underreporting of ANYTHING . I am not the goddess of AE reporting and I don’t work for either of these companies and Even I can give you >10 anecdotal instances of AEs people have mentioned to me and had not reported to their doctor nor have they been reported to public health FDA CDC or any other agency. Just people who experienced mild to severe AEs post-vaccination. I. This case since most vaccines are not given in a persons primary care doc office but by a volunteer nurse or a pharmacist the subject will never see again how many people will think to report the headache they get a week later or the tremor 2 weeks later? it’s not for me OR ANYONE (even the person administering the vaccine)to say the causal relationship. That correlation is entrusted to the sponsor. Re: your clintrials search - of course you found a multitude of moderna Pfizer Merck etc ongoing clinical trials - ONGOING and there will be many more and they will use safety data from this global “involuntary” trial to include as supportive info for the next trial and the next. Read those protocols. These specific mRNA COVID VACCINES had no Ph II trials because they had no Ph I trials. They barely had InVivo studies - AGAIN specific to COVID - know why? Because unless they knew there was going to be a pandemic of novel SARS 2 COVID there was not enough time to collect data for a randomized or comparative trial. Or did they randomize? Gave some people the actual vaccine and others Vitamin B12?
You’re missing my points the main of which is - safety data is insufficient to determine the overall degree of safety. Obviously people are not dropping like flies (that we know of) but it doesn’t mean there are not substantial unknown risks. These can be severe and latent. People have a right to make their own choice based on that information alone. With NORMAL drugs we barely know what we don’t know. This is so much LESS THAN NORMAL. I think there was something to learn from Tuskegee. Its not all about racism - it’s about BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. Blocking the flow of information denies people these rights.
Also forgot to mention this - clinical trials collect information re concomitant medications (con-meds) subjects should report EVERYTHING from vitamin supplements to birth control to HRT to ibuprofen - ANYTHING. anyone been asked for this info at the drive thru jab clinic?
Some "journalists" get Pulitzer Prizes for publishing lies and propaganda. We live in a very interesting time in history. The only thing that surprises me is that Joe Biden was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on January 20, 2021.
No such conclusion can possibly be made. Does it "follow" that a person who refused to believe Tower 7 of the WTC was taken down by explosives must also deny any/all alternative theories for the rest of his/her/its life?
I don't doubt anything you've said. I'm a retired attorney and could go on and on about the poor quality of most legal journalism. I'm certainly not qualified to analyze Weinstein's points, or those of his guests, but it does concern me when the tech cos take CDC and FDA positions as gospel that is off limits to public discussion. Laetrile in a TJ clinic as a cancer cure all is one thing, but blocking discussion of current scientific question ought not happen
It might be more complex. They may have let certain segments of the FedGov know which marching orders they would like to receive.
Hard to tell, when the power gets concentrated enough, how that's gonna flow. In the current case, the interests of Big Pharma (owned in part by the people who own Big Tech) can be made clear to government. What government wants tolerated, or suppressed, can be made clear to the Social Media platforms, who can make it so.
Then everybody throws up their hands and waits for Politifuct or Snopes to clarify that "No, there is not a secret cabal meeting in a penthouse boardroom censoring what you hear." Gee, thanks. The fact checkers are so darn subtle I just don't know what to think any more. /sarc
I think you greatly underestimate people’s ability to judge complex information despite their lack of formal expertise in a subject. The assumption that ordinary people need scientific debate to be curated by “experts” — for our own protection, of course — is hogwash.
I disagree with Pete, but people's ability to judge isn't the real problem. I think the real problem is the way this all works. Someone, anyone with a computer/smartphone/etc, can so easily take advantage of the situation and spew half-truth propaganda for personal profit. The cost to do it is nil, and there is no gatekeeper. There is no one to say, "Whoa! We're not putting this trash on the wire, because we've got a reputation and a business to protect." All the person has to do, is decide which hot-button issue they want to use. Then create a credible argument that feeds right into one side of the hot-button issue saying exactly what the rabid followers want to hear, and bingo! They're making money via advertising space! They are now considered a "trusted source" to the rabid believers and anything that's said (as long as it follows the party line) makes money! They don't have to be concerned about accuracy and truthfulness - I honestly doubt that Alex Jones believed half the crap he posted on his site - but he made millions posting it.
The irony of this argument! You believe people are too neive to filter info on their own and yet so neive as to believe some benevolent vetter of info standing between you and the truth would never realize any benefit from lying to you. That's the whole reason
why "state-run" media exists!!! To present you BS represented as truth!
I don't know about "state-run" media, but private media outlets, or mainstream media, have a billion dollar business investment to protect. I'm not saying the "benevolent vetter" always ensures the truth, but they certainly have a huge incentive to try to keep it real so as not to lose their audience, subscribers, and inevitably, their business. Some motivated dingdong in his parents basement with a laptop, some savvy and ingenuity, and no conscience, has absolutely nothing to lose and lots to gain by misleading the masses.
Exactly. Posts like Dave's are just painful to read.
There's how they say things work and then there is how things actually work.
The "benevolent vetter" has no interest in these private media outlets. They're likely paid a salary well under what they should be getting. There's certainly no ownership in the scheme.
Again back to the person in the basement: think they have no conscience? Has Dave ever been in a corporate boardroom?
Why do you think I'm here? Why are you guys here? I'll bet it's the same reason as me - because Matt is an upfront, honest journalist that cares about the truth, and does a good job getting those truths in writing. What what you say is the ratio of Matt's genre to the liars and propagandists? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? As far as I'm concerned, it's close enough to 'needle-in-a-haystack' to say that an overwhelming number of the media (mainstream and otherwise) are not to be trusted. So how do you know who to trust? Are you going to fact check every single thing that comes before your eyes? I doubt it. So my position is an old adage: "Believe half of what you see and none of what you read and hear." Should we, hopefully, eventually, choose to hold media accountable, it's too damn easy for the "guy in the basement" to cut and run.
And there's the rub. It's up to us to keep the media truthful, mainstream or otherwise, but most don't seem to care about accuracy and truth. They seem to care mostly about being entertained by sensationalism, and/or seeing and reading things that fit their preconceptions.
Maybe one day when people realize how dangerous this "post-truth" environment is, and quit acting like Facebook (and such) is an important part of their lives, my "guy in his parent's basement" could be an important watchdog of sorts. But until then, he's more than likely to be another dirtbag that see's an opportunity to make money from human fear and bias.
In my experience, physicians are often the worst researchers. There are some exceptions, but I've asked for my name to be taken off of several academic publications headed by physicians due to shoddy analysis of data. If anything, Brett and Heather's analyses as biologists and researchers lends more credibility.
My dad was an old school doctor. He graduated med school in 1931. I listened to the podcast with Kory and I agree that doctors like my dad were scientists. They would observe and experiment and write letters to journals to show what they learned.
OK, I might have come down a little hard. I've worked with many medical doctors on research papers in my career. Some have done great work and some terrible. My problem is with individuals who think they are solid researchers just because they are physicians, when they haven't earned a research degree or proven themselves to be a solid intuitive researcher like your dad.
Real practicing doctors make the best politicians-Ron and Rand Paul, Sen. Tom Coburn. Good doctors are brutal realists when it comes to health and political common sense.
No respect for Ron Paul. Wrote bills for funding for his district that he then voted against, because he knew it would pass anyway. Coward, walk the fucking walk. Someone described him on another site long ago as looking like a withered scrotum, and i can't see him as otherwise now.
This week on the Reason podcast Justin Amash made the best, and most fundamental point about the US Constitution, namely, that it is the most freedom supporting and endorsing plan of government in the history of the world, and that any serious attempt to annul/abandon it would lead to something worse. Are our ideals always going to be followed/executed-hell no-but they aren’t going to be replaced by anything officially better. Happy Early 4th of July, and thank you John Locke!!!!
I have a lot of respect for Amash, even if i disagree with him on many things. Dude walks his walk. And in a weird way, to a much lesser degree, for Rand. I voted for Gary Johnson in '12. But i can't stand Ron.
I believe that in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century Drs really were integral to and active in the discovery process -true scientific inquiry. Now they are much more passive in this system - arguably by design. They get the bulk of their education RE treatment from drug reps and HA/Pharma friendly journals. Find out how much $ a pharma company spends on Medical Affairs. It’s not a little
I think that you miss a subtle point. In my opinion, one of the reasons that Weinstein has gone so hard against the vaccines is that he feels they are an unnecessary risk given that there is a low risk, cheap, and effective alternative. And that would be ivermectin.
Vaccines were accelerated to market and embody a new technology with some serious short term risks - maybe rare, maybe a little more than rare ... that is still up for debate - and unknown long term effects. If ivermectin works, then why do down that road?
Chris Rock did a great bit in one of his standups about how the last thing they cured was polio...and speaking as the medical industry he said, "Whoa! We ain't makin THAT mistake again!"
The vaccine studies were well-funded, well-designed Phase 3 studies which showed 95% effectiveness in preventing disease. Normally, the FDA would take a year or more to approve a vaccine after completion of a vaccine study. As you might imagine, the FDA made the decision to expedite the review of the studies and approve the vaccines as an emergency authorization, not unreasonable given that thousands of people were dying in the US every day. I've reviewed the Ivermectin studies and they are all very small, even combined they have had a tiny fraction of the number of subjects in one vaccine study. The results are contradictory but when combined tend to suggest a 38% reduction in risk. The problem with this sort of systemic review is that there is a bias which leads to the non-publication of negative studies. There is a much larger, high-quality study currently being conducted but the results are not in. Incidentally, my PDR lists the following side effects of Ivermectin: hypotension, seizures, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, asthma exacerbation, vision loss, hepatitis, and many other less serious side effects. I have no idea what the incidence of these side effects are, but it's not reasonable to assume that Ivermectin is much safer than the vaccine. There is nothing in any of the studies which suggest that it is more effective than the vaccines. I found an interesting summary of the ongoing research on Ivermectin at https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use.
The NIH also has a review of the Ivermectin studies:
If we are just going to list off potential side effects for drugs as reasons to avoid them than you are going to have to throw out everything in your medicine cabinet. It's about incidence and severity and COST.
Ivermectin has been dosed almost 4 billion times in the last 40 years (the Nobel prize was awarded in 2015 for its development) and importantly it costs one-tenth of a vaccine dose. It could have been distributed worldwide in weeks.
As for efficacy, it does seem debatable at this point, but it is a low-risk, potentially high reward proposition....EXACTLY like masks. If you think we should all be wearing masks when there was no evidence they actually worked then the risk-reward with ivermectin is exactly the same.
Right; we can't assume that there were no financial interests being put above those of public health, but without being able to even discuss it, we're already sunk -logically.
Also I’m repeating this from my earlier post but Ivermectin is and has been an approved first or 2nd line treatment protocol for COVID in over 17 countries and more regional health authorities. In view of that alone the misinformation label just doesn’t add up. And I agree. There are many other marketed products (and some generics) I wouldn’t give to a fence post never mind a human
As for the reputable study of ivermectin that you refer to in your reply, if that is the one currently being conducted by Oxford then there is more than room to be highly skeptical of its results. Under its protocols patients are able to be enrolled in this study for up to 14 days after having been diagnosed with Covid. Ivermectin proponents make the case for it mostly based on its antiviral properties - patients are well past the viral stage by that point. An honest study would limit enrollment to patients who can reasonably be thought to have had the disease for just a few days. In fact, Dr. Marik is on record as saying that this study has been set up to fail. The fact that Oxford has tight ties to The Gates Foundation and The Wellcome Trust provides more reason for doubt.
With respect to the safety of ivermectin, the WHO lists it as an essential medicine. Although any medicine has side effects, all of the discussions concerning the drug point in the direction that it is extremely safe (no myocarditis worries here, I think).
As to the safety of the vaccines, even the short term safety is open to question. The heart inflammation in young people seems to be something that no one saw coming, for example. That aside, no one knows what the long term effects will be.
Finally, even if the vaccine was generally safe for older adults who stand a decent chance of being adversely affected if they catch the virus, I find very little sympathy for the requirement that young people be vaccinated (even college age kids, much less children), given their very low risk from Covid. And I have an even smaller amount of sympathy for the argument that one should be vaccinated if they have already had the disease (if you can advance a reason for vaccination in this case I am all ears).
The combination of censorship and stigmatization of those holding alternative viewpoints concerning vaccination, the reflexive dismissal (combined with a sort of strange lack of curiosity) of generic treatments, and the 'vaccines are the answer' mantra from day one all work together to leave a bad impression with the general public. I am probably not alone in suspecting there is more here than meets the eye.
Are you crazy??? mRNA ‘vaccines’ have NEVER been past Ph I clinical trials. The technology has been used as treatment for people with serious disease frequently as last resort. <20% of ALL Ph I trials for any drug, treatment/ biologic or device move from Ph I to Ph II. We are now in the largest Ph III (global) clinical trial (under an EUA) IN THE HISTORY OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT and participation is virtually mandated by duress. And if you think the always consistently honest NIH is a good source of safety information wear a mask or wait don’t wear a mask wear 2 masks outdoors alone or wait don’t wear one except when you’re running or playing tennis
Funny I am used to reading medical journals too and I do find both Dr's discussion convincing. BTW your vaccination claims are just that claims. As a physician you of COURSE know that vaccination side effects don't just happen in a month, they can occur at any stage of life including to the next generation (b. defects etc). As a physician you of COURSE understand what an experimental procedure is and that the medical device/ modification inserted in the jab (mRNA) has not been tested in humans and therefore we have no idea when, how long the effects will occur. And as a physician you support patient consent in all medical usage and especially in using experimental drugs, devices and technology. Right?
Think of the polio jab-- big mistake in the projected effects there. Think of how much they thought they knew about many drugs, for eg. Thalodimide. Unfortunately too many of our colleagues feel they know the answers all the time. We don't, we make mistakes, we are not infallible. Right? Because it is NOT all about how much money someone makes, right Mark?
"that the medical device/ modification inserted in the jab (mRNA) has not been tested in humans ... " My understanding is that there were no animal trials either. This point is brought up in the Weinstein / Malone discussion.
But there are bright shiny ads on TV that say come and join us. Be free, and get your Vaccine and you can be part of the human race too.
My issue is that the same people screaming get the vaccine are also the ones that say my body my choice. I get that my decision to not get this vaccine affects others, but I also take precautions when I am out to avoid others. If this vaccine is the miracle they say it is then my stupid ass shouldn't affect you in the slightest. As you all say, you are vaccinated and protected. But here in lies the problem... They are not really protected.
I am a fairly healthy middle aged man who has never gotten a flu shot. I am not anti-Vax in any way shape or form, I've just not had the flu in over a decade, and I am not going to run out to have something shoved into my body that doesn't quite seem necessary. If I somehow get Covid and it kills me, then you can all dance on my grave and used me in your statistics, but I feel the likelihood of that is about the same as my winning the powerball tonight.
Everything you say about Weinstein can be said about the pharmacos. They only care about distributing more high-priced vaccine doses, which incentivizes them away from full disclosure of risks and exploration of cheaper alternatives. This is the core issue driving Weinstein and its rather neive to think pharmcos could never lie or mistreat patients or withhold important info when we are barely removed for the opioid crisis for which pharmacos have settled for billions of dollars. Being a physician actually could cloud your judgment (as with physicians prescribing pain killers) as you may have such a familiarity with the players that you've lost the healthy skepticism that is necessary to reveal fraud.
And I imagine he'd say his show is not as balanced as you'd like it to be because he is deliberately trying to act as a counterweight to the perverse incentives that have stockpiled all the weight on only one side of the scale.
There's a strange approach in the medical community where doctors seem to think the average patient incapable of learning rather basic medical ideas and so they the doctors should never be fact checked ever by anyone without medical training. And they also conveniently dismiss the real doctors that provide counter arguments as well. Only doctors opinions should be considered and then only doctors that adhere to the "consensus" state-sponsored view.
And then finally if you didn't find his discussion convincing, does that give you the right to demonitize his platform? Does free speech only exist insofar as you find it convincing? And every other speech you don't find convincing should be banned? You would have snuffed out Every medical breakthrough of the last 200 years if you could ban its dissemination because you didn't find it convincing.
Thanks for bringing up some salient points. I've maintained a distrust of the medical establishment for years, ever since I learned about how they have effectively created a mafia-style system that is geared toward maximizing profit over healthcare (the real deal, not just pushing pills or , in this case, jabs), and how they can effectively silence detractors, doubters, and dissenters.
Medicine is important enough to warrant it being subsidized so that it can remain free of the profit motive. But that's a naive way of thinking, kind of like saying people should become doctors because they are following a 'calling' that doesn't issue from their wallets.
Well, there was recently that scientific paper concluding "For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination." After political pressure, it was retracted by the journal but apparently the pro-vaccine case has its holes.
The main criticism of the paper seems to be that too many post-vaccine deaths were counted which isn't fair, because some of them would have occured also w/o the vaccine. But that's unconvincing because COVID-19 deaths are similarly counted w/o careful verification of the cause.
That article sneaked past peer review because someone intercepted it somehow. There was no political pressure involved. The editorial board was resigning en masse because the paper was childish hogwash.
The paper addresses in the text most criticisms that are leveled at it. It also includes the observation that reported vaccine-side-effects rates vary by a factor 47 among European countries, even though the underlying rate is likely to be similar. That should lead any thinking person to question whether the event reporting system is trustworthy, or whether there is massive underreporting for propaganda reasons.
It does not address the criticisms. In defense the response was that they believe the database has causal reports and everything else is removed. That descends into wilful self-deception at best. It is more likely deliberate deception aimed at the public.
The paper certainly addresses causality and data quality:
"One might argue that it is always difficult to ascertain causality in such reports. This is certainly true; however, the Dutch data, especially the fatal cases, were certified by medical specialists..."
"However, when inspecting the reports according to countries, we can see a large variance. Our decision to use the Dutch data as a proxy for Europe was derived from this discovery. One might want to challenge this decision, but we did not find any data from other countries being more valid than those used here. Apart from this, our data tallied well with the data from the U.S. CDC vaccine adverse r eporting system [12], which indirectly validates our decision."
Well, for starters, their whole argument is that "spike protein is bad". Which clearly is true - that's how COVID-19 gets in and does its damage.
But it has no relevance to whether or not mRNA vaccines are bad, because they don't encode active spike protein. They encode bits of the spike protein equivalent to chopped up inactive spike protein.
It's a bit like saying "measles can kill, watch out!" to someone taking a vaccine with inactivated, chopped up measles, the whole point of which is not to infect but to create an immune response to the "bits" that will cross over to the native virus and stop it.
Well, I am not a scientist but I don't think you have that quite right. First, I don't think there is anything about the spike protein that is inactive or active. It just exists. If by 'inactive' you mean that it is incapable of reproducing, that is correct, but I don't think that too many vaccine hesitant people are confused on that point.
Second, much of the discussion about the vaccine does concern the spike protein, apart from its reproducibility; specifically, with respect to two points: a) can it detach from the cell wall (after having been transcribed via the mRNA)? and b) if it can detach, does it do damage to the body (that is, is it 'cytotoxic')? If you listen to minutes 13 to 30 in the Malone interview you will get an appreciation for some of these subtle issues. ( https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0 )
Spot on. And I don’t know about anyone else here - I am not anti-vaxx. Any choice I make will be 1) INFORMED by data, scientific and anecdotal evidence 2) A CHOICE. A couple of years ago I went to India and was offered an anti-malarial (guess). Personally I had a better chance of dying from malaria than I do from COVID but I declined because I was aware of certain specific side effects. The safety profile of this particular drug was extensive. I made my CHOICE based on accurate, clear, consistent research that became available over time. Everyone must have a right to well-informed choice. There are things that kill far more people and there is no other drug, treatment or vaccine that has been pushed this hard. IMO It’s about much more than $$$.
