This morning I ran a column on a proposed “First Amendment model” for Twitter once Elon Musk takes over the company. Right on cue, Twitter supplied another example of its corporate censorship culture that must be addressed if Musk is going to restore free speech protections to the social media company. Twitter temporarily removed a post from Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo recommending against mRNA coronavirus vaccinations for men under 40.
Dr. Ladapo was sharing data that he said indicated an increase in cardiac conditions for men under 40 who have received mRNA coronavirus shots. Rather than allow experts and citizens to debate such risks, Twitter moved to prevent others from hearing from the top health official in one of the largest states in the Union. It was later restored, which is in sharp contrast to other experts and science writers suspended or barred due to their raising dissenting views on the social media site.
In his post, Ladapo linked to new guidance from his office recommending against the shots for under-40s and wrote
“Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth. Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health. Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”
Twitter immediately took the post down as violative of its coronavirus misinformation policies. It was later restored after public outcry.
It is not clear if the restoration would have occurred for other doctors given the past suspension and barring of experts questioning the efficacy of masks or vaccines. Even senators like Rand Paul were banned by companies like YouTube for questioning the efficacy of masks — a view now accepted as a legitimate concern.
The company seemingly wrote off free speech years ago. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
I have written about five steps that Musk can take to restore free speech. However, the key is to break a culture of censorship at the company. If Musk moves Twitter out of San Francisco, it may help in that restructuring in replacing staff with those committed to free speech values. However, the key to restoring these values is to adopt what I have called the “first amendment model” for the company.
If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized; if all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance – you can be absolutely certain that what is being promised is not in your best interest.
One can tell a lot about a person by listening to their views on covid policy, particularly forced vaccination.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who said I shouldn’t be able to work, go to a public place, travel or visit a doctor. They don’t wish me well and I can assure the feeling is mutual.
Covid is this generation’s Spanish Civil War.
Have a look at the following. Vaers is a CDC website documenting adverse events and Openvaers organizes this info into one easy to read format.
https://openvaers.com/
antonio
There are standard, accepted methods of imputing causation to correlations. Did this temporarily censored report from Florida follow those methods?
No, they didn’t the report itself states that. You can view the analysis itself by following the links from Turley’s column. If you can’t find it I’d be happy to provide it.
BTW:
A story I heard out of Texas last week.
A midget goes into his Docs office complaining that his balls hurt. The doc says lets see what’s going on, helps midget up on the examination table, has him drop his draws & the doc places his hand up next guy’s left ball & has the guy cough & then the right nut.
The doc says, I think I see what’s going on & the midget sees the doc reach over to the table & pickup a pair of scissors & says hang on.
In a bit of a panic the midget just stares at the ceiling as he hears: Snip, Snip, Snip & then again Snip, Snip, Snip.
The then doc asks, How does that feel
The midget: That feels great doc, what’d you do?
Doc: I cut 2 inches off the top of your cowboy boots. LOL
Atty Robert Barnes who is the plaintiffs atty in many mRNA clot/death shot lawsuits tells us last night that now it’s being reported that there have been cases in which the killer mRNA Spike Protein has been transferred through sexual contact.
So he Reco’s that if you’re going to play hide the salami you only play the game with a Pureblood. lol;)
A Salute To The Unvaccinated
281,641 views
·
Oct 4, 2022
105
Share
Download
War Room With Owen Shroyer
War Room With Owen Shroyer
A very powerful message about the importance of standing your ground in life.
https://banned.video/watch?id=633cffc53e0a533b81afeb07
“ He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.”
He was right about that. Turley ignored the fact that he was indeed right about that. Twitter is NOT bound by the first amendment. Government is. Let’s remember that the constitution is set of limitations on government, not private entities. Turley chafes at that simple notion because he wants everyone to be bound by the prohibitions of the first amendment and that means forcing others to carry someone else’s messages against their will.
Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms also have free speech rights and that includes the right not to post other’s speech if it violates their policies. Turley’s own blog follows that same principle and so does Trump’s Truth social.
What Turley hypocritically argues against is really about the fact that private entities with great influence CAN legally censor speech when it violates their policies. This is not about free speech. its’ about not liking the fact that he’s not in control and that he would prefer to run those platforms HIS way.
If Elon Musk end up buying twitter he will have the exact same prerogative to run twitter as HE sees fit. Not how Turley wishes it should be run.
Free speech was never taken away with twitter or Facebook. They were never bound by the first amendment and can never violate it even if they tried. Furthermore people willingly given up their right of control over their content the millisecond they click on the “ I agree” button. Because people are too lazy to read thru the entire Terms and Conditions (TOS) of the website they WILLINGLY choose to join. Turley never addresses this sticking point in his Quixotic quest against “corporate censorship” that is completely legal. He’s a law professor and he should know better than to ignore these pertinent issues besides his beloved free speech principles.