The spike protein is 1273 amino acids long. I'm talking about using amino acids 200-400 as a chain, for example. They would have no direct activity. But since the immune system reacts to chains of like 8-30 amino acids, when trained by recognizing the sequence of 310-330 that sit on the 200-400 chain, then it would attack the full 1273 spike protein sequence right at the 310-330 spot.
Mark, you're obviously triggered. And your critical thinking skills are, . . . lax.
You've missed the entire point of the discussion; it's about speech. It's not about whether you're an expert in a field and should protect us from those w/ whom you disagree. Why are physicians so consistently arrogant & narcissistic?
The article is about the suppression of speech, specifically speech that contradicts what others hold to be true. Especially being questioned is, stay w/ me here; do corporations have the right to limit speech especially since corps have a financial interest in doing so?
"If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism."
See, THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE CRUX and you've missed entirely it because you're triggered, lack critical thinking skills and the ability to read carefully.
Yeah - I lean in the direction of concern for increased capacity for online censorship and have appreciated Matt on this lately. I also was sympathetic to Bret after Evergreen and have found him worthwhile in the past. But, while I don't have the medical knowledge myself, I just don't get the feeling Bret has successfully upended conventional wisdom to the degree he's claiming, and some of it flies in the face of obvious short-term vaccination results. Not buying it.
Well said, Doc! Nothing is perfect, and no vaccine/drug trials can test every possible outcome. That's impossible! I sincerely empathize with anyone who's kid is hospitalized because of a vaccine/drug reaction...I cannot imagine what that must be like...but the numbers speak for themselves. Sowing distrust in vaccines for some yet to be qualified "wonder drug" is harmful to every human on the planet.
No. I literally mean and I believe what I said - humanity has a history of vaccine efficacy. Vaccines have saved countless lives, and prevented suffering. Scaring people away from them harms the entirety of humanity.
Remember that next time you find a parent unwilling to vaccinate their child against measles. A disease that IS actually deadly to kids and had been eradicated.
People can have early dementia symptoms before 60. Malone is running around claiming he invented RNA and DNA vaccines. In grad school my major professor was on the DNA PATENT. He took over when Malone left the company. A quick look in patents shows Malone's stuff he co-invented was preceded by nearly a decade others. Lots of people had the ideas. For him to get on a podcast and blabber fiction he made up to scare people about RNA vaccines? That's either generated from jealousy, or dementia. It's hugely irresponsible.
It's not true that Covid only affected those already dying or near death. One of my physician colleagues, a marathon runner, died after being on a respirator for weeks. Another physician acquaintance was on a respirator for several weeks before recovering; I attending a lecture of his a month ago. The physician wife of a colleague also was on a respirator for over a week. One of my neighbors, an airline pilot, was on a respirator for weeks. The 30 year old physician friend of my daughter was out of work for many weeks after recovering. Of course, I know many people for whom Covid was hardly worse than a mild cold. But it's wrong to minimize this, even if the majority of deaths were among the elderly (thanks in part to people like Governor Cuomo who sent Covid patients to nursing homes).
The respirator issue is a whole other story. I know nurses that refuse to work with them because of how easy it is to screw up and injure the patient, all the way up to blowing their lungs out. It takes mega-specialized training to operate a respirator correctly and because of the urgency associated with Covid, a lot of people have been responsible for respirators that shouldn’t have been anywhere near one.
Ventilators were also used for infection control, to prevent patients from exhaling virus-air all over the place. That couldn't have been good for the patients.
That 78% is not much higher than the overall percentage of older Americans who are overweight or obese. Covid mostly affects over-50s and I think over 70% of them are overweight or obese.
Lots of ventilator overuse was going on. I remember reading about ER doctors who were totally surprised by how low people's O2 level can go before intervention is beneficial.
Physicians are at high risk because of 2 things. 1. Their infecting dose multiple. They are in a situation where they can get millions and billions of viruses into their lungs as their infecting event. This gives the virus a big head start over someone on the street that gets a few hundred lodge in their nasopharynx. The immune system is on a schedule of 3-5 days to find effective response, and another 3-5 to ramp it up..
2. Doctors are tired working flat out 7x24 hour shifts in some cases. I worked with a group in TX. The culture is one of go until you drop. And the ERs were like wartime. People couldn't be kept alive to admission, and would die denying they were sick. People would yell, get combative, spit on ER staff, etc.. they were not in their right mind with O2 saturation below 50%.
I had an interesting thought in conversation today about the vaccine. Could a large preponderance of negative-but not fatal/requiring medical intervention-reactions to the vaccines be based upon already infected individuals (with presumable natural immunity) being exposed to the mRNA vaccine unnecessarily? It seems to be a general consensus that the true spread of the virus is both wider and ultimately unknowable than any previous estimated.
Yes we are all anti-vaxxers- probably racists too. Maybe I just don’t like being told over and over again that only “bad” people don’t want to be compliant and take the experimental vaccine. I would prob also say “no” when a guy I don’t know buys me a drink while I’m in the ladies’. It’s probably okay but I’m not thirsty enough to chance it. if he tried to manipulate me into drinking it I would talk shit about him to my friends. That doesn’t make me a member of the temperance league or a lesbian.
I read your article. I think it could be summarized by saying that you think people who disagree with you are morons or senile, and you yourself claim to have looked into this and know that the lab leak didn't happen. You don't provide any evidence. You rely on your modest reputation and claimed academic training to buttress your claims. However, there are people with far greater training and impressive reputations who disagree with you. Unlike you, they make specific arguments. You, Brian, mostly insult people. You must be an extraordinarily difficult person to work with.
Are you sure you aren’t the one suffering from dementia? Because if you are you probably wouldn’t realize it, at least not to the extent every other sentient being who has had the misfortune of reading your narcissistic and fascist drivel in the comments section here thinks you might. Seek help, preferably away from any keyboards or smartphones until your situational awareness catches up with your perceived credentials.
I’ll have to read this thread. I stumbled on your response and I’m too busy cracking up to figure out if I agree with it. LOL I’ve been a subscriber for a while so it’s prob a yes. Hysterical!!
I'm a physician and I've taken care of hundreds, if not thousands of patients with dementia. Dementia in educated people is highly unusual at age 60, though it does occur. Dementia is generally not characterized by grandiose claims, though there are other conditions which do cause that. Statistically, it's far more likely that Malone has another issue besides dementia, though without examining him I wouldn't be able to say whether it is medical or psychological. Maybe he's just a self-important jerk, as rare as that must be in the scientific world.
Your comments seemed professional, detached, and impressive--until this one.
The ad hominem and insinuation that you may have an undisclosed "diagnosis" of someone you disagree with, which you can't confirm without examining him--wow.
Do you think that's classy and professional? Do you think doctors should go into debates on issues of public concern implying that their opponents are mentally ill? That's what this clown Brian is doing, whoever he is, but I believe you really are a doctor.
I wasn't implying anything. When I stated that I couldn't make a diagnosis without an exam, I was simply restating what has been the policy of the American Psychiatric Association since 1964 after a group of psychiatrists proclaimed without an exam that Goldwater was unfit to be president. I'm not a psychiatrist, but it does seem silly to assign a diagnosis without an exam. I thought that Dr. Malone came across as reasonably coherent but wrong. The mRNA vaccines have now been in use for almost a year and there have been hundreds of millions of doses given. For a scientist to continue to insist that the vaccines are dangerous and toxic, despite the evidence, does have to make you wonder about his motivation. I don't think that's unfair.
Mark, I'm on your side. I left medicine and psychiatry more than three decades ago when faced with learning English (my native language) terms, taking the licensing exams and finding a residency to complete my required training on return to the US in my mid-forties. We didn't have the psychopharmacopia in the 1980s; it was literally medical treatment, diet and talk therapy.
I learned what I could about the disease, asked many questions of a vaccine scientist, and chose Moderna for myself and my wife. Our younger adult daughter, with a complicated medical situation, chose Pfizer. My wife was the only one not at high risk. We can and should test for cross-immunity, then vaccinate 100% of those with negative tests over 70, and no one under 18.
Youtube needs to hire a junior high science teacher to give those who demonetize some remedial learning in how science works. Consensus is worthless; open discussion always leads to the truth. I've been punished for writing that the disease is transmissible between humans, that the Infection Fatality Rate will be no more than 0.35%, that viral infection patients go outdoors with sunlight and breezes, and questioning the Wet Market conclusion. At the time, all were "misinformation."
So as a doctor (which is a statement intended to establish authority) you cannot diagnose someone who is not your patient but… WOW where are you licensed??
I'm not. I did medical school in Germany and was in a psychiatry residency when I had to return with my family. I could take a year to learn the English language terminology and take the US Boards, then try to find a residency at an advanced age (15+ years older than my peers). I switched careers more than thirty years ago.
I'm facing eventual non-Alzheimer's dementia from normal pressure hydrocephalus. My expressive aphasia is getting worse every month, although I'm probably five years behind our President. So, finding a self-important jerk in the world of science is rare on your planet. Would you like a few of ours?
He doesn't agree with conventional wisdom, so he must be crazy. More muscular "content moderation" was supposed to discipline us all to be, well, moderate. What a beautiful vision. (sarc) I hope it doesn't work.
I've seen it more than once. The earliest sign in my experience is an odd consistency of reversal of meaning or other completely wrong comprehension of literature. Strange new behaviors together with confabulations. At first the confabulations hold water, then they progress to jaw dropping contradictions. By the time a physician is called to diagnose, the person is pretty far gone.
I’ve been pummeling Bret and Heather through their Patreon accounts etc to look into the first amendment angle due to government involvement. Have you heard of any attorneys looking into the case? Is there anything to the rumor that the CDC is very actively involved in the ad hoc council that the tech giants set up to coordinate their responses?
The most important revelation by Brett Weinstein is that if Ivermectin and/or HCQ were granted the status of acceptable treatments for COVID then the "Emergency Authorizations" for the vaccines are null and void: use of the vaccine effectively becomes illegal. No wonder big pharma and their lackeys are defecating bricks trying to suppress the truth-tellers. Matt, I hope you will continue with this issue, it is a scamdal (no misspelling) of the first order, and it is just beginning.
yes, and to me the most important revelation is that the extreme level of caution used to justify the withholding of repurposed drugs is not applied to the novel Covid Vaccines.
Reminded me of this line from Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story:
“It is forbidden to acknowledge the existence of this checkpoint (‘the object’). By reading this sign you have denied existence of the object and implied consent.”
I love the complete anonymity that cloaks these decisions. It's like these fuckers think they're the CIA. Even cops are held to a higher standard of accountability. I've spent the majority of my life far more concerned about govt power and it's abuse because of the monopoly on force the govt tends to enjoy. But Snowden pointed out that the govt just wanted to do what the tech corporations already were doing; it isn't like they had some grand malevolent plan they cooked up all on their own. It seems that Section 230 is a rigged coin - every time it flips, it protects only the media corporations.
adds to the stench of the whole, lousy enterprise. It is baldly contemptuous of our most basic rights -- how dare Weinstein ask who's gagging him? Everything is so Orwellian no single sentence or paragraph suffices- about 500 do.
That was the point of Section 230 as I understand it: protecting the social media companies from suits by their users, by random readers, by government agencies, by whomever based on the crazy sh*t their users might post.
I'm with you about govt power and it's abuse. So I don't like the idea of government moderation of social media, and I tend to defend Section 230 against its detractors.
But if Y.T. and the like are going to moderate by following government guidelines (as Matt points out), then what's the diff? We've arrived at government moderation of social media, like it or not.
All that said, Alphabet / Y.T. is making a huge blunder here. They're going to find themselves with no allies at all when Congress gets down to cases. More's the pity...
This really isn't a question of monopoly behavior that the FTC is equipped to deal with (under existing law). Now, we could allow the Executive to invent some new interpretation, or Congress more properly could create new law to cover it. Exactly how that could happen isn't at all obvious to me, at least not without running afoul of the 1st Amdt.
It isn't even just the size, it's the groupthink hiding behind anonymity. The bigger legal point should be that no one can track you, not govt and not corporations. We've outsourced violation of the 4th Amdt to the corporate world via the 3rd party doctrine (once your personal information is disclosed to someone, absent non-disclosure agreement, you have no privacy interest in it). The govt doesn't need a warrant for that because they can just buy it, like any advertiser can. That's how the whole license-plate scanning business runs, as well as smart-phone location tracking.
Good luck getting Congress to fix that, there is HUGE money to be made there (otherwise Google couldn't be profitable). They won't even tax it let alone kill it.
U.S. anti-monopoly law is as explicit as jaywalking laws. It's up to the FTC and Justice Department to build a viable legal case for the courts demonstrating that a corporation(s) has run a foul of these laws. In brief, that they are indeed "monopolies" and "anti-competitive."
You're very wrong. I don't quite understand what you mean by "really isn't a question of monopoly behavior that the FTC is equipped to deal with (Under existing law)." It's not a question of "inventing" a new "interpretation" or creating a new law. Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."
"....Most broadly, the [executive order]calls on the United States’ two antitrust agencies, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission, to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."
The FTC and the Justice Department work in tandem to build a case, and ultimately it's the Justice Department who files the legal brief and prosecutes the case.
***It's not a question of "inventing" a new "interpretation" or creating a new law. Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."***
Updating guidance is exactly inventing a new interpretation. Nor does that have anything to do with Google/YT's corporate misbehavior here. It's a fair argument to make that Google should never have been allowed to buy YT (and one I agree with), but the bigger problem is that they are using govt 'guidelines' to censor content. Whether that was done by one big company or two smaller ones - that's the problem.
"Updating guidance" is not "inventing a new interpretation." "Updating guidance" is "updating guidance." "Inventing guidance" is not even a legal term. It's a meaningless phrase. Would you refer to "updating your software" as "inventing new software?" No, you would not. You're getting lost in the debate here.
And YouTube is not "using government guidelines to censor content." YouTube may have created and might be currently enforcing guidelines that are similar, or even identical, to government guidelines, but as a PRIVATE COMPANY that is their prerogative. They can use any guidelines they wish---Government guidelines, Girl Scouts of America guidelines, Major League Baseball guidelines or, no guidelines at all---anything goes on YouTube.
YouTube is a PRIVATE COMPANY---they can use any damn guidelines they wish to police their content. In fact, following government guidelines in this instance can be construed as a smart business decision. You're completely misunderstanding the argument here. Any social media platform that is PRIVATELY held, can, under the law, kick anybody off their platform. They are not even legally obligated to allow you on their platform, even if it's for not liking the way you look, or smell, or dress, or the way you slurp your soup at dinner.
Now having said THIS, YouTube, like every other private company in the U.S., is bound by U.S. laws and they take great pains to not run afoul of the law of the land. Attracts the wrong kind of attention and threatens the bottom line. They also are also beholden to their customers---especially their customers---when making any sort of decision that might cause reverberations outside the boardroom. And here is where I have to laugh over (at?) Bret Weinstein. YouTube felt confident, even in the face of the bad publicity that would surely accrue from turning of the cameras for Weinstein, that ultimately it was the right thing---for YouTube---to do. There's a certain small liberal arts college in the state of Washington that arrived at a similar
conclusion a few years back.
Bret Weinstein was bound by YouTube's guidelines regarding its regulations surrounding the Coronavirus, or any of its guidelines on any subject. He violated those guidelines and he got his ass demonetized. If he wants to promote the views that got him demonetized from YouTube, he can take his act to another platform or build his own platform.
But that's not so easy, is it? When YouTube essentially has a monopoly on internet video? THIS IS PRECISELY THE ISSUE! YouTube is a monopoly and is anti-competitive, in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. That's my argument. It's the argument that a lot of people are making. It's the argument that the U.S. Justice department lawyers will have to argue successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Court to rule that YouTube, and other tech companies, are in violation of anti-trust laws by virtue of their anti-competitive practices, i.e., that they are a MONOPOLY! And must be broken up! Jesus Christ, I'm out of breath.
One last time: "....It's a fair argument to make that Google should never have been allowed to buy YT (and one I agree with)." It's a fair argument? IT IS THE ARGUMENT!
To reiterate: Before the law, any similarity between government guidelines and YouTube guidelines regarding covid---or anything else---is completely irrelevant.
It's important to note here that the Big tech social media platforms are so new, and have grown so dominant in so many sectors in such a short period of time (news, advertising, entertainment, commerce), that they have effectively left the law behind.
So: "Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..." And I would also add "update guidance" on possible anti-trust violations of the Big Tech companies, specifically as they relate to their social media platforms.
1. Despite the FTC anti-trust suit against FB that was recently thrown out, that's not what I've been reading.
2. There's lot of political points to be made for Fighting The Monopolists on both sides of the aisle. So I expect to see some action from Congress, however weak it turns out to be.
As the primary branch of gov'ment, Congress pretty much gets to decide for itself what its role will be. Laws are sometimes subject to Court review, of course, but the courts are notoriously deferential to the Legislative branch.
3. I suppose the FCC could modify Section 230. That's something that *didn't* happen under Chariman Pai but might happen now, under (acting) Chairman Rosenworcel. That's a possibility.
I'm not saying Congress can't, I'm saying Congress won't. Congress hasn't done anything meaningful in 20 years. And they're getting ready to roll up their sleeves and get in the ring with Big Tech? It would take the subcommittee the entire first week to figure out who was donating to whom. But save me a ringside seat just in case.
Check out Yasha Levine's *Surveillance Valley*. The government and tech didn't just bumble onto the same ideas at the same time. The internet started largely as a military project, and it's still closely intertwined with (and guided by),the defense/intelligence industry.
All they have to do is sell us convenience and we will gladly give up our privacy, without even knowing it (or for most people, not even caring if they do know).
Matt, thank you for all your outstanding journalism -- I have been your fan for decades.
There is another huge outrage going on -- a brazen and huge SLANDER of Aaron Mate and Grayzone regarding well-documented OPCW fabrications at direct request by US government.
They are just coming out of huge 2.5 year long fake and just dismissed Syria-related lawsuit (with direct involvement of top pro-Israel lawyer).
TYT's Cenk and Anna have also been activated to slander and stop Aaron's work on US/Al Qaeda crimes in Syria -- the avalanche of slander and redirection by even inventing "me-too" is unprecedented. TYT is also on record of slandering the publisher of a century -- Julian Assange.
Grayzone -- Ben Norton, Aaron Mate, and Max Blumenthal need maximum support -- including yours !!
Thank you Ethan. If appropriate distribute elsewhere. The bipartisan Syria-gate hoax is as huge as the Russia-gate hoax -- CIA has intensified efforts to slander Aaron Mate and silence the courageous Grayzone team.
Your more than welcome Boris! And beings you mentioned, in closing, some other "efforts to slander Aaron Mate and silence the courageous GRAYSTONE team", I thought it an obligation to cite a recent positive note of celebration from that very "courageous Grayzone team.
I very strongly disagree with some of the things Bret and Heather say about the vaccines, and I think they are at times not evidence-based but rather fear-based or in a few cases, flat-out ignorance-based. They don't know what they don't know. But I wholeheartedly support their right to say anything they want to say about the vaccines.
Theirs is not even a marginal case. I might really take issue with some of their statements and conclusions, but they seem to be operating in good faith, so it's just especially egregious for YouTube to do this. (We can't be the good-faith police and decide whether people are for real before letting them speak, but in Bret and Heather's case, it's so obvious they're in earnest that it's particularly horrible that they've been silenced. If they can be silenced, literally anyone with an unpopular opinion might be.
So...suck it, YouTube. We all need to create a huge fuss about this.
Why is it that these "fear-based", "flat-out ignorant" opinions ought to promoted in the middle of a health emergency? If there is a serious debate to be had here, why not promote more responsible positions on the issue?
These are two separate issues, and Ira Glasser (formerly of the ACLU before it, too, was captured) speaks eloquently on why, if we suppress dangerous/harmful/stupid speech, we make ourselves vulnerable as well, from all sorts of speech.
So, one issue is -- even if a person is just completely selfish -- protecting others' free speech rights protects your own. And that's important, the minute you have something to contribute to the conversation.
The other issue is, yes, I hate that Bret is speaking out of his expertise and promoting cranks, and I spend a little piece of every day (not a very big piece, because I'm busy with work and have a family I care about, but a little piece) trying to promote and disseminate better information. So I promote "more responsible positions" all the time -- but without demanding that Bret be silenced.
When opponents of a scientific claim find it necessary to claim that an eminent scientist is insane, demonetize their critics, and remove Nobel Prize-winning scientists' videos, something is deeply wrong.
I mean, yes...but also scientists literally used to be executed or imprisoned or exiled for thinking outside the Official Narrative...but yes, telling and unseemly to claim dementia.
So, real question here: pre-internet, it was much harder to make a living writing or speaking unpopular speech. Something like the Turner Diaries was hard to find because bookstores just wouldn't carry garbage like that. This didn't infringe on the author's rights as there's no right for your bad novel to be distributed. You have the right to *say* it but you don't have the right for it to be in stores.
The Turner Diaries is obviously a less objectionable case but where's the line here? The laws we have in place for speech on the internet are woefully inadequately and, considering congress is made largely of technological illiterate great-grandparents, it's hard to see how this changes.
But given your druthers: what's appropriate? How do we thread the needle? Because, even though I don't agree with what they're doing in this case, YouTube *doesn't* have a responsibility to let you make money on anything you say. Not running ads against your content on a video platform isn't the same thing as being thrown in jail for criticizing the government. These aren't the same level of speech. While we all understand that Google has an outsized ability to determine who sees what information, what's the actual *solution* here? I've yet to see one that felt satisfying. Maybe someone else has.
Right, but that doesn't get at the heart of the question here. YouTube and Twitter have successful competitors. They just have smaller, niche audiences. You can publish to Vimeo or send stuff out via Instagram/Gab/etc. This is like saying "everyone has network TV so if your show's on cable, you're being censored." That doesn't work.
YT makes up policies after every meal and they are arbitrary. Many people would never have anchored their livelihood on the platform if they knew this stupid shit would happen.
If I anchor my livelihood to Uber and then they go under because they can't be profitable, is that Uber's fault or mine?
We're still not getting to the fundamental speech issue here. And to be clear: I don't have an answer but the "demonetization is censorship" argument doesn't hold water.
See my comment above: We know for a fact that members of Congress and the current administration have pressured YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., to ban what they term "misinformation." That is the government trying to use YouTube as a proxy, which is is illegal.
" the "demonetization is censorship" argument doesn't hold water."
That's not the point of the article. Certainly one can understand if a sponsor doesn't want to be associated with a particular article (e.g. big pharma). But there are likely to be sponsors that wouldn't have any outright objections. YouTube is not simply an internet application. It performs a service similar to the post office in the sense that mail is expected to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated. The fact that it is owned by a private corporation only emphasizes the fact that it should have oversight to ensure that it eschews censorship under guidelines.
"It performs a service similar to the post office in the sense that mail is expected to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated."
I agree with the spirit of your post, but I think the only reason to expect the U.S. mail to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated at the present time (as opposed to past decades; see e.g. MH/CHAOS) is because there is a commercial internet that is easier and less time-consuming for the authorities to censor and manipulate.
Maybe the whole thing would be solved if YT said, hey, you can post any thing you want but WE'LL decide if it's "monetized." It's the monetizing that's the tool of censorship, namely self-censorship in one's own self-interest. But what sort of person shutters their mind for money? What sort of person doesn't want to hear unauthorized views and applauds censorship?
"What sort of person doesn't want to hear unauthorized views and applauds censorship?"
...a lot of people, apparently? (I recognize this was probably a rhetorical question.) They have always been around but really skylined themselves with COVID-19; a few pop up in here whenever MT writes an Ivermectin article.
Agreed, you're getting to the real problem - it's about the money. Anyone can say any crazy thing they want today, and garner attention, which attracts advertisers, which means the crazy shit makes money. Who's to blame for that? YT understands that many people obviously don't seem to care who said what, as long as it fits the beliefs of those people. Long-time friends, long-time neighbors, and family, are turning against one another because of what some asshole stranger posted online. That is crazy! What makes someone do that? And should YT let the asshole stranger make money on their crazy posts? By it's very nature this is an all or nothing situation, and YT seems to have decided on "all". I get it.
While I don't entirely disagree with your point, I'm not sure Mr. Weinstein started his podcast to make money as much as he wanted to spread the word about cancel culture. It just became popular enough to be monetized.
I'm also not sure he's even employable in his field since the lynch mob at Evergreen labeled him a racist.
Having said that though, I really don't see how private companies like Youtube owe anyone a platform. It's not much different than saying the government owes every citizen a fulfilling job.
I think the real issue is their bias & the fact that most, if not all, of their deplatforming is done against one side of our abyss-like American political divide. And, I think it's fairly safe to say, they picked the side who wasn't talking about enacting anti-trust laws & breaking up their monopolies. Because, at the end of the day, they don't really care about truth or misinformation or any other manufactured ethical quandary they may ramble about in public, they care about their bottom line & their influence & their place in the American power structure.
When I was growing up in Pittsburgh, there was a guy who used to walk the city streets everyday wearing a sandwich board that said, "CONGRESSMAN COYNE IS STEALING MY MAIL." There weren't any reporters grilling him about his accusation. He was ignored. Probably died wearing his sandwich board. There were probably folks like him in every city in America.
But I think the Internet altered people's perceptions about information dissemination to the point where they think a place to speak on the Internet is their right. When it really isn't. Of course they have the right to their unpopular viewpoint but its dissemination is entirely up to them. As you stated there are other options. Back in the day there was 'zine culture. I'd find them at bus stops or strategically placed around the college I went to. Still have a box in my attic filled with them.
While I doubt that anyone tried to stop them from 'zining no one went out their way to popularize their views.
Users changing their behavior is a possibility. Big Tech is not very politically popular these days. The UX is also degrading with Twitter's content quality low, most products at Amazon available elsewhere, and YouTube getting more and more ad-heavy.
I’ve learned how to do everything from mic a set a drums to bake cardamom bread from YouTube. It’s just a tool. If you use it poorly, that’s on you bud.
Easier said than done. Creators would find ways to get onto their preferred site and eventually one site would be the most popular and lucrative. It's the network effect.
What if all creators congregate into one shared account and divide up the revenue? Now the government has to regulate individual accounts which sounds like a disaster.
Well, one, demonetization doesn't imply they're not running ads - it's just that YouTube (Google) is keeping all the ad revenue.
And two, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out several times, judicial precedent holds that if the government conspires with private firms to carry out censorship the government can't do on its own, then it's unconstitutional.
Personally, I recommend avoiding Big Tech. Vote with your wallet. I'm off Twitter and Instagram, barely on Facebook. If I was posting videos, I'd do it on Rumble - which is committed to free expression. No, it doesn't have the reach of YouTube - but neither did YouTube until everyone started using it.
Jaron Lanier [pioneer of VR, my kind of weirdo] wrote about that extensively. If you're not paying for it, *you're* the product. I highly recommend any of his books.
The difference is that The Turner Diaries was not effectively censored-it was allowed to be published and distributed by Nazi Press or whomever. The 1st Amendment is not a guarantor of popular acceptance or commercial distribution.
So they can say it, but can't make a living from it - even though others can and do. I suppose that's ok, if you like working for free.
I heard the interview with Malone and Kirsch; aside from the latter's ADD, it was enlightening; Malone is a genuine authority on the subject. Interesting point, that the FDA knew, because he told them, of some of the problems with the MRNA vaccines. It's easy to forget that there was tremendous political pressure, from the TRUMP admin, to release those vaccines, even though it's a completely new technology which has had no long-term testing (because there wasn't time). Nice, if you like being a guinea pig.
These are vast civilizational altering situations, and getting cranked up about extraneous details like Bret and Heather just isn't where I go. By any reasonable standard, the vaccines are an over the top success, but we now live in a condition of unreasonableness. "WHAT?!? HOW DARE YOU SAY THE VACCINES ARE A SUCCESS!". "WHAT?!? DON'T YOU KNOW THE VACCINES ARE PART OF A VAST CABAL OF...etc., etc....
PhD's with equal and opposite PhD's all extemporizing over each other with "expert" status being granted to whoever anyone decides is expert at that moment in time. We got MT cranking about Weinstein, who is a rumor granted substance by media personalities whose business model requires inventing the new zeitgeist. Zzzzzzz......
I’ve listened to their podcast, briefly, on multiple occasions. I say briefly because I find them to be obvious pretenders to the center of the zeitgeist. What they have to say is very little. Worthwhile for context in our current milieu, but very, very little.
You know, I can generally agree that in most cases they are fence sitting pretenders, but they were completely safe from being demonetized that way. It’s interesting that they chose this hill to die on. That should tell you something.
These two paragraphs in the story point to a troubling lack of due process and accountability.
In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube.
Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices.
He was probably talking to an algorithm. I’m currently engaged with one on a supposed help desk., I’m trying to see how many years we can talk in circles
«<i>These two paragraphs in the story point to a troubling lack of due process and accountability.</i>»
Weinstein is not a citizen of YouTube and their complaints department is not a court. When you are a customer of YouTube, you have all the rights to due process and accountability specified in your contract with YouTube, and I am sure that YouTube is accurately respecting those rights (which I suspect are close to none).
Monetization (and subsequent de-monetization) implies a contractual relationship of some sort. Clearly Weinstein was harmed by their actions since at one point they were paying him and they don't seem to be able to provide specifics. I am not familiar with YouTube contracts but I would assume that since YouTube was monetizing his channels and paying him they had a business relationship.
Not just monetization, every time you register on YouTube you enter into a contract with YouTube, written by YouTube lawyers, and I am pretty sure that it gives all rights to YouTube and none to its customers.
Weinstein accepted whichever contract YouTube lawyers wrote, and if Weinstein thought that YouTube were violating their contract with him he would be suing them for damages because of contract violation instead of complaining.
In particular I am fairly sure that the contract gives him no rights to anything like "due process" and no rights to something like "accountability".
Reasonable men may differ: from my perspective YouTube is effectively a monopoly for video distribution and their lack of due process and accountability for their decisions is troubling.
This is the issue across the border and along the border. Monopoly. The problem is monopoly. All the other problems? They are a function of the problem of...monopoly.
I used "due process" which is applicable in a number of contexts, as is "accountability." I did not use the word "justice." I was reacting to the fact that no one at YouTube would take ownership for the decision, which I think is problematic.
This is the main reason why I can't feel too much sympathy for content providers that continue to distribute through You Tube. As we've observed so many times, You Tube ends up holding all the cards. There's a bit of the frog and scorpion dynamic in that arrangement. Seems to me the best course of action is to set up your own platform and use You Tube to drive an audience to your website.
I don't think it's a question of sympathy as much as what makes for a vibrant civil society. I am less worried about the specifics of the Weinstein situation,it's the implications that I find very troubling.
Also "your own platform" can be trickier than you might think if Google purges you from their Search cache, Facebook filters you out, etc.. You may not agree with the politics of Alex Jones, Parler, or Babylon Bee but their situations have demonstrated "your own platform" is not as straightforward as you might imagine.
Agreed, Sean. I subscribed to Tim Pool the other day because I kinda sorta had to. He did an interview with Steve Bannon and the content that would have gotten him deplatformed was hidden behind a paywall. I guess I don't know enough about this, but does having your own platform and charging a subscription fee make it more difficult for Big Tech to shut you down?
These are the people I look to about COVID. The front line health providers, Doctors and Nurses:
Why are 75% of healthcare workers resistant to taking the vaccine
Doctors and nurses, other health professionals—E.M.T.s, home health aides, therapists—are generally less likely to say that they’ll get immunized, and a recent survey of C.N.A.s found that nearly 75% were hesitant to get the vaccine.“In many cases, vaccine hesitancy is not a lack-of-information problem, it’s a lack-of-trust problem,” David Grabowski, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard, told me. “Staff doesn’t trust leadership. They have a real skepticism of government.
They were also aware of the "FALS POSITIVE TEST" that the WHO & CDC knew about in May 2020 but used until January 2021 before removing. You can see the effect of removing that test by looking at the WORLD O METER chart.
WHO (finally) admits PCR tests creat false positives...
The disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2).
With a false positive rate of 0.8% - a figure used by Ms Hartley-Brewer and within the broad range of what we think might be the actual rate for community testing - you would get eight false positives. So in that context, it's true that roughly 90% of positives would be false.
The False positive was used for the INFLATED Death count. Many of those people would have died from their primary problem like Heart Attack, Cancer and Flu (flu was not recorded during COVED because no one was reporting it.)
CDC went back and added what they thought would have been the average deaths from flu but that was already recorded as COVID which inflates the death count and they did it with cancer, and heart attack and stroke. Also not mentioned is that 90,000 people die a year from Hospital Infection. My sister died of a simple hospital infection after a bone marrow transfer the we did not order an autopsy but should have. The hospital gave us the choice so hospital infection was not listed as the cause of death.
ALL these numbers should be looked at more closely especially NYC where the Hospital Boat left for lack of patents and yet they have the highest death count.
Hospital ship Comfort departs NYC, having treated fewer than 200 patients.
Google owns YouTube. Three of Google’s five significant shareholders are BlackRock, The Vanguard Group and T. Rowe Price. The Vanguard Group is Pfizer’s highest shareholder. BlackRock is a major shareholder as well. T. Rowe Price and BlackRock are top shareholders of BioNTECH. BlackRock and Vanguard are top shareholders of Moderna. The largest shareholders of the MSM are BlackRock and Vanguard. I believe they own four of the six corporations that own the media. Big Pharma is a huge contributor of the CDC and the WHO. And let’s not get into how entwined these banks/corporations are with our “public servants” in DC.
It seems to me the conflicts of interest are never-ending and it’s why I don’t trust the government, the media nor big pharma. There is just too much money (and power) on the line. Of course YouTube and the other platforms including the MSM are not going to allow the likes of Weinstein, Malone, and many others to hurt their bottom line.
It’s scary how much power and control the 1% has over everything we read, hear and see. This explains why so many people are acting the way they do. I’m grateful to all those like Weinstein, Malone, McCullough, Kory, and all the other doctors, scientists and independent reporters etc… for having the courage to risk it all to save humanity.
@ Nomero
Kudos in Triplicate to YOU for the only research that *counts ........ let's all say it together now : "FOLLOW THE MONEY" ! Never fails, never lies. That is why persons of "questionable repute" struggle to make following the money as *impossible to do
as can be conceived !
Thank you again.
So you are anti free market the ?
@ Seamarsh
Not at all, no. I am just anti Corporate Crime the ....
So you support the Citizens United decision then?
Yep. The rigging is a feature, not a bug.
Interestingly, a free market is impossible without a government to enforce it.
Great - though depressing point. It was nice to see Joe Rogan on Spotify run an "emergency" podcast last week to address this YouTube matter. Even nicer is that perhaps Spotify will take advantage of people like me who cancel their subscriptions to YouTube and will support democratic organizations committed to free speech. Fingers crossed that YouTube finally gets some real competition.
The answer is the courts. Joe Rogan is not going to get any Monopoly to stop censoring. No public pressure is going to do it. Only a legal bitch-slapping will suffice. If the supreme's don't reject this censorship regime, then it is legal and should continue to its logical conclusion.
And the magic word in any legal action, the thing that carries the weight of a nail-studded cricket bat, is "discovery".
I use alternative sites like brandnewtube. I always look for Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a lawyer heading Nuremberg2 interviews doctors, scientists, financial experts like Catherine Austin Fitts, independent journalists like Whitney Webb and others regarding all things related to the jab.
Here's an interesting article on Blackrock's new activist approach to investing. The main topic is that they're coercing companies to staff diversity and inclusion departments, but it also mentions evaluating companies on how they responded to covid and various other sociopolitical issues.
Blackrock and Vanguard each hold trillions in assets, making them among the most powerful forces on earth.
You may have noticed how large corporations are increasingly marching in lockstep on certain sociopolitical issues. Think for example of the universal support for BLM last year. This is why.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-10/blackrock-plans-to-push-companies-on-racial-diversity-in-2021
Look at the board of directors and senior leadership of all the organizations waving their BLM banners. There isn't a whiter group to be found in America. Racial diversity is a marketing campaign no one hands over power without a battle.
Yes. Should the marketing department research reveal that BLM and CRT were merely passing fads, and now cross-burnings and cereal boxes with swastikas are the latest rage....
This is nothing compared to Blackrock's Going Direct Reset plans. Catherine Austin Fitts explains it on the solari report. The woke bullshit is a distraction.
Have you read cynical theories? I'm curious if you'd think think wokeness is being used as a tool or if its truly taken over institutions. Perhaps certain organizations have ceded territory (by refusing to pick a fight with the woke or actively going along with certain demands) of some institutions in favor of loftier goals.
I have not read it. I think the woke/cancel culture might be another Operation Mockingbird. IMO, it serves the purpose of divide and conquer and it’s distracting. How convenient for our corporate overlords that the masses are not only justifying censorship (some of the comments on this thread alone give me the chills) but we the people’s national hobby now is to help promote censorship by ratting each other out. When I realized how much Silicon Valley (the epicenter of wokeness, cancel culture and censorship) is entwined with the deep state (for example Regina Dugans from DARPA works for Google and Facebook) I wouldn’t doubt everything happening right now is by design.
I’m a shitty writer, but someone should pen a book called “Stasi on the Potomac.”
It’s our very own Cultural Revolution.
With Disney+!
Hitler liked the Brownshirts, before they interfered with his real agenda.......
Bingo.
no because of the first mover advantage
https://vimeo.com/65731171
I respectfully disagree. It seems more and more unlikely, but a conscientious society, as consumers and investors, can change everything rather quickly, simply by voting with their feet and money.
This is what's so compelling about the idea of capitalism and a "free" market. Unlike with our democracy, change can be affected at any time and rather quickly - no need to wait for an election.
Yeah well, conscientiousness is one thing and consciousness is another.
Alphabet Inc, Google’s parent company, through Google Ventures is highly invested in Vaccitech, the biotech startup behind the COVID 19 vaccine AstraZeneca. Seems to me that the same investors, or “banksters” that own BigPharma, the MSM, the social media platforms and our politicians are the same ones that are trying to take away our freedom of speech and our body sovereignty.
We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not. That put a nice greasy stamp of ownership on all employees where your free time isn't really yours & it really isn't free.
Like the writer Charles Bukowski once said, “Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.”
My attitude towards any job I've ever had is one where I care about what I'm being paid to care about while I'm being paid to care about it. Once the time clock clicks as I exit, the company can go fuck itself sideways with a rusty nail studded 2x4 for all I care.
It's called being a professional.
I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business.
But then, the average American, for all of his/her/other yapping & blathering & fireworks watching about freedom, slowly, over time, gleefully whored that freedom away to a class of people who don't give a tinker's toot about them, let alone their illusory & compromised personal freedoms.
Removing Biden won't change that.
Reelecting Trump won't change that.
I'm not entirely sure that anything other than a total collapse will change anything.
Humans, for all of our narcissistic "gee ain't humanity great" backslapping bullshit are twisted little creatures that often don't appreciate what we have until we see it reflected in our rear view mirror.
Oh yeah, Happy Fireworks Day. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!
@Spiderbaby:
ITTA! Superb post; I cannot like it enough.