Disagree. Twitter is more a public utility than a private company and the conduit for discussion and debate in the public square. As a utility like phone or electric companies, it should be compelled to take all comers regardless of their beliefs, not just the ones that its resident Wokesters agree with. Elon Musk needs to run it like a utility and get rid of the small-minded idiots who make Twitter a tool of the Left in general and extremist Democrats in particular.
@Mike
That is a good forum argument, but legally it simply isn’t. No offense to anyone, but this is what people fail to understand: it ISN’T. Pretty much, just, period. And there are reams of legal documents to justify it. There is no public square on social media, you are at the mercy of the companies hosting your content whether you like it or not. This is one of the dangers of what began with Web 2.0 vs. personal websites or blogs – people sign up, create a presence, feel a sense of ownership, but they own quite literally *nothing*, and in the case of something like Instagram or Tik Tok, that includes their images and videos (seriously: read the dang TOS). The only reason the Professor still has this free space is because at present WordPress has not completely followed its woke brethren over the cliff, due largely to the fact that they are currently one of the the largest website providers and it would be financial suicide to cut its profits literally in half. Even in this scenario you are subject to the terms of your site’s host, and it is all very, very much legally binding. No court will be on your side without a seriously bulldog team of lawyers (which these companies have).
I do suspect you are right about Elon though – if anyone can do it, it’s him. I guess time will tell.
Just ignore the fact that these tech companies are in touch with officials in the Biden administration to help determine who to censor. The most obvious is the emails release in Alex Berenson case. Also, Zuckerberg saying the FBI contacted them about a release of information that was likely disinformation. The release was Hunter Biden’s laptop. Since the FBI already had the laptop contents, they knew it was not disinformation. These are both 1st amendment violations.
Doctors have a duty to fully inform a patient before asking for consent to treat
Look up a Canadian documentary film called ‘Uninformed Consent.’
https://richardsonpost.com/harryrichardson/28070/vaccine-the-movie/
RE: “Doctors have a duty to fully inform a patient before asking for consent to treat…” Those of us who are or were in ‘the business’ know that informed consent, no matter how detailed its content, is about as useful as the paper its written on. In my circle, it was referred to as a ‘Shit Happens’ or a ‘Murphy’s Law’ document. When it does, even though the patient has indicated, under signature, their understanding that it might, it does not shield the provider against suit for relief by the patient.
RE: “Twitter Temporarily Blocks Florida Surgeon General:>>>>>Twitter continues to serve as a tool for the United States” Cancel Culture Gestapo. Until such time as that ceases to be, wisdom should dictate that information in this regard be disseminated through public service announcements from the offices of the State of Florida rather than the ‘Twitterverse’ whose bias in such matters is one of documented record.
“Twitter immediately took the post down as violative of its coronavirus misinformation policies.”
i did not realize that the liberal arts majors at Twitter are also epidemologists.
It’s more likely an algorithm that flagged the content than an actual person.
Twitter does have every right to delete the content if it does violate their policy. Why? Because everyone who signs on to the platforms AGREES to THEIR terms and conditions. This is super simple and hilariously perplexing because people keep clicking on the agreement and AGREEING to the terms WITHOUT READING THEM only to find out after the fact that their content IS subject to censorship or review if it violates the agreed upon terms. It reminds me of when people are warned a plate is HOT and proceed to grab the HOT plate and complaint that they didn’t know AFTER being warned. It’s just basic stupidity and laziness I guess.
Your argument would hold water if Twitter wasn’t like the leaning tower of Pisa, always leaning the same way. They censor people on the right and not on the left. Their resident Wokesters are too dumb to understand and keep up with the epidemiology of COVID so their first impulse is to censor anything new, including new science.
Twitter has lost the right to the public’s trust. It needs to be operated like a utility, not a playground for progressives.
Mike Hornbook, twitter isn’t actively censoring people because of their ideology. The algorithms don’t make that distinction.
Your assume that twitter has people censoring based on whether the person or view is conservative instead of realizing that the algorithm is only flagging those who are retweeting or posting the same content that is deemed in violation of their policy.
Has it occurred to you that the reason why more censorship of those of the right is due to the simple fact that the majority of what Twitter deems misinformation is coming from right leaning posters and organizations?
it’s the same problem on Facebook. When obvious misinformation or false claims are posted and shared by a majority of right leaning posters they will be censored and that makes it look like their are being targeted when it’s in fact just MORE people spreading what they deem a violation of their policies. The left does get censored too, however there might be LESS misinformation coming from their end and it makes it look like they are being favored.