"We lost our "body sovereignty" when we acquiesced to allowing corporations & employers to do random drug tests of all employees whether they were caught doing drugs or not."
In some cases, this can include testing for Nicotine; asking perspective employees about their medical status; asking if their parents are still alive, and if not, what they died of; being forced to sign NDAs, NCAs, and "intellectual property" "agreements" (after the "vaccines" are "approved", employers will be able to legally fire any employee that doesn't comply, you know, for "health and safety reasons"; and worst of all:
The fact that my employer can legally fire me for something I said while NOT on company time, NOT using company resources, NOT mentioning my employment with the company, and NOT mentioning the company or using its logo.
Free country, my ass.
Yeah, isn't it great how employers are exempt from HIPAA?
As far as speech issues, they always use the excuse that the employee, even though he isn't being paid by the employer at the moment he speaks, still somehow magically is "representing the company."
Fuck that noise.
If you're not paying me we're not affiliated. I won't even billboard my own employer. They had a big name change recently, primarily because they were busted defrauding the Feds about patients that didn't exist & doctors visits that weren't happening, so they were ducking bad press.
They gave us all t-shirts to wear with the new name on it. I refused it. Gave mine to a client. Told them they could rent my chest but I don't do freebies.
They weren't happy but tough shit.
It's a rule.
Like no Twitter or Facebook.
I don't billboard. Period.
"I don't need my employer to be my mommy or my daddy. I don't need my co-workers to be my buddies. I don't need my manager to offer me uplifting personal platitudes & life guidance. I don't need anything from my employer other than the paycheck that I worked to earn. And I need those wages to be fair. All that should matter is whether I'm competently doing my job. Whatever I do when I'm not at work is, quite frankly, none of my employer's goddamn motherfucking business."
About 16 years ago now, I had a "manager" that just LOVED to give career advice during bi-annual "performance reviews". This consisted of "discussing" certain "behaviors" (i.e. things completely unrelated to your abilities on the job, including why he was a manager, why he was so much more successful at life than I was, and I would never amount to anything unless I changed my ways). He also just LOVED new technology, and "theories" on "scientific management" (i.e. what ever fad was being touted by those over him). We were forced to wear an everchanging series of electronic devices, and attend more and more courses (on our own time, though we sometimes got a meal) - all in the name of "improving communication" and making us more "productive", of course. Failing to respond to emails, pages and phone calls (at all hours of the day and night, 24/7, including holiday weekends, where I once told him I couldn't come in to work because I was sick from bad BBQ pork and had explosive diarrhea) was punishable by public shaming and private counseling. Things came to a head between us when I refused to attend a three-day "voluntary" seminar (off-site, unpaid, and we were told that we were NOT allowed to have any family or friends visit us at the hotel at any time). I was publicly shamed in front of the entire section for my refusal and called names by him and my coworkers, including being told that my refusal could be "career ending". He laid me off two months after that. I managed to get rehired at the same company, but in a different department.
Free country, my ass.
Luckily my main source of income is my own business. As my own boss I try not to belittle myself too much. I do 4 shifts on the weekend in order to have healthcare for my family.
The managers there are incompetent & ineffectual which is probably why I get away with my non-compliance. I doubt that the lot of them could successfully run a McD's drive thru.
But since they're also a crew of unimaginative drones they will soon trot out the CRT unconscious race bias struggle sessions just like every other dipshit company in America.
I need moral guidance from my employer about as much as I need them to give me a daily enema. In fact, I suspect this will be one long verbal enema.
Anyone who thinks this country is free should buy a house, pay it off & then stop paying the property tax so they can see who really owns what here in America. Spoiler alert: It isn't them.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but that “job” you had...? You were in a fucking cult...! 😳
Damn straight. My first encounter with that was the first time I saw someone wearing clothes advertising the clothing brand. It was that most blatant of offenders, "Tommy Hilfiger". Went something like this:
"Oh, you like The Who?"
"Who?"
"Tommy. The Who's "Tommy", the rock oper..."
"Oh he's great! Love this shirt."
"Who's great?"
"Tommy. Tommy Hilfiger. This is one of his shirts."
"You should give it back."
Have since avoided branded clothing (okay, the little alligator was fine), which has saved me money and helped me avoid people who judge others by wardrobe branding. Fine example of a win/win.
"Told them they could rent my chest but I don't do freebies."
As my dad used to say, "I don't mind if you f**k me, just wear a condom, buy me dinner, and try to remember my name come morning."
Work isn’t supposed to always be “fulfilling”-that’s why they pay you to be there!
Honestly if I needed my job to fulfill me I would be one sad & sorry little bunny who would probably be only one or two setbacks away from eating a bullet.
Or making everyone around me miserable with my constant whining.
Either way I can find better things to do with my time.
And they don't involve a boss.
Or an HR department.
Or a bogus, condescending seminar on Critical Race Theory & "Unconscious Racial Bias."
On Marky Ramone’s Punk Rock Blitzkrieg SiriusXM station, he has a voiceover tag saying “If you have a job where you can listen to this station at work, you have a good gig!”. My job gets my attention but it doesn’t get my angst or my soul. Office Space got it right.
Office Space brushed the sacred. Not even joking.
You’re paid for what you endure
Nothing short of a mass-extinction event will solve this little problem.
This is why I can still smile... I know it's all a wash and I'm still enjoying my ride in this meatbag.
Daaamn! Happy 4th of the 5th of whatever to you too, and bravo. Keep fighting!
I hear what you are saying. I wonder when we had sovereignty? Perhaps a persistent illusion of sovereignty.
@Steven… I guess I too was under the illusion we had body sovereignty. All the tactics employed to try to force this experimental gene therapy on everyone has been eye-opening for sure.
Save humanity? Jesus Christ..
Yes. I said save humanity. We live in a world where the only “health” that matters is the FINANCIAL HEALTH of our ruling class.
Yeah. "Save humanity". Via published Science. Great benefit in opening a map and attempting to count what remain of the Glaciers *anywhere that we had Fifty Years ago. You know, if we can find *valid maps that have not been altered by a then 74 year old child with a Sharpie.
Does every conversation on this site center on President Trump? Or are there just a tiny handful of fanatics who are obsessed with the Man?
@Charles Clemens
I am hoping that you are not surprised to learn that people in the U.S. still talk about Al Capone and Legs Diamond either ! Not, of course in "every conversation", but you are welcome to do your own statistical research.
I am teaming up with Brian and I'm certain our Blue Ribbon Brain Trust will come up with some astounding results. These will, of course, be published as comments on Mr. Taibbi's substack.com page. I appreciate your interest, Atma. You have stimulated further research by one independent scientist and a struggling cunning linguist.
@Charles Clemens
You do YOU, Charles ! I could not have wished for you a more discerning Partner, and "linguistics" become *ever so much more
"cunning" when we relax the epiglottal stop ! ;-D
Are you talking about those glaciers that were supposed to melt by 2020 but didn't, and where the US government had to take down their signs that predicted doom?
https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/
Or maybe the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro that Al Gore told us would be gone by 2016.
https://www.masslive.com/news/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
Shhh…..the Climate Jehovahs believe what they are told by the “expert” class. Same “expert” class that is fleecing the planet through SARS2.0.
https://www.juancole.com/2021/07/kuwait-hottest-lytton.html
Weather is not climate, but you knew that.
July 4th in my neck of the woods was the coolest I can ever remember. Does that count, too?
Amazing what happens to chunks of ice, post-Little Ice Age.
@ Thomas Heath
Innit tho ? Yup, especially the BIG chunks of ice, like, you know .....
uh, Greenland. When I was growing up in Montana, my family took a trip to Glacier National Park. We saw around 143 Glaciers. I was 16 at the time.
I am now 73, and Glacier Park now has 26 Glaciers. Now, see, when these "chunks of ice" MELT the oceans RISE. When the oceans RISE, they change the WEATHER the world over. This is not a Chicken Little Idea, this is a "get off yer duff and look out a *WINDOW concept. Or, hire a small plane and fly over Glacier Park ! ONE of the things you will see, is that the curvature of the horizon alone will show you that the World is NOT FLAT. What we can call *that is "a good start" ...... then ....... ;-D
Truth. I’m a die hard free marketer-if you can build a better mousetrap, you deserve every cent from it. If you manipulate markets and make money from shenanigans w/out adding tangible value-don’t be surprised when the people, as Corrosion of Conformity say “Vote With a Bullet”.
Interesting. Are you speaking in purity terms when you refer to a "free market", such as an anarcho-capitalist would, a la Spooner? Or are you just being nihilistic?
Scarier still is how people only get "news-product" from one or two of their sources and think they know enough to make a decision. When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"
Yeah, they become aghast. "but but.. podcasts are... DANGEROUS!" ooo spooky ideas are dangerous. I am so fed up with this crap. How about, "I don't trust corporate influenced institutions anymore than I trust any politician's words. Perhaps, I trust those with less incentives to push a narrative and primary sources above everyone else?"
Hopefully Matt doesn't mind me shilling in the comments, but I'm going to. I've revitalized by substack and wouldn't mind more input. josephc.substack.com
"When you tell someone like this you don't watch the news, they become apoplectic and stammer, "But.. But... where do you get your NEWS from??? The INTERNET???"
Wow, do you know my ex-"friend", Mark? Don't forget to add in not reading the NYT, not watching PBS, and not worshipping Elon Musk.
One of the problems here is that Brett doesn't seem to provide links to any sources of his discussion, he should. I think that nobody should be allowed to post anything without a valid link to a source especially when it comes to science. In his interview, his guest states that there's a serious health concern related to the vaccine without any reference to any data. That shouldn't be allowed as it shouldn't be allowed with any anti-vaxxer post.
You could read the scientific papers about the vaccines, drugs, viruses, Covid-19, etc. Valid information is out there and if you have problems understanding it you could watch or listen to scientific podcasts, such as microbe.tv/twiv, and contact real researchers.
I understand the complain, that you don't trust anyone, but there are ways of getting facts regardless of the power of the 1% and people need to start listening to experts and talking to experts.
That's all very interesting, but my question was "How does all the money flow up to the top of the biggest corporations?"
They say if we knew how our financial system worked, there would be a revolution. Can't remember if it was Ford. Anyway, I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air, giving big corporations and banks loans with close to 0% interests, having the taxpayers foot the bailouts. The taxpayers also pay for the research that bigpharma then patents and profits from and the taxpayers are paying bigpharma for the jab and the campaign promoting the jab. I mean,how are all these states able to pay for the coercion lotteries? But that's just my guess. If I understood how the elite control the money and the government, I wouldn't need to follow people like Taibbi.
Also: https://twitter.com/BroksTricky/status/1411288758104829955
That was a bunch of information I was unaware of! Thanks.
Great comment! There may occasionally be confounding factors, but in general connecting the monetary dots makes the world much easier to understand.
It's a complicated web we are caught up in. Would we be the weavers? https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178486/democracy-incorporated
"It's great to be the king."
But the Vizier pulls the strings.....
Ah, but Vizier's First Consort is controlling things...
Well, conspicuous among the "we", who always respond first to emotional appeals, are those scientists etc. who tout themselves as being Above All That.
When I've had occasion to query them about non-scientific (e.g. political) matters, even if under the most relaxed of social etc. circumstances, I get quite "non-scientific" responses.
If I present a theory about, say, what I see as major prospects, of major Const. turmoil in the US w/in c. 30 years, the response I get is, not a "scientific" "*Why* do you think that?", but rather, an outburst of "That's ridiculous!!"
And, I'm talking about scientists with major positions/ reps, e.g. at National Labs.
Whether one agrees with the claims of these people or not, why would you agree with Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter censoring anyone’s opinions? I’m sick and tired of nameless, faceless “moderators” determining what all of us can read, hear, or see. That’s the point.
The fact Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter can censor is very much in the same legalistic vein as the dismissal of Cosby's rape conviction. Power's lawyers find a way through a loophole...
From an objective sort of perspective (i actually don't know if i agree or disagree at this point), these are private companies. What i think is two things at this point - one, i don't think out regulatory and legal system has quite caught up with the reality of platforms as publishers and responsibility for content or not. Also, it may not seem it, but we do have some choices. I, for one, choose not to participate on Facebook or Twitter. I (stupidly) choose to use Google instead of Duck Duck Go, Gmail, and i watch videos on youtube (but entertainment, not news or info.) I can choose which media i consume. I can cross check. I'm not hogtied to any of them. And neither is anyone else.
The relationship between these powerful arbiters of information and the government officials responsible for regulating them creates an almost "quasi-government" action when they censor to please their regulators. We need a Teddy Roosevelt, breaking up monopolies needs to happen from the top.
Between all the big tech companies they currently have about 1,000 job openings for “government relations” positions.
aka androgynous blowjob givers.....
Totally with you on breaking up monopolies. But all i can see happening is they get broken up, and you just get ghettoized tribal sites that break down like the media sites. Instead of ghettoized sections on the same site.
MySpace was the biggest social platform in the world at one time. Make Facebook MySpace.
I like this plan.
Step 1: Arrest Zuck for crimes against human consciousness and sanity, put him in ADX Supermax as Ted Kaczynski's cellmate
Step 2: Put "Tom" in charge of Facebook with the goal of making it MySpacier, e.g. any member can engineer their own interface
Step 3: Profit
Maybe just send Zuck into space with Elon and Branson. We could get an awful lot of billionaires bumped off.
Or just have Tom take over Bandcamp, but let them add pictures and stuff.
Facebook going from suburban bs to a hive of Juggalos and face tattoo rappers lol....one can wish.....
And after its heyday, someone (Justin Timberlake?) bought it, lost all of the sparkly glitter and ugly fonts and made it a rather nice looking music site for bands. But the ship had long sailed.
I’ll give Timberlake credit-he keeps it real on the musical/thespian front
I demand that the federal government, exercising dictatorial powers in this time of epistemic emergency, bans all social media platforms with the exception of message boards and funds the resuscitation of GeoCities.
We should still have a platform where we can see rock videos though.
I trust Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Ice Cube, and Willie Dee way more than any current member of Congress
Mark Sandman, Leonard Cohen, Frank Zappa...or did you want living ones?
Bring back Vimeo.
Make mix tapes great again.
... did it go somewhere?
https://vimeo.com/
If they are censoring to please anyone in the government, there are Supreme Court precedents that could be marshaled to sue even private corporations for violating the First Amendment. One would need a really good lawyer to make the case, but as a start on the brief, consider:
Norwood v. Harrison (a case about civil rights law, not the First Amendment, but note the principle enunciated) quotes the district court finding in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."
While Marsh v. Alabama required free speech on private land in company town, over the objection of the company.
Modern caselaw treats monopolies mainly in terms of harm to the consumer. And this doesn't get to the problem we have. We can't break up companies just because they're too damn big even though that sort of accumulation of power is really what we are suffering with.
Harm to Americans is not the problem we have here??
Wat? This very piece by Matt showcases one example. When SM, fully in bed with govt, shapes the narrative and then refuses counter-discussion, that is very, very problematic. It's literally authoritarianism.
Yes, there is harm, but it's not consumers being harmed by monopolistic pricing, and that's where anti-trust law has drifted.
Tim Wu traces this caselaw in "The Curse of Bigness", but it's also all public record.
"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace--both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace...In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy...The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist...Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men...That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 1948
Good points. We can and should all crosscheck infirmation ourselves. I'm like you. Over the ladt year, I have wound up poring over at least a dozen peer reviewed medical and Obama-issued policing studies to figure out who's telling the truth. My search has led me to trust a handful of reporters like Taibbi, Greenwald, Crytal and Saagar and podcasters like Weinstein and Rogan.
It took a lot of time though. I don't have kids and, for months, my job was half as demanding as usual. I know few people with so much time to spend searching for reliable media sources. But, if people understood they're being led around by the nose by corporate shills, I'm sure more of them would make a greater effort. People would probably talk more in person about whom they trust and why. So, you're right, but I can't bear how long it will take for people to sense the urgency of the moment.
That's the thing, who has the time, or even the inclination. Not many. I feel like politics is kind of my duty, but it's not my passion. I skipped a lot of reporting over the last couple of years - Russiagate, Jan 6, most Trump hysteria, Jan 6, most Covid stuff - Fauci, Cuomo, etc. And i don't feel like i missed out on anything either.
Right. Politics and culture used to be a passion for me, but less since Trump was elected. I never came close to supporting him, but somehow couldn't hate him enough for my friends. No more sgarin articles as we used to, no more animated talks about policy or social trends. I've realized that, to whatever degree I care about what's really going on, I care alone, practically speaking. Sure, they're a few public personalities who share my perspectives, but almost no one I actually know or love. So I am beginning to follow your plan. I'll consume what I can bear to know alone and ignore the rest!
I couldn't hate Trump enough either. Not that i didn't, but as a longtime former New Yorker, i was just used to ignoring him. We would have been a lot better off if everyone had ignored him. Instead of "elevating him" as drooling dumbass Robby Mook advised, because then Hillary would have had it in the bag. What could possibly go wrong. Bernie was and is my guy, the rest of them can all fuck off.
These days i just leave the Democratic media to the Democrats, and i'll hang with my Indie homies on these parts. I do like Politico though. They just did a nice little hit piece on Harris which had the Dem spin machine on full time damage control.
I didn't pay much attention to journalism or politics prior to COVID. I did a little bit of activism against Trump when he was first elected, but after a few months I simply turned off "Trump TV" and tuned out. I didn't realize how bad journalism had gotten until lockdowns, when I had time to pay attention.
That's a fine list of sources. Mirrors mine, though I also subscribe to John McWhorter.
Your list could be mine, and I am in the same boat-- no kids, and the time to research this stuff, unlike most of my friends.
As these web sights evolve to th point where they eventually become the de facto medium through which citizens communicate, they become part of the common space we all need to occupy to feel included in a society. They need to be made as much like 'normal interaction' as possible or folks will be left to find other means of communication that are not so beneficial to society as whole maybe(well, not as beneficial as the open sharing of ideas would be). When two people are talking in park and they disagree, either of the can leave them th conversation and find someone else in the park to talk to. Neither gets to go make th grounds keeper spray a hose on th other till they either leave or modify th words they will allow to leave their mouths
Disagree. Just like someone can walk away from another in the park, we can walk away from one social media platform and move to another. People have already walked away and gone to other forums. Don't want to get involved with shitposting on FB or Twitter, then shitpost on TikTok, the MSM comment section of your choice. We're on one now, after shitposting on a comment section with Martians on the NTY, i'm shitposting here.
I have an online music group, have had various online art and photography groups, and a couple of political ones. I don't have to go into the Colosseum.
People tried that - it was Parler....that didn't last too long now did it?
My point is that i'm already using different platforms. I don't have jump in the big arena and watch the Christians and the lions go at it.
But if everyone opted out, social media would cease to exist. The whole point is to make communication universal.
But you are right about it being the case that our laws/systems of governance haven't caught up to technical reality.
It looks like the only solutions involve either lots of regulation or lots of litigation.
"But if everyone opted out, social media would cease to exist."
I'll give you the same reply i gave to Rick above.
They don't gotta burn the urls they just remove um.
Also I'm sure this isn't a panacea for the above and likely problematic in its own right when you think too much about it, but aren't sites like the wayback machine something of a help for this problem (assuming it is beyond reproach, which of course it is not).
It really feels like we're in a medieval/Inquisition-type of psychic atmosphere.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
.... until it comes.
Regardless of whether one disagrees with Brett and Heather, they should absolutely have the right to discuss the topics that have gotten them demonetized. I think they are both very careful reasoned people who's contents is always interesting and worthwhile. I followed them over to Odysee. YouTube can suck it!
We should be thankful this Orwellian tactic by big tech wasn't available when blood letting and phrenology were "settled science."
"Settled science" is your first clue that whatever follows will be political, and not scientific. NOTHING is ever settled in science. Its ALL subject to reexamination.
Yup we would all have leech farms in our basements 🙄 and of course lead to purge ourselves of toxins 😳
I prefer mercury, I wonder if utube will demonetize someone promoting mercury therapy
I hear phrenology is making a comeback. You can Google that shit...
Are modern medically-approved types of body-mutilation better?
Eugenics is what we get when public policy is directed by scientists. The subject itself was never a science.
How fascinating that Politifact has taken a position on whether the spike proteins are harmful. It's doubtful they similarly express positions for medical treatments for other illnesses.
It's an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political.
Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute which receives funding from a number of sources (mostly left of center philanthropies) but very notably Bill Gates, who also contributes funds to Facebook's "fact-checking." In general, the entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism and cannot be trusted at all.
"[T]he entirety of the "fact-checking" industry is now a PR control mechanism..."
Agreed. The only way to "check facts" is to allow open debate on them, record those debates permanently, and allow any number of competing indexes on those (permanent) records.
Here in FL the Poynter Institute has successfully infected the Tampa Bay Times with a neoliberal bent that becomes more pronounced with each passing day. They have for months now in 'news' articles been shaming people about not taking the vaccines, dumbing the discussion down to a vaccine-takers-good vs. vaccine-decliners-ignorant (-or black.) And the world view they describe in subtle and not so subtle ways is quite bleak...unless you are one of the 'smart' people they think themselves to be; apparently they and they alone, with their super smarts, will be able to survive the hellscape of ignorance and racism they are sure are the only causes of strife in the world. Deliberate acts of manufacturing consent masquerading as independent journalism. Much of this to see in our world today.
Time to unsubscribe. Cannot kill the beast if you feed the beast.
Gates does not "contribute funds to Facebook's fact-checking." The Gates Foundation donated 380 grand to the Poynter Institute, which is working in conjunction with Facebook on a global fact-checking project.
Fair enough. Gates also contributed approximately $250M to the following
"the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups."
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
Thanks for keeping up with Gates so I don't have to. No longer just the nerd from microsoft, more than a dabbler in ag real estate, and a tinkerer of nuclear power---a Goldfinger in a V-neck sweater.
Goldie wasn't a serial shagger though, that was Bond.
There would be a good book in debunking the 'fact checkers'. Assuming, of course, that you could find a publisher.
Asking politifact about the efficacy of spike proteins is about as useful as asking PETA for their best bone morrow recipes.
I wonder, is there anyone at politifact that even knows what a spike protein is?
If not, they can always check out the comments here on TK---the majority of commenters here are all trained virologists, and up to date on all the latest science and research.
I thought all the amateur medical harrrummpphhing by all the Ivermectin enthusiasts here on the TK threads was "an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political."
I've been reading the thread for half an hour and have yet to see any ivermectin enthusiasts. Just people who dislike abuse of power.
I've been reading for weeks and I have.
Okie doke, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Always a pleasure.
I watched Weinstein's Youtube discussion of the mRNA vaccine with Robert Malone. As a physician, I didn't find his discussion particularly convincing, nor that of Dr. Malone. Three or four hundred million people have now been vaccinated and we are not seeing a lot of serious side effects, which we would almost have certainly seen by now if there really was a problem. The issue, as I see it, is that Weinstein is making a living with his Youtube channel and obviously, he is motivated to increase his income by generating controversy. There's a heck of a lot of content on Youtube and careful, well-reasoned discussion probably would generate less income than outlandish claims. As a physician, I'm used to reading medical journals and I have enough statistical training to evaluate the evidence. That's not true for the majority of people exposed to this kind of programming. I'd have found Weinstein's program a lot more interesting if he had brought on an active mRNA researcher to debate Dr. Malone. (I don't think Dr. Malone is "in his dotage" at age 60, but he's clearly not involved with this kind of work anymore.) Weinstein is a smart guy, but he's not a physician, and not a virologist. His show needs to be a little more balanced if he wants to be taken seriously.
The article is not about whether what he said was right or wrong, the article is whether he had the right to say it and keep his platform.
He is a scientist and the people he has on are scientists. You then get the right to think for yourself and decide whether or not you agree with him.
How do people keep missing this central point?!
Not understanding the links between government and business. Being a private company covers a multitude of sins, it seems.
Under U.S. law, ALL the sins.
That feeling when legal isn’t always the same thing as right.
Exactly-- censorship
I think that you have a good point about freedom of expression. But Youtube is a private platform and Weinstein and Malone are completely free to develop their own website and place their content on their own website. Nobody can force the NY Times to publish my scribblings, or CNN to broadcast my ravings, and most people would think it okay that I not be given those platforms. The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility.
YouTube, etc. can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be immune from responsibility for content, like a common carrier, then exercise editorial control over that content like a newspaper. Sooner or later they’ll be made to pick one, or one will be picked for them.
Clearly, they can.
Parler would like a word.
Mark Parler was a really good alternative to Youtube but unfortunately Youtube did what good monopolies did-- they paid off- sorry gave campaign contributions , called in favours etc of their paid stooges and had it tied up and squashed. Think 1940s.
You beat me to it.
Power companies are private companies too. Should they be allowed to disconnect your power if they disagree with your politics?
If the power company was also allowing you to transmit video/text through their power lines, sure. There was a method for using the power grid for data transmission created way back. It never got off the ground, but it worked. An example of something that could have been, would have changed how our world works, and everyone would think it was inevitable and the only obvious way.
"The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility."
Whatever you think about YouTube's "journalism", the point is we need true common carriers. They don't exist online.
Sure they do. What we don't have is "common carriers forced to pay you." I am certain that the only question in anyone's mind is what they do and don't want censored.
We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children,etc..
"We censor porn, drug sales, contract killing, thieves for hire, offering prostitution services, promoting sex with children"
Except for porn (the kinds that don't embody actual recorded crimes), all the others are incitement to commit crimes ... which itself is a crime. I wouldn't call prohibiting incitement "censorship".
And if we dealt with the underlying causes of those issues, we might not have to.
I think it's also about whether YouTube is an extension of whatever corporate interest makes it worth their while... big pharma in this moment. Since there are no laws against 2 companies working together privately, we can't even demand an investigation.
Public utility. Given current technology, no speech should be censored or deplatformed except in the very rare cases where it presents a clear and immediate danger. It does not matter whether the would-be censor is the government or a nearly monopolistic private corporation. In fact, the latter is worse, since government is at least somewhat democratic, whereas corporations, as Chomsky has rightly characterized them, are unaccountable private tyrannies.
It’s the new “Public Square,” Mark.
Nope. It's the new pub. A bar can refuse service to anyone and bounce you out as it likes.
Social media is a primary means of discourse these days. That aside, your metaphor is especially stupid — unless and until Facebook starts serving alcohol. Your comments here are just laughable. But even taking up your bar example: have you ever been tossed from a bar for having discussions about subjects the bar owner didn’t want discussed? LOL.
Let’s back it up a little.
Brian, have you ever been to a bar?
Hilariously, if you bring topics that typically involve free speech discussions (religion and politics) to a bar it’s not unreasonable to remove you from the establishment.
It’s almost like you don’t know anything, Brian.
A priest and a scientist walk into a bar. The priest orders a bourbon on the rocks and demands that the scientist accept the myth of a virgin birth and the scientist orders a Moscow Mule and insists that, although no cases have ever been documented of COVID-19 being transmitted to a human by an animal, we must all believe in the New Holy Trinity (Fauci, Daczak, and the Bat Lady). The bartender throws them both out and reminds them that there was once a time when they could freely debate these miracles on the worldwide Web.
Assuming that Brian actually is a graduate of the UC...I weep uncontrollably for our future.
Not quite true. I'm sure you can think of some counter examples......
@Brian
"Nope. It's the new pub. A bar can refuse service to anyone and bounce you out as it likes."
It's a new day, and we see you still haven't received the professional help that you so desperately need.
You Tube is a monopoly -- The NY Times is not. You tube is owned by Facebook. Guess who funded that after the twins took their money and ran. Wow you are comparing the business model/function of the NY Times with You Tube--really?
BTW both doctors do. One has a P-O-D-C-A-S-T-- listen to it sometime- great guests.
The bottom line is the issue is censorship. You seems very upset about the money issue-- nothing is stopping you from trying it.
YouTube is owned by Google. But your point is valid.
"The question is whether Youtube is more like the NY Times or more like a public utility."
It's very tricky, i'd say neither of the above. Tough to have a public utility and with the copyright issues.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the article, regarding state censorship.
Yeah and when they do actually make a competitor that’s taking off, like Parler, the tech monopolies collude to remove it from the internet within 24 hours. Apple and Google removed it from their App Stores and Amazon removed its hosting within 24 hours, and it’s only now getting back online, several months later.
You're assuming that most people are like you, a common failing among liberals. It appears to me that most are NOT discerning, they are NOT critical thinkers, they are NOT capable of making informed decisions...they ARE easily grifted, they ARE easily victimized by smooth talkers, and they mostly get their news from Facebook...need I say more?
So we need a priestly class to tell the masses what they need to know.
I never said that. But a private entity, such as YT, determines what's in their best interest to publish or not publish. People can then go say what they want somewhere else...maybe hop up on a milk crate on a street corner somewhere and say it. Don't get pissed at YT for looking out for themselves, not to mention calling it censorship.
But legally they are not publishers. If they are publishers they are not protected by Section 230 and can be sued for what appears on their site.
Let them eat cake, amirite?
"But a private entity, such as YT, determines what's in their best interest to publish or not publish."
YouTube's lawyers: "WHOA, we never said anything about publishing! Easy there, fella!"
YT's best financial interest is to let the batshit crazy roll, Alex Jones style. That sells, and the people it sells to are gullible and easy to target.
Fuck off with that shit.
We’re better than you know and can handle ourselves.
Pfft, when you criticized the state of my soul I should’ve guessed you were projecting your own weakness.
Phisto...... Nicely worded sentiments.
Funny thing about folks like The Strongest... in their pecking order, they always see themselves on top. When you look closely, you see just another idiot with an opinion.
I'd trust a three hundred million retards over folks like that. How could it be worse than we have now? At least retards aren't clever enough to fuck us the way our oligarchs and politicians do.
Will we have bright colors, explosions and Pr0n?
4k calories/day of sugar, fried food and delicious carbs?
Perfect safety?
Then we'll be living in the world the narcissists project other people wanting. It's selection bias. They think everyone is like the people they see on the internet, when that's the only people they see.
I think they're in for a shock, hopefully an entertaining one.
Yes, easily grifted by the likes of Ibram Kendi, who thus far has not been censored.
Folks of all stripes share these qualities, bruh.
So democracy is a bad idea? Not that we have it, or have had for quite a long time. (Page and Siegel proved this with an elaborate study, som eyears ago now.)
Who knows? I sure don't! But I will say it's turning out to be 'not as advertised', that's for certain. And I would argue the reason is because of too many uninformed dimwits that think Facebook and such are good sources of info. Democracy requires an educated discerning public, and trustworthy sources of info...we have neither of these.
Ummm, must be why are very discerning forefathers founded a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy.
I really wish we could correct typos on substack.
Just fyi, "The major difference between a democracy and a republic is that a republic is a form of government whereas a democracy is an ideology that helps shape how a government is run. Put another way: a republic is the system of government that allows a country to be democratic!"
This is from the site that helps people study for the SAT. https://blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference
I consent to no one’s rule and no one consents to mine. So, yes. It’s a bad idea.
It really isn’t about whether you, after hearing the material and evaluating it, think it should be taken “seriously.” It’s about whether people should be able to hear and evaluate it as you have. As for your take that we ordinary people can’t be trusted to hear and evaluate the information — I don’t need you making those decisions for me. If you are so concerned, get on YouTube and air your concerns.
When a journalist writes a story, if the professional standards include fact checking. Stories with "facts" that cannot be verified are not supposed to run. @matt taibbi knows this very well -- he has made reference to it in his stories. A journalist cannot run a story that says that Donald Trump is a cannibal, or that Nancy Pelosi makes child porn without having proof of that, and if they do, they can expect consequences.
Those who read or listen to media have an expectation that what they read has some basic soundness to it.
Matt Taibbi has made a name for himself debunking stories like Russiagate that are lies. But those stories did get created through channels (that should be cleaned out) which had those falsehoods represented as facts. And here he is defending a different kind of Russiagate when it is being (correctly) attacked as false and calling it "censorship". This implies that Matt thinks that the Russiagate story should have been run in the first place, and that all those involved in the machinations to create the Russiagate lies should be defended.
Here we have a "story" in which most of the facts do not check out. They are just false. That means that this journalist, Bret Weinstein did not bother to try to check them, and he has the nominal background to at least try to do so. Nor did Bret ask serious questions of his guests claims. That he did not do so, and that he has not done anything to listen to, nor give time to information that debunks what his guests were saying, violates basic standards of journalism. That is why I am saying that Matt is on the wrong side of this.
The above is also why I say that Bret Weinstein has no business calling foul, nor saying that he is being "censored". He is getting appropriate consequences for violating basic standards of journalism. Without those standards, the people cannot be informed, and democracy becomes ungovernable. We see this developing right before us.
Most people do not have the background, or skills/training, etc. to evaluate claims about vaccines, epidemiology, etc.. Given that this is something that causes mass death, it is important to make sure facts are checked.
You have this comically wrong, Brian. Even as Matt was debunking “Russiagate” he never called for deplatforming voices reporting on Russiagate. He opposed information with information. The rest of what you get to here is a claim that YouTube or Facebook can determine which facts are “correct,” and should then take steps to keep “bad information” from us. It is f*cked up and decidedly illiberal.
Did Matt ever call for Russiagaters to lose their jobs?
I feel like that’s pertinent.
Obviously, that’s not a matter of course.
Not that I recall. Matt noted (lamented) repeatedly that there was no “accountability” for constantly misreporting on Russiagate, but I never took that to mean “firing.” I took it to mean reputationally.
Sounds like we can say the Russiagate tangent is bullshit.
Bret has not been "deplatformed". Bret had half his money taken away and stories left alone.
The bad information is still available. Bret is just being incentivized to apply journalistic standards of fact checking accuracy.
False-- two of his most recent videos were removed. And "demonetization" is another tool of censorship.
In a world where you have to work to eat, it sure is.
"Just being incentivized."
You fucking boot licker.
@Brian
Why do you have such a hardon for Bret? You're starting to come across like a jealous, petty, butthurt little child.
Brian I haven’t read most comments here, so if you already set the record straight I didn’t see it.
Why not make a positive contribution to the thread here and describe — in intelligent layman’s terms as best you can — where Dr. Malone and Prof. Weinstein are wrong and why?
Nobody will censor you here.
I did from the start. Malone is making it up. There's no evidence his claims of cytotoxicity are true. And, his claim to being "the inventor" of RNA and DNA vaccines is easily debunked by looking up that thread of patents. The first inventor of nucleic acid vaccines is 4357421, Emtage et al. Nov 2 1982. To get issued then it had to be submitted in the 70's, years before Malone was in college. Then, my mentor, Gary Rhodes, was on a bare DNA patent issued in 1989. After Malone left Vical, Gary Rhodes took over the DNA vaccine that Malone had been working on. Gary invented his method independently. But Gary didn't claim he was "the guy". This stuff was obvious to many people from the start of molecular biology.
(Bret Weinstein is acting as journalist. I address his journalistic standards issues above.)
mRNA vaccines for other diseases have been studied but these are the first mRNA vaccines to go into humans with no Ph I or Ph II clinical trials. In the real world <20% of all Ph I programs move to PhII They went straight to the largest Ph III in HISTORY on an EUA - why might that be? Is it the severity of the virus? Is the virus an opportunity? Who knows. meanwhile at least 17 other countries are using Ivermectin as a primary or secondary treatment protocol with results that are “statistically significant” (understatement)at the very least. It’s not that hard to find this information - and unless you want to cite CURRENT information w real world data then a history lesson of outdated DNA technology is not relevant to any mRNA vaccine and def not this one.
Various people have pointed this out.....and crickets from Brian.
Nobody's paying Brian to tell the truth.
@Brian
Proceeding on the assumption that you are who and what you say you are, and not a troll...
"When a journalist writes a story, if the professional standards include fact checking. Stories with "facts" that cannot be verified are not supposed to run."
"That means that this journalist, Bret Weinstein did not bother to try to check them"
Interesting that you refer to Weinstein as a "journalist", when I'm 97% sure he never made that claim about himself.
Here's a thought, Brian, how'z about you start your own channel, and debunk what Bret has to say. This is, of course, predicated on the as yet unproven assumption that you can.
"Given that this is something that causes mass death,"
Covid "deaths" worldwide, so far ~3,969,468
Malnutrition kills some 3 million children, per year. More people die from malnutrition than AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria...combined.
Some "working scientist" should do something.
I’m glad you included the Weinstein/journalist point . . . I meant to raise that in my response to Brian, but forgot.
You are absolutely incorrect that the facts presented by Weinstein w Koury etc are wrong. Just as those who decided to give credence to the lab-leak hypothesis (now theory) waited to go public until AFTER Trump left office.
You are spreading misinformation and s/b cancelled immediately. Or should you. Go work in the pharma industry for 10m - specifically one of many who develop mRNA and other cellular therapeutics. Then get back to me. Also - most Drs don’t report AEs SAEs or even deaths to FDA reporting system FOR ANY DRUG, DEVICE OR BIOLOGICAL. They are required to do so whether or not THEY think the event is related. Why are there underreports ? Because Drs are buying into the “safe and effective” mantra - so they are making decisions about whether to report. See above. But Mostly because individuals aren’t told and don’t know what an AE is or how to report it. Do you know what constitutes an AE? I do. And I can tell you they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT ACCURATELY REPORTED. Therefore no substantive useful safety profile of this
vaccine can be developed.
B Price i cannot link directly to you response on this thread (for whatever ridiculous reason). There’s simply no way to Quantitatively prove underreporting of ANYTHING . I am not the goddess of AE reporting and I don’t work for either of these companies and Even I can give you >10 anecdotal instances of AEs people have mentioned to me and had not reported to their doctor nor have they been reported to public health FDA CDC or any other agency. Just people who experienced mild to severe AEs post-vaccination. I. This case since most vaccines are not given in a persons primary care doc office but by a volunteer nurse or a pharmacist the subject will never see again how many people will think to report the headache they get a week later or the tremor 2 weeks later? it’s not for me OR ANYONE (even the person administering the vaccine)to say the causal relationship. That correlation is entrusted to the sponsor. Re: your clintrials search - of course you found a multitude of moderna Pfizer Merck etc ongoing clinical trials - ONGOING and there will be many more and they will use safety data from this global “involuntary” trial to include as supportive info for the next trial and the next. Read those protocols. These specific mRNA COVID VACCINES had no Ph II trials because they had no Ph I trials. They barely had InVivo studies - AGAIN specific to COVID - know why? Because unless they knew there was going to be a pandemic of novel SARS 2 COVID there was not enough time to collect data for a randomized or comparative trial. Or did they randomize? Gave some people the actual vaccine and others Vitamin B12?
You’re missing my points the main of which is - safety data is insufficient to determine the overall degree of safety. Obviously people are not dropping like flies (that we know of) but it doesn’t mean there are not substantial unknown risks. These can be severe and latent. People have a right to make their own choice based on that information alone. With NORMAL drugs we barely know what we don’t know. This is so much LESS THAN NORMAL. I think there was something to learn from Tuskegee. Its not all about racism - it’s about BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. Blocking the flow of information denies people these rights.
Also forgot to mention this - clinical trials collect information re concomitant medications (con-meds) subjects should report EVERYTHING from vitamin supplements to birth control to HRT to ibuprofen - ANYTHING. anyone been asked for this info at the drive thru jab clinic?