@Svelaz
Sure. And for some reason these algorithms don’t impact blue checks in the slightest when they very publicly call for outright violence against people they don’t particularly care for. Nice try, but I have dealt with websites since the public inception of the web nigh on 30 years ago (and indeed know personally a couple of people that worked at NeXT. The cubes were super cool, for the time, and they are GOOD people who had the best of intentions), and filters just aren’t that smart. No AI is. And with that, I bite my lip, because you have a right to post here, too. It’s a courtesy you seem to be intrinsically incapable of extending to others, yourself.
James, an algorithm is not going to automatically discern between right or left leaning posters or organization. All it does is flag what it considers misinformation depending on words, or similar repetition of entire paragraphs or even websites. They are NOT perfect and they will not always be catching everything.
It’s the same with right leaning websites who have their own algorithms or live moderators. They are going to miss some and catch most of them but they will never be consistent and that is the problem.
As I said to Mike Hornbrook, it may just be that there is more misinformation being shared or spread by those who lean right than those on the left and the more prolific they are in sharing that the more often they will get hit by censorship algorithms or moderators and it gives the impression that they are being targeted just because they are right leaning.
“It’s more likely an algorithm that flagged . . .”
So blame the algorithim? Is that kinda like “blame the gun?”
They’re not experts, they are censors trying to advance the fortunes of their favorite political party. Anyone who thinks they’re censoring probably votes for Twitter’s preferred party.
“They’re not experts, they are censors trying to advance the fortunes of their favorite political party.”
They may not even be people and just an algorithm or a simple AI. We should keep in mind that these platforms are monitoring literally MILLIONS of posts and messages every second. There IS going to be inconsistency and slips thru the cracks. it’s never going to be perfect.
Below is a youtube video from Dr. James Campbell who has been an excellent source of Covid information from the begining.
For a very long time he was highly deferential to YOUR experts.
Oddly there has been less Covid censorship in europe – even though they have made equally bad choices.
Regardless, as time has progressed Campbell has slowly become a better source for the FAILURE of covid policies.
The below story is current. but it is about events that happened almost a year ago, when some total idiot at “Lead Science” decided to “fact check” an article on Pfiser problems in their vaccine trials based on previously unpublished data from Pfiser
The study was published by British Medical Journal – which leads called a news blog. BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. It first publication was in 1840.
The editors of BMJ wrote and open letter to Zuckerburg excoriating Leads fact checking.
The problem is not minor errors slipping through the cracks.
One of the problems is that FB and social media outsource alot of their content curating to idiots who call themselves fact checkers who are not even close to experts in the fiedls they are fact checking.
Regardless, the answer here is trivial – if you can not monitor millions of posts a second without screwing up. DONT.
There is very little content monitoring that SM has any business doing – and that is harder than they can possibly manage.
Too many people have some magical admiration for the mythical abilites of “the algorithm”
The state of the art of computers and AI are such that what FB is trying to do – even if it could do it properly is not possible in my lifetime and may NEVER be possible.
As a consequence we get crap.
And BTW yes it is absolutely trivial to bias “the algorithm” in anyway you want.
One of the things we are hoping for as a result of Musks twitter takeover is that he will make public – expose the way Twitter is doing content filtering.
Musk has promised to do so. You can expect three things – Really really bad and ugly, much higher reliance on human input that claimed, and self evident biases.
You claim we all agreed to Twitters TOS – are you prepared to accept that Twitter has too ? If we find Twitter has been violating its own TOS what is the remedy ?
Regardless, Twitter getting ists pants pulled down in public will ultimately be good for twitter. And ultimately very bad for SM censorship.
Johnny. You make so many sweeping pronouncements with absolutely no evidence to back them up. It’s hilarious.
Google is your friend. You can check any claim I make. You can find the evidence, and you can find the critiques,
Though I would note – I back up a great deal of what I post.
With respect to the problems of social media censorship – those are increasingly well documents.
The Leads/BMJ example cited and covered thoroughly in Dr. Campbell’s video is just one of many examples.
Regardless, it both examines the pattern and exposes some of the large flaws.
The first of which is that the Censors are NOT the experts in their fields. They are often arguably people who do not understand what they are censoring. They are people who often do not understand the people they THINK are correct, and do not understand the people they THINK are wrong.
The BMJ example is beautiful. BMJ is a renowned medical journal. It published an article that was a peer reviewed analysis of Data from the pfyser vax trials that pfyser had been trying to hide that was pried out by FOIA request.
No one challenges that the Data is Pfyser trial data.
All of us should want that data to be available, and we should want a variety of different experts to analyse it.
We should not expect all analysis to be identical. But we should eventually expect that a concensus would form.
Stupid fact checking by Leads who has very little expertise in the area resulted in substantially limiting the spread of useful information,
because Leads did not politically like the analysis.
Truth is unfortunately not effected by what we want.
@ZZDoc
Don’t forget the trust fund babies part; those subscribing to this nonsense have been shielded from basically every reality of life that other people experience, and likely grew up with the best private doctors money could buy. The rest of us serfs will just have to make do with Obamacare, I guess. And lest anyone think I am talking out of my behind, though not as a child, but as an adult, there are five doctors in my family. Not a single one of them is a member of the AMA, and neither are their colleagues, and we are talking about people ranging in age from under 40 – 60. I suspect mileage will vary on that one, but it’s still telling.
There is a reason why his analysis was first deleted. Dr Ladapo does have a history of putting out misinformation. That was during the early months of the pandemic.
His latest analysis recommending adults 18-39 against taking the MrNA vaccines is certainly misleading because if you read the actual analysis it shows that there are serious limitations to this analysis.
“ These data are preliminary, based on surveillance data, and should be interpreted with caution. The results have several limitations:
While this method has been used to assess risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination,2 it violates the assumption that an event does not affect subsequent exposure (for mRNA vaccines), which may introduce bias.6 Further, it does not consider the multidose vaccination schedule required for mRNA vaccination.
This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. We used death certificate data and not medical records. COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID. Cardiac-related deaths were ascertained if an ACME code of I3-I52 were on their death certificate, thus, the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related.
The finding that the Janssen vaccine was more protective than mRNA vaccine against mortality within 28 days of vaccination could be due to confounding and needs to be further evaluated. It is likely that the populations who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and the Johnson vaccine are different, something we were not able to ascertain in this analysis. It is possible that the population who received the Johnson vaccine was younger and healthier than those receiving the mRNA vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were released more than 2 months earlier than the Janssen vaccine when the recommendations were limited to those 65 and older.”
https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221007-guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccines-analysis.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The study obviously has a lot variables that make his conclusion uncertain.
The issue was his claim that in general all males between the ages of 18-39 should avoid MrNA vaccines is deceptive, because as his own study points out it is not a conclusive study once the limitations are shown. The simplistic recommendation without the disclaimer that the study is not comprehensive can lead others to assume that the MrNA vaccines CAUSE heart problems. Since Florida is full of gullible MAGA trumpies it’s guaranteed they will see this as further proof that COVID vaccines are dangerous. That’s why twitter initially deleted the Dr’s post. They weren’t wrong to initially delete it. It does have that sketchy feel to it after reading the analysis and it’s disclaimers.
“sketchy feel”
Two words that sould never appear in the context of *science*.
At least he/she is somewhat honest. The Left-wing radicals do operate mostly by “sketchy feel”.
The right does that all the time. Don’t pretend they are not.
Sam you can call it skepticism instead if you like.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/10/09/florida-surgeon-general-warns-against-young-men-getting-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-whats-his-justification/?sh=24327f574105
It is absolutely appalling that the Dep’t of Health of the third largest state in the country would use this study to make health decisions for its residents. The Forbes article does a good job breaking down how terrible the study is.
You may be surprised to read that 10 countries in Europe banned Covid vaccination for people under 30 months ago so your piss ant comment about misinformation in Florida is just that
This is not relevant but also not correct. Banning the use of the Astra Zeneca vaccine is not a ban on all Covid vaccination.
“It is absolutely appalling ”
Lee’s work is a narrow part of the entire Covid debate.
You lack the understanding of the parable about the blind men and the elephant. Similar computer models from Britain were found to be disastrous. Though I would incorporate Lee’s work into all the information, I wouldn’t use it to state, “It is absolutely appalling …” That is foolishness.
But let’s take the statement in its totality, “It is absolutely appalling that the Dep’t of Health of the third largest state in the country would use this study to make health decisions for its residents.”
Isn’t that what the CDC did and then encouraged Twitter to cancel alternative positions?
Take note of the one thing demonstrated here. You are a hypocrite.
No wonder twitter deleted the post. It’s not a real analysis per se.
Since Florida is full of gullible MAGA trumpies it’s guaranteed they will see this as further proof that COVID vaccines are dangerous. That’s why twitter initially deleted the Dr’s post. They weren’t wrong to initially delete it. It does have that sketchy feel to it after reading the analysis and it’s disclaimers.
🙄 You’re absolutely correct. Your cited reason why Twitter initially deleted the post is certainly sketchy. The Dr. provided the analysis and guidance. There was no disinformation, but quite the opposite. This paragraph is clearly responsible medical guidance:
Floridians are encouraged to discuss all the potential benefits and risks of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with their health care provider. The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection.
Leave it up to CA to go so far as pass legislation to punish Dr.’s for such alleged misinformation.
California doctors will be subject to discipline and possible suspension of their licenses to practice for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic to patients, following Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature of one of the most controversial pieces of pandemic legislation lawmakers sent to his desk.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/02/newsom-signs-bill-to-police-california-doctors-on-covid-19-misinformation/
At this point I have lost any interest in discussing this kind of Covid information with people like you.