Some "journalists" get Pulitzer Prizes for publishing lies and propaganda. We live in a very interesting time in history. The only thing that surprises me is that Joe Biden was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on January 20, 2021.
"[H]ere [Matt] is defending a different kind of Russiagate when it is being (correctly) attacked as false and calling it 'censorship'."
"This implies that Matt thinks that the Russiagate story should have been run in the first place ..."'
Probably. (Where do you see Matt arguing for prior restraint? )
"... and that all those involved in the machinations to create the Russiagate lies should be defended."
That does not follow.
No such conclusion can possibly be made. Does it "follow" that a person who refused to believe Tower 7 of the WTC was taken down by explosives must also deny any/all alternative theories for the rest of his/her/its life?
I wonder if Brian is used to getting his way in life, and thus has gotten sloppy flinging around faulty logic with impunity.
I don't doubt anything you've said. I'm a retired attorney and could go on and on about the poor quality of most legal journalism. I'm certainly not qualified to analyze Weinstein's points, or those of his guests, but it does concern me when the tech cos take CDC and FDA positions as gospel that is off limits to public discussion. Laetrile in a TJ clinic as a cancer cure all is one thing, but blocking discussion of current scientific question ought not happen
One might suspect that those tech CEO’s have been given their marching orders, no?
It might be more complex. They may have let certain segments of the FedGov know which marching orders they would like to receive.
Hard to tell, when the power gets concentrated enough, how that's gonna flow. In the current case, the interests of Big Pharma (owned in part by the people who own Big Tech) can be made clear to government. What government wants tolerated, or suppressed, can be made clear to the Social Media platforms, who can make it so.
Then everybody throws up their hands and waits for Politifuct or Snopes to clarify that "No, there is not a secret cabal meeting in a penthouse boardroom censoring what you hear." Gee, thanks. The fact checkers are so darn subtle I just don't know what to think any more. /sarc
I think you greatly underestimate people’s ability to judge complex information despite their lack of formal expertise in a subject. The assumption that ordinary people need scientific debate to be curated by “experts” — for our own protection, of course — is hogwash.
I disagree with Pete, but people's ability to judge isn't the real problem. I think the real problem is the way this all works. Someone, anyone with a computer/smartphone/etc, can so easily take advantage of the situation and spew half-truth propaganda for personal profit. The cost to do it is nil, and there is no gatekeeper. There is no one to say, "Whoa! We're not putting this trash on the wire, because we've got a reputation and a business to protect." All the person has to do, is decide which hot-button issue they want to use. Then create a credible argument that feeds right into one side of the hot-button issue saying exactly what the rabid followers want to hear, and bingo! They're making money via advertising space! They are now considered a "trusted source" to the rabid believers and anything that's said (as long as it follows the party line) makes money! They don't have to be concerned about accuracy and truthfulness - I honestly doubt that Alex Jones believed half the crap he posted on his site - but he made millions posting it.
The irony of this argument! You believe people are too neive to filter info on their own and yet so neive as to believe some benevolent vetter of info standing between you and the truth would never realize any benefit from lying to you. That's the whole reason
why "state-run" media exists!!! To present you BS represented as truth!
Fairness doctrine.
I don't know about "state-run" media, but private media outlets, or mainstream media, have a billion dollar business investment to protect. I'm not saying the "benevolent vetter" always ensures the truth, but they certainly have a huge incentive to try to keep it real so as not to lose their audience, subscribers, and inevitably, their business. Some motivated dingdong in his parents basement with a laptop, some savvy and ingenuity, and no conscience, has absolutely nothing to lose and lots to gain by misleading the masses.
I'm sorry but when someone accepts the media's proclamations as truth, then there is no incentive for the media to be truthful.
It's quite obvious. Unless attempts at independent fact checking are made, the reader will be manipulated for the media controllers gain.
Exactly. Posts like Dave's are just painful to read.
There's how they say things work and then there is how things actually work.
The "benevolent vetter" has no interest in these private media outlets. They're likely paid a salary well under what they should be getting. There's certainly no ownership in the scheme.
Again back to the person in the basement: think they have no conscience? Has Dave ever been in a corporate boardroom?
Why do you think I'm here? Why are you guys here? I'll bet it's the same reason as me - because Matt is an upfront, honest journalist that cares about the truth, and does a good job getting those truths in writing. What what you say is the ratio of Matt's genre to the liars and propagandists? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? As far as I'm concerned, it's close enough to 'needle-in-a-haystack' to say that an overwhelming number of the media (mainstream and otherwise) are not to be trusted. So how do you know who to trust? Are you going to fact check every single thing that comes before your eyes? I doubt it. So my position is an old adage: "Believe half of what you see and none of what you read and hear." Should we, hopefully, eventually, choose to hold media accountable, it's too damn easy for the "guy in the basement" to cut and run.
And there's the rub. It's up to us to keep the media truthful, mainstream or otherwise, but most don't seem to care about accuracy and truth. They seem to care mostly about being entertained by sensationalism, and/or seeing and reading things that fit their preconceptions.
Maybe one day when people realize how dangerous this "post-truth" environment is, and quit acting like Facebook (and such) is an important part of their lives, my "guy in his parent's basement" could be an important watchdog of sorts. But until then, he's more than likely to be another dirtbag that see's an opportunity to make money from human fear and bias.
The only thing some guy in a basement has to gain is a laugh.
Fuck, you’re stupid.
What? Alex didn't believe the royal family are aliens from outer space? Really? Noooooooooooo! ;-)
You're reasoning here is double-hogwash. The dirty backwash of hogwash.
I agree with Pete.
In my experience, physicians are often the worst researchers. There are some exceptions, but I've asked for my name to be taken off of several academic publications headed by physicians due to shoddy analysis of data. If anything, Brett and Heather's analyses as biologists and researchers lends more credibility.
My dad was an old school doctor. He graduated med school in 1931. I listened to the podcast with Kory and I agree that doctors like my dad were scientists. They would observe and experiment and write letters to journals to show what they learned.
OK, I might have come down a little hard. I've worked with many medical doctors on research papers in my career. Some have done great work and some terrible. My problem is with individuals who think they are solid researchers just because they are physicians, when they haven't earned a research degree or proven themselves to be a solid intuitive researcher like your dad.
Real practicing doctors make the best politicians-Ron and Rand Paul, Sen. Tom Coburn. Good doctors are brutal realists when it comes to health and political common sense.
"Good doctors are brutal realists"
I will add Bashar Assad to this list! Still waiting for him to show up on UI.
No respect for Ron Paul. Wrote bills for funding for his district that he then voted against, because he knew it would pass anyway. Coward, walk the fucking walk. Someone described him on another site long ago as looking like a withered scrotum, and i can't see him as otherwise now.
This week on the Reason podcast Justin Amash made the best, and most fundamental point about the US Constitution, namely, that it is the most freedom supporting and endorsing plan of government in the history of the world, and that any serious attempt to annul/abandon it would lead to something worse. Are our ideals always going to be followed/executed-hell no-but they aren’t going to be replaced by anything officially better. Happy Early 4th of July, and thank you John Locke!!!!
I have a lot of respect for Amash, even if i disagree with him on many things. Dude walks his walk. And in a weird way, to a much lesser degree, for Rand. I voted for Gary Johnson in '12. But i can't stand Ron.
Considering what’s developed since those documents were penned, we’re fucked if we don’t do better.
I believe that in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century Drs really were integral to and active in the discovery process -true scientific inquiry. Now they are much more passive in this system - arguably by design. They get the bulk of their education RE treatment from drug reps and HA/Pharma friendly journals. Find out how much $ a pharma company spends on Medical Affairs. It’s not a little
I think that you miss a subtle point. In my opinion, one of the reasons that Weinstein has gone so hard against the vaccines is that he feels they are an unnecessary risk given that there is a low risk, cheap, and effective alternative. And that would be ivermectin.
Vaccines were accelerated to market and embody a new technology with some serious short term risks - maybe rare, maybe a little more than rare ... that is still up for debate - and unknown long term effects. If ivermectin works, then why do down that road?
anyone who looks into any aspect of Western medicine will very quickly see that it's all about profit not healing.
Chris Rock did a great bit in one of his standups about how the last thing they cured was polio...and speaking as the medical industry he said, "Whoa! We ain't makin THAT mistake again!"
The vaccine studies were well-funded, well-designed Phase 3 studies which showed 95% effectiveness in preventing disease. Normally, the FDA would take a year or more to approve a vaccine after completion of a vaccine study. As you might imagine, the FDA made the decision to expedite the review of the studies and approve the vaccines as an emergency authorization, not unreasonable given that thousands of people were dying in the US every day. I've reviewed the Ivermectin studies and they are all very small, even combined they have had a tiny fraction of the number of subjects in one vaccine study. The results are contradictory but when combined tend to suggest a 38% reduction in risk. The problem with this sort of systemic review is that there is a bias which leads to the non-publication of negative studies. There is a much larger, high-quality study currently being conducted but the results are not in. Incidentally, my PDR lists the following side effects of Ivermectin: hypotension, seizures, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, asthma exacerbation, vision loss, hepatitis, and many other less serious side effects. I have no idea what the incidence of these side effects are, but it's not reasonable to assume that Ivermectin is much safer than the vaccine. There is nothing in any of the studies which suggest that it is more effective than the vaccines. I found an interesting summary of the ongoing research on Ivermectin at https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use.
The NIH also has a review of the Ivermectin studies:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/
children and I believe pregnant women were not included in the vaccine studies yet they are issuing vaccines to them
If we are just going to list off potential side effects for drugs as reasons to avoid them than you are going to have to throw out everything in your medicine cabinet. It's about incidence and severity and COST.
Ivermectin has been dosed almost 4 billion times in the last 40 years (the Nobel prize was awarded in 2015 for its development) and importantly it costs one-tenth of a vaccine dose. It could have been distributed worldwide in weeks.
As for efficacy, it does seem debatable at this point, but it is a low-risk, potentially high reward proposition....EXACTLY like masks. If you think we should all be wearing masks when there was no evidence they actually worked then the risk-reward with ivermectin is exactly the same.
Right; we can't assume that there were no financial interests being put above those of public health, but without being able to even discuss it, we're already sunk -logically.
Also I’m repeating this from my earlier post but Ivermectin is and has been an approved first or 2nd line treatment protocol for COVID in over 17 countries and more regional health authorities. In view of that alone the misinformation label just doesn’t add up. And I agree. There are many other marketed products (and some generics) I wouldn’t give to a fence post never mind a human
Look up the side effects listed for every medication you take (throw out the "rare" or "unlikely" context, as Mark did with IVM). Scare you to death!
Thanks for the reply. I am not a physician or scientist (engineer by degree, former investment banker and software developer by profession) so can only cite other people in rebuttal. With respect to the meta analyses that are out there, others obviously disagree, including Tess Lawrie, who is a respected scientist in the UK whose largest clients are - bizarrely - organizations that are very much in the pro vax camp (NHS and WHO) [see https://www.healthrising.org/forums/threads/a-letter-to-mr-boris-johnson-from-uk-scientist-dr-tess-lawrie-calling-on-him-to-start-saving-lives-with-ivermectin.6481/ ].
As for the reputable study of ivermectin that you refer to in your reply, if that is the one currently being conducted by Oxford then there is more than room to be highly skeptical of its results. Under its protocols patients are able to be enrolled in this study for up to 14 days after having been diagnosed with Covid. Ivermectin proponents make the case for it mostly based on its antiviral properties - patients are well past the viral stage by that point. An honest study would limit enrollment to patients who can reasonably be thought to have had the disease for just a few days. In fact, Dr. Marik is on record as saying that this study has been set up to fail. The fact that Oxford has tight ties to The Gates Foundation and The Wellcome Trust provides more reason for doubt.
With respect to the safety of ivermectin, the WHO lists it as an essential medicine. Although any medicine has side effects, all of the discussions concerning the drug point in the direction that it is extremely safe (no myocarditis worries here, I think).
As to the safety of the vaccines, even the short term safety is open to question. The heart inflammation in young people seems to be something that no one saw coming, for example. That aside, no one knows what the long term effects will be.
Finally, even if the vaccine was generally safe for older adults who stand a decent chance of being adversely affected if they catch the virus, I find very little sympathy for the requirement that young people be vaccinated (even college age kids, much less children), given their very low risk from Covid. And I have an even smaller amount of sympathy for the argument that one should be vaccinated if they have already had the disease (if you can advance a reason for vaccination in this case I am all ears).
The combination of censorship and stigmatization of those holding alternative viewpoints concerning vaccination, the reflexive dismissal (combined with a sort of strange lack of curiosity) of generic treatments, and the 'vaccines are the answer' mantra from day one all work together to leave a bad impression with the general public. I am probably not alone in suspecting there is more here than meets the eye.
Thanks for reading.
And yet, it would seem that the FDA is still hedging..
As they hedge, the profit-meter is running for Big Pharma.
Are you crazy??? mRNA ‘vaccines’ have NEVER been past Ph I clinical trials. The technology has been used as treatment for people with serious disease frequently as last resort. <20% of ALL Ph I trials for any drug, treatment/ biologic or device move from Ph I to Ph II. We are now in the largest Ph III (global) clinical trial (under an EUA) IN THE HISTORY OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT and participation is virtually mandated by duress. And if you think the always consistently honest NIH is a good source of safety information wear a mask or wait don’t wear a mask wear 2 masks outdoors alone or wait don’t wear one except when you’re running or playing tennis
Funny I am used to reading medical journals too and I do find both Dr's discussion convincing. BTW your vaccination claims are just that claims. As a physician you of COURSE know that vaccination side effects don't just happen in a month, they can occur at any stage of life including to the next generation (b. defects etc). As a physician you of COURSE understand what an experimental procedure is and that the medical device/ modification inserted in the jab (mRNA) has not been tested in humans and therefore we have no idea when, how long the effects will occur. And as a physician you support patient consent in all medical usage and especially in using experimental drugs, devices and technology. Right?
Think of the polio jab-- big mistake in the projected effects there. Think of how much they thought they knew about many drugs, for eg. Thalodimide. Unfortunately too many of our colleagues feel they know the answers all the time. We don't, we make mistakes, we are not infallible. Right? Because it is NOT all about how much money someone makes, right Mark?
Brian is that you?
"that the medical device/ modification inserted in the jab (mRNA) has not been tested in humans ... " My understanding is that there were no animal trials either. This point is brought up in the Weinstein / Malone discussion.
There’s no data on the long term effects.
But there are bright shiny ads on TV that say come and join us. Be free, and get your Vaccine and you can be part of the human race too.
My issue is that the same people screaming get the vaccine are also the ones that say my body my choice. I get that my decision to not get this vaccine affects others, but I also take precautions when I am out to avoid others. If this vaccine is the miracle they say it is then my stupid ass shouldn't affect you in the slightest. As you all say, you are vaccinated and protected. But here in lies the problem... They are not really protected.
I am a fairly healthy middle aged man who has never gotten a flu shot. I am not anti-Vax in any way shape or form, I've just not had the flu in over a decade, and I am not going to run out to have something shoved into my body that doesn't quite seem necessary. If I somehow get Covid and it kills me, then you can all dance on my grave and used me in your statistics, but I feel the likelihood of that is about the same as my winning the powerball tonight.
and a lot of reasons for caution.
Everything you say about Weinstein can be said about the pharmacos. They only care about distributing more high-priced vaccine doses, which incentivizes them away from full disclosure of risks and exploration of cheaper alternatives. This is the core issue driving Weinstein and its rather neive to think pharmcos could never lie or mistreat patients or withhold important info when we are barely removed for the opioid crisis for which pharmacos have settled for billions of dollars. Being a physician actually could cloud your judgment (as with physicians prescribing pain killers) as you may have such a familiarity with the players that you've lost the healthy skepticism that is necessary to reveal fraud.
And I imagine he'd say his show is not as balanced as you'd like it to be because he is deliberately trying to act as a counterweight to the perverse incentives that have stockpiled all the weight on only one side of the scale.
There's a strange approach in the medical community where doctors seem to think the average patient incapable of learning rather basic medical ideas and so they the doctors should never be fact checked ever by anyone without medical training. And they also conveniently dismiss the real doctors that provide counter arguments as well. Only doctors opinions should be considered and then only doctors that adhere to the "consensus" state-sponsored view.
And then finally if you didn't find his discussion convincing, does that give you the right to demonitize his platform? Does free speech only exist insofar as you find it convincing? And every other speech you don't find convincing should be banned? You would have snuffed out Every medical breakthrough of the last 200 years if you could ban its dissemination because you didn't find it convincing.
Thanks for bringing up some salient points. I've maintained a distrust of the medical establishment for years, ever since I learned about how they have effectively created a mafia-style system that is geared toward maximizing profit over healthcare (the real deal, not just pushing pills or , in this case, jabs), and how they can effectively silence detractors, doubters, and dissenters.
Medicine is important enough to warrant it being subsidized so that it can remain free of the profit motive. But that's a naive way of thinking, kind of like saying people should become doctors because they are following a 'calling' that doesn't issue from their wallets.
Well, there was recently that scientific paper concluding "For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination." After political pressure, it was retracted by the journal but apparently the pro-vaccine case has its holes.
https://archive.is/3FbAx
The main criticism of the paper seems to be that too many post-vaccine deaths were counted which isn't fair, because some of them would have occured also w/o the vaccine. But that's unconvincing because COVID-19 deaths are similarly counted w/o careful verification of the cause.
And too many AEs SAEs and deaths are never even reported
That article sneaked past peer review because someone intercepted it somehow. There was no political pressure involved. The editorial board was resigning en masse because the paper was childish hogwash.
https://brianhanley.medium.com/your-anti-vax-paper-is-the-work-of-idiots-anne-ulrich-harald-walach-rainer-klement-wouter-3f1202ee64c
The paper addresses in the text most criticisms that are leveled at it. It also includes the observation that reported vaccine-side-effects rates vary by a factor 47 among European countries, even though the underlying rate is likely to be similar. That should lead any thinking person to question whether the event reporting system is trustworthy, or whether there is massive underreporting for propaganda reasons.
It does not address the criticisms. In defense the response was that they believe the database has causal reports and everything else is removed. That descends into wilful self-deception at best. It is more likely deliberate deception aimed at the public.
The paper certainly addresses causality and data quality:
"One might argue that it is always difficult to ascertain causality in such reports. This is certainly true; however, the Dutch data, especially the fatal cases, were certified by medical specialists..."
"However, when inspecting the reports according to countries, we can see a large variance. Our decision to use the Dutch data as a proxy for Europe was derived from this discovery. One might want to challenge this decision, but we did not find any data from other countries being more valid than those used here. Apart from this, our data tallied well with the data from the U.S. CDC vaccine adverse r eporting system [12], which indirectly validates our decision."
Well, for starters, their whole argument is that "spike protein is bad". Which clearly is true - that's how COVID-19 gets in and does its damage.
But it has no relevance to whether or not mRNA vaccines are bad, because they don't encode active spike protein. They encode bits of the spike protein equivalent to chopped up inactive spike protein.
It's a bit like saying "measles can kill, watch out!" to someone taking a vaccine with inactivated, chopped up measles, the whole point of which is not to infect but to create an immune response to the "bits" that will cross over to the native virus and stop it.
Well, I am not a scientist but I don't think you have that quite right. First, I don't think there is anything about the spike protein that is inactive or active. It just exists. If by 'inactive' you mean that it is incapable of reproducing, that is correct, but I don't think that too many vaccine hesitant people are confused on that point.