One of the problems – evident in your post is that any view that you disagree with you frame as deceptive or misinformation.
And you and your ilk censor.
In the real world at the start of any problem we are short of information and what we have is often self contradictory or unclear.
Yet we seek to make choices and do not want to wait for the better information, that will ultimately arrive.
That is the norm in the real world.
With “covid” – many in government public health made their decisions – like all of us, based on that incomplete and contradictory information.
and they made recomendations on that – all fine so far. But then they, social media, media, government moved from providing recomendations to forcing responses and to censoring and slandering any who offered differing views.
That is wrong and evil. But it is typical of the left.
As time has passed and more and more is learned, it was inevitable that government public health officials would prove wrong about many things. That is just the nature of problem solving with early and contradictory information.
It is also why people must be free to make their own choices, and have the oportunity to be informed – including by information that conflicts with those in power.
Social media and the press have literally defined misinformation as whatever contradicts the publicly expressed opinions of government public health experts. This definition is so bad that it has often lead to censorship of lessor known studies or remarks by those same government public health experts.
Some of the most brilliant people in epidemiology have been censored and defamed for the crime of disagreeing – often only slightly with the paragons – often with less skill and experience – of government public health.
More importantly the improvement of our knowledge has been significantly stiffed – not merely the public knowledge of the pandemic as that information evolved – but even the information available to health experts both public and private.
But that can not last. It was inevitable that over time we would get batter information, and that eventually that better information would make its way through the health community and to ordinary people – to the extent they were interested.
Except for the force, defamation and censorship – nearly all of this was normal.
The problem is not that some experts proved wrong – that is normal.
It is not even that to a very large extent government public health experts have proved wrong – that too is not that unusual.
It is that FORCE was used.
It was that organized effort was made to supress whatever contradicted the views of a narrow group of government public health experts.
The truth is not found in the prognostications of a narrow coterie of government experts.
It is found through the contentious process of public debate.
You and your ilk tried to kill the process by which we find the truth.
And that is why no one is interested in your efforts to defend the status quo.
No one was right about everything regarding Covid
and almost no one was wrong about everything.
That is not unusual.
What is unusual is the extent to which you and your ilk went to crush, and silence views contradictory to your own.
Your ability to do so has significantly weakened – which was predictable.
And you have amplified the harm done to your own reputation, to your own trust, because not only were you frequently wrong.
But you silenced others some of whom proved to be right when you were wrong.
The censors are always wrong to delete.
The entire concept of the left, that people need protected from misinformation is ludicrously stupid for many reasons.
Who decides what is misinformation ?
Some dweebs at twitter ? They are not experts in anything except censorship.
Government public health experts ? You are a total moron if you expect them to be right 100% of the time.
In the end there is no one qualified to decide what is and is not misinformation.
The NYT called a story that the chinese had obtained massive amounts of US election data a right wing conspiracy theory.
The next Day the FBI arrested the CEO of a company for storing US election data on chinese cloud servers where it has been accessed by chinese security services.
That we are even having this debate points out either your poor logic skills or your poor education.
We came to understand the failures of censorship a couple of hundred years ago.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/
“The censors are always wrong to delete.” Tell that to the folks censoring books like the Diary of Anne Frank in our schools.
Groomer alert!
https://www.amazon.com/Anne-Franks-Diary-Adaptation-Pantheon/product-reviews/1101871792/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_sr?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1
Anne Frank is “reimagined” as a lesbian because groomers are gonna groom
I believe the book you are referring to was written to promote different sexual identities. There is something wrong with a person who provides only half of the information available for the sole purpose of deceit.
Your type of person should be referred to as a liar.
So who is removing “the Diary of Anne Franke”
Googling this resulted in two things.
A TX SD that temporarily yanked a graphic novel adaptation of the diary of Anne Frank pending a review that put it back on the shelves.
There are several graphic novels that have had problems.
I am not going to address each beyond noting that I do not support school libraries carrying Hustler, so obviously there are somethings that do not being in school And there are likely graphic novels that probably should not be in schools.
The other instance is from VA which did not Ban Anne Frank’s diary, it banned the previously unpublished unabridged version.
Otto Frank Anne’s father censored several parts of the diary before publication.
Very few of us have read the uncensored version of Anne Frank’s diary and apparently some of the censored portions are not appropriate for all ages.
Regardless, Student scan get all of this on amazon.
Are you honestly still trying to shill for government public health experts ?
I can not prove to sufficient degree to persuade you, most anything specific about Covid.
But at this point only a moron thinks there was a silver bullet, and had we only all rigorously followed government public health experts thousands would have been saved.
It was evident in may of 2020 from global C19 data that there was no evidence that any government public policy had worked.
Since then nothing has changed except the strength of that conclusion.