Second, much of the discussion about the vaccine does concern the spike protein, apart from its reproducibility; specifically, with respect to two points: a) can it detach from the cell wall (after having been transcribed via the mRNA)? and b) if it can detach, does it do damage to the body (that is, is it 'cytotoxic')? If you listen to minutes 13 to 30 in the Malone interview you will get an appreciation for some of these subtle issues. ( https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0 )
Spot on. And I don’t know about anyone else here - I am not anti-vaxx. Any choice I make will be 1) INFORMED by data, scientific and anecdotal evidence 2) A CHOICE. A couple of years ago I went to India and was offered an anti-malarial (guess). Personally I had a better chance of dying from malaria than I do from COVID but I declined because I was aware of certain specific side effects. The safety profile of this particular drug was extensive. I made my CHOICE based on accurate, clear, consistent research that became available over time. Everyone must have a right to well-informed choice. There are things that kill far more people and there is no other drug, treatment or vaccine that has been pushed this hard. IMO It’s about much more than $$$.
The spike protein is 1273 amino acids long. I'm talking about using amino acids 200-400 as a chain, for example. They would have no direct activity. But since the immune system reacts to chains of like 8-30 amino acids, when trained by recognizing the sequence of 310-330 that sit on the 200-400 chain, then it would attack the full 1273 spike protein sequence right at the 310-330 spot.
wait... are you a physician?
Mark, you're obviously triggered. And your critical thinking skills are, . . . lax.
You've missed the entire point of the discussion; it's about speech. It's not about whether you're an expert in a field and should protect us from those w/ whom you disagree. Why are physicians so consistently arrogant & narcissistic?
The article is about the suppression of speech, specifically speech that contradicts what others hold to be true. Especially being questioned is, stay w/ me here; do corporations have the right to limit speech especially since corps have a financial interest in doing so?
"If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism."
See, THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE CRUX and you've missed entirely it because you're triggered, lack critical thinking skills and the ability to read carefully.
speech by other doctors and medical professionals. I think that is called Science, rational discussion of evidence, not dogma and taboos
Yeah - I lean in the direction of concern for increased capacity for online censorship and have appreciated Matt on this lately. I also was sympathetic to Bret after Evergreen and have found him worthwhile in the past. But, while I don't have the medical knowledge myself, I just don't get the feeling Bret has successfully upended conventional wisdom to the degree he's claiming, and some of it flies in the face of obvious short-term vaccination results. Not buying it.
Well said, Doc! Nothing is perfect, and no vaccine/drug trials can test every possible outcome. That's impossible! I sincerely empathize with anyone who's kid is hospitalized because of a vaccine/drug reaction...I cannot imagine what that must be like...but the numbers speak for themselves. Sowing distrust in vaccines for some yet to be qualified "wonder drug" is harmful to every human on the planet.
Hyperbole much?
No. I literally mean and I believe what I said - humanity has a history of vaccine efficacy. Vaccines have saved countless lives, and prevented suffering. Scaring people away from them harms the entirety of humanity.
Remember that next time you find a parent unwilling to vaccinate their child against measles. A disease that IS actually deadly to kids and had been eradicated.
People can have early dementia symptoms before 60. Malone is running around claiming he invented RNA and DNA vaccines. In grad school my major professor was on the DNA PATENT. He took over when Malone left the company. A quick look in patents shows Malone's stuff he co-invented was preceded by nearly a decade others. Lots of people had the ideas. For him to get on a podcast and blabber fiction he made up to scare people about RNA vaccines? That's either generated from jealousy, or dementia. It's hugely irresponsible.
Hugely irresponsible. Not unlike sticking billions with a vaccine under EUA for a virus that only kills the already dying or near death? Cute.
It's not true that Covid only affected those already dying or near death. One of my physician colleagues, a marathon runner, died after being on a respirator for weeks. Another physician acquaintance was on a respirator for several weeks before recovering; I attending a lecture of his a month ago. The physician wife of a colleague also was on a respirator for over a week. One of my neighbors, an airline pilot, was on a respirator for weeks. The 30 year old physician friend of my daughter was out of work for many weeks after recovering. Of course, I know many people for whom Covid was hardly worse than a mild cold. But it's wrong to minimize this, even if the majority of deaths were among the elderly (thanks in part to people like Governor Cuomo who sent Covid patients to nursing homes).
The respirator issue is a whole other story. I know nurses that refuse to work with them because of how easy it is to screw up and injure the patient, all the way up to blowing their lungs out. It takes mega-specialized training to operate a respirator correctly and because of the urgency associated with Covid, a lot of people have been responsible for respirators that shouldn’t have been anywhere near one.
Ventilators were also used for infection control, to prevent patients from exhaling virus-air all over the place. That couldn't have been good for the patients.
But most certainly were: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html
When we get real with what obesity is, we can have this discussion.
That 78% is not much higher than the overall percentage of older Americans who are overweight or obese. Covid mostly affects over-50s and I think over 70% of them are overweight or obese.
There is a 0% chance any virus hospitalizes fat fucks and diabetics at the same rate as the fit and healthy.
Make stuff up much? More like 40%.
https://hpi.georgetown.edu/obesity2/
Lots of ventilator overuse was going on. I remember reading about ER doctors who were totally surprised by how low people's O2 level can go before intervention is beneficial.
Physicians are at high risk because of 2 things. 1. Their infecting dose multiple. They are in a situation where they can get millions and billions of viruses into their lungs as their infecting event. This gives the virus a big head start over someone on the street that gets a few hundred lodge in their nasopharynx. The immune system is on a schedule of 3-5 days to find effective response, and another 3-5 to ramp it up..
2. Doctors are tired working flat out 7x24 hour shifts in some cases. I worked with a group in TX. The culture is one of go until you drop. And the ERs were like wartime. People couldn't be kept alive to admission, and would die denying they were sick. People would yell, get combative, spit on ER staff, etc.. they were not in their right mind with O2 saturation below 50%.
It's wrong to minimize this? Wrong in what way? How is it wrong?
The antivaxxers are deep here as usual.
As are the big pharma and anti free speech shills apparently.
I had an interesting thought in conversation today about the vaccine. Could a large preponderance of negative-but not fatal/requiring medical intervention-reactions to the vaccines be based upon already infected individuals (with presumable natural immunity) being exposed to the mRNA vaccine unnecessarily? It seems to be a general consensus that the true spread of the virus is both wider and ultimately unknowable than any previous estimated.
Get bent pal. You're a partisan hack and just proved it. You don't deserve your "credentials".
Yes we are all anti-vaxxers- probably racists too. Maybe I just don’t like being told over and over again that only “bad” people don’t want to be compliant and take the experimental vaccine. I would prob also say “no” when a guy I don’t know buys me a drink while I’m in the ladies’. It’s probably okay but I’m not thirsty enough to chance it. if he tried to manipulate me into drinking it I would talk shit about him to my friends. That doesn’t make me a member of the temperance league or a lesbian.
By Brian's "logic", applauding the prosecution and jailing of Rod Blagojevich would make me "anti-Illinois".
Yes, indeed it is true.
I read your article. I think it could be summarized by saying that you think people who disagree with you are morons or senile, and you yourself claim to have looked into this and know that the lab leak didn't happen. You don't provide any evidence. You rely on your modest reputation and claimed academic training to buttress your claims. However, there are people with far greater training and impressive reputations who disagree with you. Unlike you, they make specific arguments. You, Brian, mostly insult people. You must be an extraordinarily difficult person to work with.
No reasonable person believes he's a physician.
Are you sure you aren’t the one suffering from dementia? Because if you are you probably wouldn’t realize it, at least not to the extent every other sentient being who has had the misfortune of reading your narcissistic and fascist drivel in the comments section here thinks you might. Seek help, preferably away from any keyboards or smartphones until your situational awareness catches up with your perceived credentials.
I’ll have to read this thread. I stumbled on your response and I’m too busy cracking up to figure out if I agree with it. LOL I’ve been a subscriber for a while so it’s prob a yes. Hysterical!!
I'm a physician and I've taken care of hundreds, if not thousands of patients with dementia. Dementia in educated people is highly unusual at age 60, though it does occur. Dementia is generally not characterized by grandiose claims, though there are other conditions which do cause that. Statistically, it's far more likely that Malone has another issue besides dementia, though without examining him I wouldn't be able to say whether it is medical or psychological. Maybe he's just a self-important jerk, as rare as that must be in the scientific world.
Your comments seemed professional, detached, and impressive--until this one.
The ad hominem and insinuation that you may have an undisclosed "diagnosis" of someone you disagree with, which you can't confirm without examining him--wow.
Do you think that's classy and professional? Do you think doctors should go into debates on issues of public concern implying that their opponents are mentally ill? That's what this clown Brian is doing, whoever he is, but I believe you really are a doctor.
I wasn't implying anything. When I stated that I couldn't make a diagnosis without an exam, I was simply restating what has been the policy of the American Psychiatric Association since 1964 after a group of psychiatrists proclaimed without an exam that Goldwater was unfit to be president. I'm not a psychiatrist, but it does seem silly to assign a diagnosis without an exam. I thought that Dr. Malone came across as reasonably coherent but wrong. The mRNA vaccines have now been in use for almost a year and there have been hundreds of millions of doses given. For a scientist to continue to insist that the vaccines are dangerous and toxic, despite the evidence, does have to make you wonder about his motivation. I don't think that's unfair.
Mark, I'm on your side. I left medicine and psychiatry more than three decades ago when faced with learning English (my native language) terms, taking the licensing exams and finding a residency to complete my required training on return to the US in my mid-forties. We didn't have the psychopharmacopia in the 1980s; it was literally medical treatment, diet and talk therapy.
I learned what I could about the disease, asked many questions of a vaccine scientist, and chose Moderna for myself and my wife. Our younger adult daughter, with a complicated medical situation, chose Pfizer. My wife was the only one not at high risk. We can and should test for cross-immunity, then vaccinate 100% of those with negative tests over 70, and no one under 18.
Youtube needs to hire a junior high science teacher to give those who demonetize some remedial learning in how science works. Consensus is worthless; open discussion always leads to the truth. I've been punished for writing that the disease is transmissible between humans, that the Infection Fatality Rate will be no more than 0.35%, that viral infection patients go outdoors with sunlight and breezes, and questioning the Wet Market conclusion. At the time, all were "misinformation."
And, yes, I'm older than dirt.
IMO yours is a reasoned response from a medical prof - a shame you aren’t practicing
“Open discussion.” You had me there.
So as a doctor (which is a statement intended to establish authority) you cannot diagnose someone who is not your patient but… WOW where are you licensed??
I'm not. I did medical school in Germany and was in a psychiatry residency when I had to return with my family. I could take a year to learn the English language terminology and take the US Boards, then try to find a residency at an advanced age (15+ years older than my peers). I switched careers more than thirty years ago.
I'm facing eventual non-Alzheimer's dementia from normal pressure hydrocephalus. My expressive aphasia is getting worse every month, although I'm probably five years behind our President. So, finding a self-important jerk in the world of science is rare on your planet. Would you like a few of ours?
He doesn't agree with conventional wisdom, so he must be crazy. More muscular "content moderation" was supposed to discipline us all to be, well, moderate. What a beautiful vision. (sarc) I hope it doesn't work.
You just lost all credibility with this statement.
I've seen it more than once. The earliest sign in my experience is an odd consistency of reversal of meaning or other completely wrong comprehension of literature. Strange new behaviors together with confabulations. At first the confabulations hold water, then they progress to jaw dropping contradictions. By the time a physician is called to diagnose, the person is pretty far gone.
Another sleazy ad hominem. Check.
"Running around claiming he invented" Is he? "running around claiming"? Quotes please. Was it something he said, or something someone said of him?
"blabber fiction he made up" Ad hominem AND unprofessional. You sound like a junior high student.
"That's either generated from jealousy or dementia" Assertion, unproven.
"It's hugely irresponsible" You've proven nothing except you're a spiteful shill yourself. So there's no "hugely irresponsible" there at all.
By this point, you're the one who's sounding more than a little demented, buddy.
You are an absolute treasure. I mean that.
I’ve been pummeling Bret and Heather through their Patreon accounts etc to look into the first amendment angle due to government involvement. Have you heard of any attorneys looking into the case? Is there anything to the rumor that the CDC is very actively involved in the ad hoc council that the tech giants set up to coordinate their responses?
Didn't they say an ACLU lawyer wrote to YouTube on their behalf?
The most important revelation by Brett Weinstein is that if Ivermectin and/or HCQ were granted the status of acceptable treatments for COVID then the "Emergency Authorizations" for the vaccines are null and void: use of the vaccine effectively becomes illegal. No wonder big pharma and their lackeys are defecating bricks trying to suppress the truth-tellers. Matt, I hope you will continue with this issue, it is a scamdal (no misspelling) of the first order, and it is just beginning.
yes, and to me the most important revelation is that the extreme level of caution used to justify the withholding of repurposed drugs is not applied to the novel Covid Vaccines.
"Make changes to your channel based on our feedback"
That sent a chill up my spine.
Reminded me of this line from Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story:
“It is forbidden to acknowledge the existence of this checkpoint (‘the object’). By reading this sign you have denied existence of the object and implied consent.”
I love the complete anonymity that cloaks these decisions. It's like these fuckers think they're the CIA. Even cops are held to a higher standard of accountability. I've spent the majority of my life far more concerned about govt power and it's abuse because of the monopoly on force the govt tends to enjoy. But Snowden pointed out that the govt just wanted to do what the tech corporations already were doing; it isn't like they had some grand malevolent plan they cooked up all on their own. It seems that Section 230 is a rigged coin - every time it flips, it protects only the media corporations.
The snarky anonymity
adds to the stench of the whole, lousy enterprise. It is baldly contemptuous of our most basic rights -- how dare Weinstein ask who's gagging him? Everything is so Orwellian no single sentence or paragraph suffices- about 500 do.
That was the point of Section 230 as I understand it: protecting the social media companies from suits by their users, by random readers, by government agencies, by whomever based on the crazy sh*t their users might post.
I'm with you about govt power and it's abuse. So I don't like the idea of government moderation of social media, and I tend to defend Section 230 against its detractors.
But if Y.T. and the like are going to moderate by following government guidelines (as Matt points out), then what's the diff? We've arrived at government moderation of social media, like it or not.
All that said, Alphabet / Y.T. is making a huge blunder here. They're going to find themselves with no allies at all when Congress gets down to cases. More's the pity...
It's not Congress' role to get down on cases. The FTC and the Justice Dept will be the ones "getting" down.
This really isn't a question of monopoly behavior that the FTC is equipped to deal with (under existing law). Now, we could allow the Executive to invent some new interpretation, or Congress more properly could create new law to cover it. Exactly how that could happen isn't at all obvious to me, at least not without running afoul of the 1st Amdt.
We need a new legal term of art that means "just too damn big."
Monopoly.
It isn't even just the size, it's the groupthink hiding behind anonymity. The bigger legal point should be that no one can track you, not govt and not corporations. We've outsourced violation of the 4th Amdt to the corporate world via the 3rd party doctrine (once your personal information is disclosed to someone, absent non-disclosure agreement, you have no privacy interest in it). The govt doesn't need a warrant for that because they can just buy it, like any advertiser can. That's how the whole license-plate scanning business runs, as well as smart-phone location tracking.
Good luck getting Congress to fix that, there is HUGE money to be made there (otherwise Google couldn't be profitable). They won't even tax it let alone kill it.
the new chair of the FTC Lina Kahn is an expert on monopolies. She is just beginning. ... I eagerly await.
U.S. anti-monopoly law is as explicit as jaywalking laws. It's up to the FTC and Justice Department to build a viable legal case for the courts demonstrating that a corporation(s) has run a foul of these laws. In brief, that they are indeed "monopolies" and "anti-competitive."
You're very wrong. I don't quite understand what you mean by "really isn't a question of monopoly behavior that the FTC is equipped to deal with (Under existing law)." It's not a question of "inventing" a new "interpretation" or creating a new law. Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."
"....Most broadly, the [executive order]calls on the United States’ two antitrust agencies, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission, to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."
The FTC and the Justice Department work in tandem to build a case, and ultimately it's the Justice Department who files the legal brief and prosecutes the case.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/07/01/facebook-and-ftc-next-steps-fight-break-big-techhttps://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/28/white-house-monopolies-executive-order-496749
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/28/white-house-monopolies-executive-order-496749
***It's not a question of "inventing" a new "interpretation" or creating a new law. Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..."***
Updating guidance is exactly inventing a new interpretation. Nor does that have anything to do with Google/YT's corporate misbehavior here. It's a fair argument to make that Google should never have been allowed to buy YT (and one I agree with), but the bigger problem is that they are using govt 'guidelines' to censor content. Whether that was done by one big company or two smaller ones - that's the problem.
"Updating guidance" is not "inventing a new interpretation." "Updating guidance" is "updating guidance." "Inventing guidance" is not even a legal term. It's a meaningless phrase. Would you refer to "updating your software" as "inventing new software?" No, you would not. You're getting lost in the debate here.
And YouTube is not "using government guidelines to censor content." YouTube may have created and might be currently enforcing guidelines that are similar, or even identical, to government guidelines, but as a PRIVATE COMPANY that is their prerogative. They can use any guidelines they wish---Government guidelines, Girl Scouts of America guidelines, Major League Baseball guidelines or, no guidelines at all---anything goes on YouTube.
YouTube is a PRIVATE COMPANY---they can use any damn guidelines they wish to police their content. In fact, following government guidelines in this instance can be construed as a smart business decision. You're completely misunderstanding the argument here. Any social media platform that is PRIVATELY held, can, under the law, kick anybody off their platform. They are not even legally obligated to allow you on their platform, even if it's for not liking the way you look, or smell, or dress, or the way you slurp your soup at dinner.
Now having said THIS, YouTube, like every other private company in the U.S., is bound by U.S. laws and they take great pains to not run afoul of the law of the land. Attracts the wrong kind of attention and threatens the bottom line. They also are also beholden to their customers---especially their customers---when making any sort of decision that might cause reverberations outside the boardroom. And here is where I have to laugh over (at?) Bret Weinstein. YouTube felt confident, even in the face of the bad publicity that would surely accrue from turning of the cameras for Weinstein, that ultimately it was the right thing---for YouTube---to do. There's a certain small liberal arts college in the state of Washington that arrived at a similar
conclusion a few years back.
Bret Weinstein was bound by YouTube's guidelines regarding its regulations surrounding the Coronavirus, or any of its guidelines on any subject. He violated those guidelines and he got his ass demonetized. If he wants to promote the views that got him demonetized from YouTube, he can take his act to another platform or build his own platform.
But that's not so easy, is it? When YouTube essentially has a monopoly on internet video? THIS IS PRECISELY THE ISSUE! YouTube is a monopoly and is anti-competitive, in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. That's my argument. It's the argument that a lot of people are making. It's the argument that the U.S. Justice department lawyers will have to argue successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Court to rule that YouTube, and other tech companies, are in violation of anti-trust laws by virtue of their anti-competitive practices, i.e., that they are a MONOPOLY! And must be broken up! Jesus Christ, I'm out of breath.
One last time: "....It's a fair argument to make that Google should never have been allowed to buy YT (and one I agree with)." It's a fair argument? IT IS THE ARGUMENT!
To reiterate: Before the law, any similarity between government guidelines and YouTube guidelines regarding covid---or anything else---is completely irrelevant.
It's important to note here that the Big tech social media platforms are so new, and have grown so dominant in so many sectors in such a short period of time (news, advertising, entertainment, commerce), that they have effectively left the law behind.
So: "Biden has issued an "executive order" instructing both the FTC and Justice Department "to update guidance on how they examine proposed corporate mergers..." And I would also add "update guidance" on possible anti-trust violations of the Big Tech companies, specifically as they relate to their social media platforms.
1. Despite the FTC anti-trust suit against FB that was recently thrown out, that's not what I've been reading.
2. There's lot of political points to be made for Fighting The Monopolists on both sides of the aisle. So I expect to see some action from Congress, however weak it turns out to be.
As the primary branch of gov'ment, Congress pretty much gets to decide for itself what its role will be. Laws are sometimes subject to Court review, of course, but the courts are notoriously deferential to the Legislative branch.
3. I suppose the FCC could modify Section 230. That's something that *didn't* happen under Chariman Pai but might happen now, under (acting) Chairman Rosenworcel. That's a possibility.
I'm not saying Congress can't, I'm saying Congress won't. Congress hasn't done anything meaningful in 20 years. And they're getting ready to roll up their sleeves and get in the ring with Big Tech? It would take the subcommittee the entire first week to figure out who was donating to whom. But save me a ringside seat just in case.
not sure the Roberts Court is 'notoriously deferential to the Legislative branch?'
Not sure the legislative branch is even breathing..
Check out Yasha Levine's *Surveillance Valley*. The government and tech didn't just bumble onto the same ideas at the same time. The internet started largely as a military project, and it's still closely intertwined with (and guided by),the defense/intelligence industry.
All they have to do is sell us convenience and we will gladly give up our privacy, without even knowing it (or for most people, not even caring if they do know).
Matt, thank you for all your outstanding journalism -- I have been your fan for decades.
There is another huge outrage going on -- a brazen and huge SLANDER of Aaron Mate and Grayzone regarding well-documented OPCW fabrications at direct request by US government.
They are just coming out of huge 2.5 year long fake and just dismissed Syria-related lawsuit (with direct involvement of top pro-Israel lawyer).
TYT's Cenk and Anna have also been activated to slander and stop Aaron's work on US/Al Qaeda crimes in Syria -- the avalanche of slander and redirection by even inventing "me-too" is unprecedented. TYT is also on record of slandering the publisher of a century -- Julian Assange.
Grayzone -- Ben Norton, Aaron Mate, and Max Blumenthal need maximum support -- including yours !!
McCarthyite meltdown shows how Russiagate, Syria propaganda captured 'left' media
In slandering me, The Young Turks demonstrated how Western chauvinism and careerism have been normalized in progressive media spaces.
McCarthyite meltdown shows how Russiagate, Syria propaganda captured 'left' media - by Aaron Maté - Aaron Mate's newsletter (substack.com)
https://mate.substack.com/p/mccarthyite-meltdown-shows-how-russiagate
Aaron Mate – June 6 – The Grayzone
Re: Boris
Thanks for the reference to Aaron Mate's typically informative article, and his professional take-down of TYT nonsense.
As Usual,
EA
Thank you Ethan. If appropriate distribute elsewhere. The bipartisan Syria-gate hoax is as huge as the Russia-gate hoax -- CIA has intensified efforts to slander Aaron Mate and silence the courageous Grayzone team.
Your more than welcome Boris! And beings you mentioned, in closing, some other "efforts to slander Aaron Mate and silence the courageous GRAYSTONE team", I thought it an obligation to cite a recent positive note of celebration from that very "courageous Grayzone team.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-hezbollah/
Spread this fantastic NEWS as far and wide as your interest determines. (:-})
As Usual,
EA
I very strongly disagree with some of the things Bret and Heather say about the vaccines, and I think they are at times not evidence-based but rather fear-based or in a few cases, flat-out ignorance-based. They don't know what they don't know. But I wholeheartedly support their right to say anything they want to say about the vaccines.
Theirs is not even a marginal case. I might really take issue with some of their statements and conclusions, but they seem to be operating in good faith, so it's just especially egregious for YouTube to do this. (We can't be the good-faith police and decide whether people are for real before letting them speak, but in Bret and Heather's case, it's so obvious they're in earnest that it's particularly horrible that they've been silenced. If they can be silenced, literally anyone with an unpopular opinion might be.
So...suck it, YouTube. We all need to create a huge fuss about this.
Why is it that these "fear-based", "flat-out ignorant" opinions ought to promoted in the middle of a health emergency? If there is a serious debate to be had here, why not promote more responsible positions on the issue?
These are two separate issues, and Ira Glasser (formerly of the ACLU before it, too, was captured) speaks eloquently on why, if we suppress dangerous/harmful/stupid speech, we make ourselves vulnerable as well, from all sorts of speech.
So, one issue is -- even if a person is just completely selfish -- protecting others' free speech rights protects your own. And that's important, the minute you have something to contribute to the conversation.
The other issue is, yes, I hate that Bret is speaking out of his expertise and promoting cranks, and I spend a little piece of every day (not a very big piece, because I'm busy with work and have a family I care about, but a little piece) trying to promote and disseminate better information. So I promote "more responsible positions" all the time -- but without demanding that Bret be silenced.
Someone in this comments section supposedly named Brian Hanley is claiming that Robert Malone is insane from dementia.
Dr. Malone has had three scientific publications in the last year. He has thousands of research citations on Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
When opponents of a scientific claim find it necessary to claim that an eminent scientist is insane, demonetize their critics, and remove Nobel Prize-winning scientists' videos, something is deeply wrong.
I mean, yes...but also scientists literally used to be executed or imprisoned or exiled for thinking outside the Official Narrative...but yes, telling and unseemly to claim dementia.
So, real question here: pre-internet, it was much harder to make a living writing or speaking unpopular speech. Something like the Turner Diaries was hard to find because bookstores just wouldn't carry garbage like that. This didn't infringe on the author's rights as there's no right for your bad novel to be distributed. You have the right to *say* it but you don't have the right for it to be in stores.
The Turner Diaries is obviously a less objectionable case but where's the line here? The laws we have in place for speech on the internet are woefully inadequately and, considering congress is made largely of technological illiterate great-grandparents, it's hard to see how this changes.
But given your druthers: what's appropriate? How do we thread the needle? Because, even though I don't agree with what they're doing in this case, YouTube *doesn't* have a responsibility to let you make money on anything you say. Not running ads against your content on a video platform isn't the same thing as being thrown in jail for criticizing the government. These aren't the same level of speech. While we all understand that Google has an outsized ability to determine who sees what information, what's the actual *solution* here? I've yet to see one that felt satisfying. Maybe someone else has.
Bookstores in those days were far from a virtual monopoly, as Youtube, Twitter, etc. are now.
Right, but that doesn't get at the heart of the question here. YouTube and Twitter have successful competitors. They just have smaller, niche audiences. You can publish to Vimeo or send stuff out via Instagram/Gab/etc. This is like saying "everyone has network TV so if your show's on cable, you're being censored." That doesn't work.
YT makes up policies after every meal and they are arbitrary. Many people would never have anchored their livelihood on the platform if they knew this stupid shit would happen.
If I anchor my livelihood to Uber and then they go under because they can't be profitable, is that Uber's fault or mine?
We're still not getting to the fundamental speech issue here. And to be clear: I don't have an answer but the "demonetization is censorship" argument doesn't hold water.
See my comment above: We know for a fact that members of Congress and the current administration have pressured YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., to ban what they term "misinformation." That is the government trying to use YouTube as a proxy, which is is illegal.
" the "demonetization is censorship" argument doesn't hold water."
That's not the point of the article. Certainly one can understand if a sponsor doesn't want to be associated with a particular article (e.g. big pharma). But there are likely to be sponsors that wouldn't have any outright objections. YouTube is not simply an internet application. It performs a service similar to the post office in the sense that mail is expected to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated. The fact that it is owned by a private corporation only emphasizes the fact that it should have oversight to ensure that it eschews censorship under guidelines.
"It performs a service similar to the post office in the sense that mail is expected to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated."
I agree with the spirit of your post, but I think the only reason to expect the U.S. mail to be delivered uncensored and unmanipulated at the present time (as opposed to past decades; see e.g. MH/CHAOS) is because there is a commercial internet that is easier and less time-consuming for the authorities to censor and manipulate.
Maybe the whole thing would be solved if YT said, hey, you can post any thing you want but WE'LL decide if it's "monetized." It's the monetizing that's the tool of censorship, namely self-censorship in one's own self-interest. But what sort of person shutters their mind for money? What sort of person doesn't want to hear unauthorized views and applauds censorship?
"What sort of person doesn't want to hear unauthorized views and applauds censorship?"
...a lot of people, apparently? (I recognize this was probably a rhetorical question.) They have always been around but really skylined themselves with COVID-19; a few pop up in here whenever MT writes an Ivermectin article.
Agreed, you're getting to the real problem - it's about the money. Anyone can say any crazy thing they want today, and garner attention, which attracts advertisers, which means the crazy shit makes money. Who's to blame for that? YT understands that many people obviously don't seem to care who said what, as long as it fits the beliefs of those people. Long-time friends, long-time neighbors, and family, are turning against one another because of what some asshole stranger posted online. That is crazy! What makes someone do that? And should YT let the asshole stranger make money on their crazy posts? By it's very nature this is an all or nothing situation, and YT seems to have decided on "all". I get it.
Is YT going under?
Nope. But YT isn't the government either.
While I don't entirely disagree with your point, I'm not sure Mr. Weinstein started his podcast to make money as much as he wanted to spread the word about cancel culture. It just became popular enough to be monetized.
I'm also not sure he's even employable in his field since the lynch mob at Evergreen labeled him a racist.
Having said that though, I really don't see how private companies like Youtube owe anyone a platform. It's not much different than saying the government owes every citizen a fulfilling job.
I think the real issue is their bias & the fact that most, if not all, of their deplatforming is done against one side of our abyss-like American political divide. And, I think it's fairly safe to say, they picked the side who wasn't talking about enacting anti-trust laws & breaking up their monopolies. Because, at the end of the day, they don't really care about truth or misinformation or any other manufactured ethical quandary they may ramble about in public, they care about their bottom line & their influence & their place in the American power structure.
When I was growing up in Pittsburgh, there was a guy who used to walk the city streets everyday wearing a sandwich board that said, "CONGRESSMAN COYNE IS STEALING MY MAIL." There weren't any reporters grilling him about his accusation. He was ignored. Probably died wearing his sandwich board. There were probably folks like him in every city in America.
But I think the Internet altered people's perceptions about information dissemination to the point where they think a place to speak on the Internet is their right. When it really isn't. Of course they have the right to their unpopular viewpoint but its dissemination is entirely up to them. As you stated there are other options. Back in the day there was 'zine culture. I'd find them at bus stops or strategically placed around the college I went to. Still have a box in my attic filled with them.
While I doubt that anyone tried to stop them from 'zining no one went out their way to popularize their views.
Successful competitions to behemoths.
Smaller, niche audiences.
Pick one.
You don't have to if both can be true. A local burger joint can be a successful competitor to McDonald's that sells to a smaller audience.
If you don't challenge McDonald's hegemony, then you're not a competitor are you?
I'd consider In N Out a competitor, even if they aren't gonna somehow take over McD's marketshare.
Users changing their behavior is a possibility. Big Tech is not very politically popular these days. The UX is also degrading with Twitter's content quality low, most products at Amazon available elsewhere, and YouTube getting more and more ad-heavy.
I’ve learned how to do everything from mic a set a drums to bake cardamom bread from YouTube. It’s just a tool. If you use it poorly, that’s on you bud.
Solution? Break 'em up, like any other monopoly.
Easier said than done. Creators would find ways to get onto their preferred site and eventually one site would be the most popular and lucrative. It's the network effect.
Put a size limit and require them to subdivide as they grow. In fact, that's the correct approach anti-trust in general. It should be automatic.
What if all creators congregate into one shared account and divide up the revenue? Now the government has to regulate individual accounts which sounds like a disaster.
Sounds like Spotify, with their dodgy revenue sharing scheme. Where the poor accounts with 100 streams have to kick in for the ones with millions.
Well, one, demonetization doesn't imply they're not running ads - it's just that YouTube (Google) is keeping all the ad revenue.
And two, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out several times, judicial precedent holds that if the government conspires with private firms to carry out censorship the government can't do on its own, then it's unconstitutional.
Personally, I recommend avoiding Big Tech. Vote with your wallet. I'm off Twitter and Instagram, barely on Facebook. If I was posting videos, I'd do it on Rumble - which is committed to free expression. No, it doesn't have the reach of YouTube - but neither did YouTube until everyone started using it.
I Agree completely! Just canceled my YouTube subscription and will support a couple more journalists on substack instead.
People need to break the habit of free ad-financed information. It's the information age and people have the disposable income to pay for quality.
Jaron Lanier [pioneer of VR, my kind of weirdo] wrote about that extensively. If you're not paying for it, *you're* the product. I highly recommend any of his books.
The difference is that The Turner Diaries was not effectively censored-it was allowed to be published and distributed by Nazi Press or whomever. The 1st Amendment is not a guarantor of popular acceptance or commercial distribution.
I am literally watching them right now on YT. They seem able to say whatever it is they want to say, which right now, is largely whining.
Are they advertising their new Substack (or similar) channel? Because they should be.
No, it was a countdown, then they started live streaming about all the stuff everyone seems upset that they’re not being allowed to say.
So they can say it, but can't make a living from it - even though others can and do. I suppose that's ok, if you like working for free.
I heard the interview with Malone and Kirsch; aside from the latter's ADD, it was enlightening; Malone is a genuine authority on the subject. Interesting point, that the FDA knew, because he told them, of some of the problems with the MRNA vaccines. It's easy to forget that there was tremendous political pressure, from the TRUMP admin, to release those vaccines, even though it's a completely new technology which has had no long-term testing (because there wasn't time). Nice, if you like being a guinea pig.
These are vast civilizational altering situations, and getting cranked up about extraneous details like Bret and Heather just isn't where I go. By any reasonable standard, the vaccines are an over the top success, but we now live in a condition of unreasonableness. "WHAT?!? HOW DARE YOU SAY THE VACCINES ARE A SUCCESS!". "WHAT?!? DON'T YOU KNOW THE VACCINES ARE PART OF A VAST CABAL OF...etc., etc....
PhD's with equal and opposite PhD's all extemporizing over each other with "expert" status being granted to whoever anyone decides is expert at that moment in time. We got MT cranking about Weinstein, who is a rumor granted substance by media personalities whose business model requires inventing the new zeitgeist. Zzzzzzz......
I thought he was cranking about something else, myself.
Oh, you've never listened to their podcast before.
I’ve listened to their podcast, briefly, on multiple occasions. I say briefly because I find them to be obvious pretenders to the center of the zeitgeist. What they have to say is very little. Worthwhile for context in our current milieu, but very, very little.
You know, I can generally agree that in most cases they are fence sitting pretenders, but they were completely safe from being demonetized that way. It’s interesting that they chose this hill to die on. That should tell you something.
These two paragraphs in the story point to a troubling lack of due process and accountability.
In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube.
Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices.
He was probably talking to an algorithm. I’m currently engaged with one on a supposed help desk., I’m trying to see how many years we can talk in circles
Christopher is like Rover, the white ball, in The Prisoner.
"That would be telling."
THE PRISONER is up on Kanopy for free now if you have a library card.
https://www.kanopy.com/product/prisoner-0
Christopher=Brian=Rover=Christopher....
Techies are nascent fascists. That's what I'm saying.
«<i>These two paragraphs in the story point to a troubling lack of due process and accountability.</i>»
Weinstein is not a citizen of YouTube and their complaints department is not a court. When you are a customer of YouTube, you have all the rights to due process and accountability specified in your contract with YouTube, and I am sure that YouTube is accurately respecting those rights (which I suspect are close to none).
Monetization (and subsequent de-monetization) implies a contractual relationship of some sort. Clearly Weinstein was harmed by their actions since at one point they were paying him and they don't seem to be able to provide specifics. I am not familiar with YouTube contracts but I would assume that since YouTube was monetizing his channels and paying him they had a business relationship.
Not just monetization, every time you register on YouTube you enter into a contract with YouTube, written by YouTube lawyers, and I am pretty sure that it gives all rights to YouTube and none to its customers.
Weinstein accepted whichever contract YouTube lawyers wrote, and if Weinstein thought that YouTube were violating their contract with him he would be suing them for damages because of contract violation instead of complaining.
In particular I am fairly sure that the contract gives him no rights to anything like "due process" and no rights to something like "accountability".
Reasonable men may differ: from my perspective YouTube is effectively a monopoly for video distribution and their lack of due process and accountability for their decisions is troubling.
This is the issue across the border and along the border. Monopoly. The problem is monopoly. All the other problems? They are a function of the problem of...monopoly.
@Sean Murphy, you are likely aware that YouTube is owned by Google ?
Any more conjecture about "justice", "due process", or "accountability"?
I used "due process" which is applicable in a number of contexts, as is "accountability." I did not use the word "justice." I was reacting to the fact that no one at YouTube would take ownership for the decision, which I think is problematic.
This is the main reason why I can't feel too much sympathy for content providers that continue to distribute through You Tube. As we've observed so many times, You Tube ends up holding all the cards. There's a bit of the frog and scorpion dynamic in that arrangement. Seems to me the best course of action is to set up your own platform and use You Tube to drive an audience to your website.
I don't think it's a question of sympathy as much as what makes for a vibrant civil society. I am less worried about the specifics of the Weinstein situation,it's the implications that I find very troubling.
Also "your own platform" can be trickier than you might think if Google purges you from their Search cache, Facebook filters you out, etc.. You may not agree with the politics of Alex Jones, Parler, or Babylon Bee but their situations have demonstrated "your own platform" is not as straightforward as you might imagine.
Agreed, Sean. I subscribed to Tim Pool the other day because I kinda sorta had to. He did an interview with Steve Bannon and the content that would have gotten him deplatformed was hidden behind a paywall. I guess I don't know enough about this, but does having your own platform and charging a subscription fee make it more difficult for Big Tech to shut you down?
These are the people I look to about COVID. The front line health providers, Doctors and Nurses:
Why are 75% of healthcare workers resistant to taking the vaccine
Doctors and nurses, other health professionals—E.M.T.s, home health aides, therapists—are generally less likely to say that they’ll get immunized, and a recent survey of C.N.A.s found that nearly 75% were hesitant to get the vaccine.“In many cases, vaccine hesitancy is not a lack-of-information problem, it’s a lack-of-trust problem,” David Grabowski, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard, told me. “Staff doesn’t trust leadership. They have a real skepticism of government.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/why-are-so-many-health-care-workers-resisting-the-covid-vaccine
They were also aware of the "FALS POSITIVE TEST" that the WHO & CDC knew about in May 2020 but used until January 2021 before removing. You can see the effect of removing that test by looking at the WORLD O METER chart.
WHO (finally) admits PCR tests creat false positives...
The disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2).
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
With a false positive rate of 0.8% - a figure used by Ms Hartley-Brewer and within the broad range of what we think might be the actual rate for community testing - you would get eight false positives. So in that context, it's true that roughly 90% of positives would be false.
https://www.bbc.com/news/54270373
The False positive was used for the INFLATED Death count. Many of those people would have died from their primary problem like Heart Attack, Cancer and Flu (flu was not recorded during COVED because no one was reporting it.)
CDC went back and added what they thought would have been the average deaths from flu but that was already recorded as COVID which inflates the death count and they did it with cancer, and heart attack and stroke. Also not mentioned is that 90,000 people die a year from Hospital Infection. My sister died of a simple hospital infection after a bone marrow transfer the we did not order an autopsy but should have. The hospital gave us the choice so hospital infection was not listed as the cause of death.
ALL these numbers should be looked at more closely especially NYC where the Hospital Boat left for lack of patents and yet they have the highest death count.
Hospital ship Comfort departs NYC, having treated fewer than 200 patients.
Search domain navytimes.comhttps://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/04/30/hospital-ship-comfort-departs-nyc-having-treated-fewer-than-200-patients/
The Navy's hospital ship Comfort departed New York City today