Throughout the world C19 impact is near perfectly predicted by demographics and geography. To the extent that one country or state did better than another – that is entirely explainable by demographics and geography alone.
There is absolutely no public health policy signal in the C19 data.
with respect to specifics – is it proven beyond doubt at this time that healthy men under 50 should not get vaccinated because of the risk of vaccine induced heart problems – probably not.
It is also not proven that healthy men under 50 benefit from vaccination.
With very few exceptions take any recommendation – whether of a government public health expert or those purportedly shilling misinformation.
and compare outcomes head to head and it is unlikely that the data will compellingly support either position.
Do vaccines have a small benefit ? Probably. Do vaccines cause harm ? probably.
Do the benefits outweigh the harms ? or the harms outweigh the benefits ? You will have to consult your ouija board because the data is just not clear.
But even that is an incredibly important conclusion.
What is means is there is no silver bullet – and there never was.
Who is the author of the Florida study?
Why don’t you read Turley’s essay again and tell us where he talks about a study.
How many anonymous figures are unable to read or provide adequate details when they post.
I am not arguing specific studies.
Anyone that wants to do the work can go out and find a variety of Covid studies with varying results and varying quality.
There are flaws in many of the studies – there are legitimate reasons for the flaws – such as that we just can not create a controlled experiment to test everything.
Within reason I can live with the flaws that our public health experts used to inform policy.
But there is no difference in the average quality of the studies that support Government covid policies as those that oppose.
Or if there is – the pro-policy studies average worse.
I would note that im many instances we are PAST quality assessments and arguing methodological minutia.
Ateast on many issues.
I have noted over and over and over that there are no Covid outcome differences globally that are not fully explained by demographics and geography. At this time we do not need studies to tell that – nearly everyone who breaths can see that with their mark I eyeball.
Statistics and procedures are useful when conclusions are not painfully obvious to the naked eye.
Masks did not work.
They did not work in studies.
They did not work in observable reality.
There is a plausible argument that a mask MIGHT have a benefit for a specific individual.
But societal results are obvious there is no benefit.
Vaccines did not work
Again detailed studies of different age and risk groups may lead us to find some benefit for specific groups.
I would note that we do not at this time actually have quality studies that demonstrate that.
The conclusion that some risk groups might benefit is a reasonable inference.
“Over the past 14 months or so, protracted restrictions on mixing and travel, alongside mask-wearing and social distancing, have not only reduced the risk of Covid but other respiratory bugs such as the flu – cases of which were basically nonexistent last winter, according to surveillance data largely encompassing England compiled by the Royal College of GPs (RCGP).”
“It was evident in may of 2020 from global C19 data that there was no evidence that any government public policy had worked.
Since then nothing has changed except the strength of that conclusion.
Throughout the world C19 impact is near perfectly predicted by demographics and geography. To the extent that one country or state did better than another – that is entirely explainable by demographics and geography alone.”
You seem to erroneously apply the problems EVERYONE faced at the beginning of the pandemic as proof of the failure of government experts advice. Nobody knew what the virus would do since it was something entirely NEW. Basic precautions such as masking and social distancing DID work. It was those peddling misinformation gleaned from crackpot conspiracy theorists that made things much more difficult than they needed to be. Some nations were more successful than others because they didn’t give in to the explosion of crackpots and nut cases with no background in medicine giving people advice.
Your animosity towards experts is notable and that coupled with vast numbers of ignorant folks made things worse than they would have been. There WAS deliberate spread of misinformation by those simply wanting to push back “at those who think they are better than us” with the mentality of a child or at best an insolent teenager.
A lot of good advice went unheeded because of that stupidity that was augmented by an equally ignorant president.
If twitter or Facebook deemed such information dangerous and against THEIR policy they had every right to censor it. That did no mean that those wishing to spread misinformation or just share it with others had other means to do so. They just complained about twitter and Facebook because they were the most effective way to spread it and share it. Unfortunately they didn’t share in that same idea and they had the right to determine such information as harmful. If Trump had Truth social up and running during the pandemic those folks would have had a platform on which to spew their nonsense and ignorance to their heart’s content.
There have been literally BILLIONS of vaccine doses administered with FEW adverse effects and here you are still questioning the efficacy of the vaccine because of an analysis full of caveats is portrayed as a definitive reason NOT to take it. There will be stupid folks who will take it a face value and never read the actual study or data just as stupidly as people agreeing to given away control of their content, posts, and private information to. Social media platforms.
Svelaz you are clueless.
Masking did not work, the only RCT that showed a tiny benefit – turns out they botched the statistical analysis.
There is not a single RCT – the gold standard of studies that shows a benefit to masks.
There is also no country, region or state that masked extensively that has statistically significant outcomes from similar places that did not.
Sweden made some recommendations – which were followed initially but universally ignored as things continued.
There were holy wars over Sweden in the summer of 2020. Today – Sweden had the best or near best outcome in Europe.
Though not dramatically different from the rest of Europe – which is the point.
NOTHING worked.
We all wish it did. But it did not.
This is not debateable today.
More and more studies are now coming out. They are not uniform quality – nor are earlier ones that drove public policy.
But all those studies – both the high quality ones and the less are confirming what ordinary people can see with their own eyes.
Nothing worked.
The Data on mRNA vaccines is bad and getting worse all the time.
Today the fight is over whether for most people they did nothing, or they were actually harmful.
And the trend is towards they were harmfule.
I addressed masks briefly above – but more and more data is coming out that the past 23 years of covid nonsense have WEAKENED our immune systems – particularly children. Again – a few preliminary studies now – but you can expect more over time.
Increasingly I and most other people are not paying alot of attention to these studies coming out.
We do not need to – what is done is done. I have been Jabbed with the mRNA vax 4 times. If that had some benefit – that is past.
If it has harmed me – which is possible. the harm is done. Some study confirming that will not fix the problems caused.
Further I can look arround and without a single study know – NOTHING WORKED.
Reading dozens or hundreds of studies to prove that will not change anything.
The government public heatlh experts FAILED.
But the biggest failure was NOT the Fauxi’s etc. It was the left. Those who actively supressed “misinformation” deprived us all of REAL information.
“ Nothing worked.”
BS. You were vaccinated 4x. Those who did and everyone else created the herd immunity that vaccination is supposed to do. Seeing that “nothing worked” is the result of the vaccinations.
Masking was NEVER supposed to be 100% effective, never. People thought it was supposed to be and that was never the case. It’s supposed to REDUCE the chances of spread which WAS the whole point. When idiots and crackpot conspiracy theorists started spewing their BS they literally undermined what small effectiveness they DID provide. Their BS claims exacerbated the problem and prolonged and semblance of controlling the spread.
Health officials had the unenviable job of managing the spread of the virus while simultaneously fighting against the pervasive ignorance and misinformation and personal attacks borne out of that same ignorance and dealing with the consequences of treating the ignorant constantly for two years. All on the BS notion that government health officials who ARE experts in disease shouldn’t be trusted because some moron in social media is spreading BS claims. The pandemic didn’t need to last as long as it did. It would’ve been much shorter if it weren’t for these crackpot conspiracy theorists and the massive ignorance of half the country.
“Those who did and everyone else created the herd immunity that vaccination is supposed to do.”
How, exactly, does that work with a vaccine that does *not* protect against contracting or spreading a disease? And why do you, and the rest of the Left, evade natural immunity?
And herein lies the problem: The Left contradicts itself weekly. And just makes stuff up to satisfy a desire.
If people do not know who to trust about Covid, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.
The degree of herd immunity required is exponentially related to the transmission rate.
The vax does not even come close to reaching herd immunity. Nor can it ever.
The effectiveness of the vax is too low, and the half life too short. This is math.
Herd immunity is not something magical. It is calculable. We can not reach herd immunity through vaccination.
One of the problems is that if we do not and can not reach herd immunity – we end up with Covid becoming endemic – arround forever.
From the start our public policy has been fixated on flattening the curve. In many instances this CAN be a good choice. It also can be disasterously bad.
Flattening the curve means reducing the speed at which the disease progresses. We have successfully done that.
If we assume that vaccines provide 100% immunity that lasts forever and that infection also produces 100% immunity that lasts forever – then no matter how much you flatten the curve no harm is done.
But if immunity is weaker and/or shortlived. flattening the curve can be a poor choice – even a disasterous one.
Lets use the original Vax data – 97% effective, with an 8month half life – that means the effectiveness at 8months is only 50%.
That means if you can not fully vaccinate 100% of the world population in less than 8 months. you will just be chasing your tail.
There are plenty of stories of people who were fully vaxed getting covid many times.
Immunity from this vaccine fades fairly rapidly over time.
Immunity from infection appears to be better, but still has a relatively short half life.
The net result is vaccines will never reach herd immunity we just can not vaccinate enough people fast enough.
In theory we could reach herd immunity from a combination of vaccines and infections. But that actually requires the OPPOSITE of flattening the curve. To reach herd immunity with a short half life you want the disease to spread as RAPIDLY as possible.
Otherwise it become endemic.
It seems highly likely that C19 is becoming endemic.
The last issue we have is that there are severe problems with constantly vaccinating people.
The vaccine effectiveness decreases with each booster, and the adverse effects increase.
Currently the adverse effects of the vaccine are 3-5 times as high as the Flu vaccine.
Lets assume that is acceptable if we could wipe out Covid.
Lets also assume that a previous vaccine does not increase the rate of adverse effects.
Still when you get boosted the overall adverse effects rate doubles.
When you are boosted a 2nd time the overall rate triples.
This alone is a reason you can not keep boosting forever.
But it is probable that the adverse effects rate increases with each boost rather than staying the same.
Next there is an actual negative impact on your immune systems from over vaccination.
We are also seeing the same thing in children now from masking and isolation.
We are seeing higher rates of non-covid diseases because we have weakened immune systems.
If masking is 77% effective per exposure – it is STILL not good enough.
You do not seem to understand the math.
You talk about herd immunity without understanding it.
It is a specific level of immunity – the more contageous the disease the higher the level of immunity must be reached.
Further herd immunity must be maintained for long enough for the disease to die off.
If you can not maintain herd immunity the disease lingers forever – it becomes endemic.
Covid immunity is shortlived. That means you must reach very high levels of herd immunity and you must maintain them.
We are falling short. We are not even close actually.
Since October of 2020 we have been seeing atleast 3m infections per week globally.
In the US we are seeing 500K infections/week and 2K deaths per week as a baseline that has been there since Oct 2020
We get wave after wave with variants, but that baseline level is not going down.
That means we have not sustainably reached herd immunity.
And the longer this goes the less likely we ever will.
Again much of this is math.
It should be self evident to you by now that the government health care experts are NOT even close to perfect.
That they are not better – and often worse – than what you call social media BS.
Unless you are completely blind to the world you will also know by now that even among YOUR purported expert class – there is no uniform agreement.
The EU initially reacted much more Draconian than the US but today they are much more relaxed than the US.
The standards that you are pissing over from the FL surgeon general – are the standards of government healthcare experts in the EU.
The same experts in Sweden took a far more non-interventionist approach than most of the world, and their results are among the best of developed countries.
The FACTS which you are oblivious too – is that YOUR experts – throughout the world have made completely different recomendations in different countries and states, and the results – much the same.
It takes little intelligence to understand that if you try ten different approaches and you get the same results every time.
That what you are trying is doing NOTHING.
In the US Red states have pretty close to ignored the prognostications of the CDC. but there is no difference in outcome between red states and blue states.
Again an intelligent person will understand that publiv health polices that have no effect when compared to those places that did not impose those policies, then those policies did nothing.
The reason the pandemic has lasted as long as it did is BECAUSE of your experts policies.
They were trying to flatten the curve – and they succeeded. and as a result C19 is likely to become endemic.
“Those who did and everyone else created the herd immunity that vaccination is supposed to do.”
Svelaz, how could herd immunity be obtained for Covid-19? Try using scientific numbers such as the R0 and statistics. You have access to all the needed information, so since you talk about herd immunity you should be able to answer the question.
We are waiting for you to add substance to your silliness.
When you have a disease that is highly contagious and immunity is short lived, herd immunity MUST be reached quickly or it will not be reached at all.
Flatten the curve is also – prevent reaching herd immunity ever.
Svelaz you are clueless.
With respect to adverse reactions – the rate of adverse reactions from the Covid vax are between 3-5 times that of the Flu Vax.
This is pretty well documented at this time.
Currently there is somewhat preliminary work indicating that healthy men under 50 had more harm from the Vax than from Covid.
There is also lots of data that the negative impact on children is far greater than Covid. Covid deaths and complications in those under 18 are much LOWER than the Flu. and this has been known for a very long time.
MOST diseases are worse for older people than younger ones. But Covid has the most pronounced exponential curve of any disease I am aware of The fatality rate for those over 80 was 1/3. The fatality rate for children near zero.
Knowing what I know now – I do not know what I would do personally if I had the choices to make over.
I am in a moderate risk group. It is probable that my risk of adverse reactions is lower than my risk from Covid.
Though frankly it is pretty close.
If I was younger, or if a few specific health risks were not present – I would say no.
If I was older I would likely say yes – maybe.
It is also likely if I had it do do over I would take the J&J vax – that has far less adverse events and far lower excess deaths.
BTW we are well past the VAERS data now. All arround the world we are doing “excess death” studies comparing different vaxes to each other as well as those of the unvaccinated.
The vaccinated appear to have 1/3 the covid deaths of the unvaccinated – sounds good. But the overall death rate is the same or higher for the vaccinated. There is a much higher rate of cardio deaths in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
The worst thing about CV19 & it’s mRNA death shot vaxxes is ignorant people at risk & little kids are talked into talking their bio-weapon shots & anyone else that takes them is………..
WTHeck, just take’em…………
***********
Karen Kingston Exposes the Psychologic Operation With Covid19, Sars-Cov-2 & the Tech They Injected
14,069 views
·
Oct 7, 2022
11
Share
Download
Pete Santilli
Pete Santilli
The Pete Santilli Show Episode 3156 6 PM special guest Karen Kingston a Biotech Analyst exposes the lie about Covid19 & SARS-CoV-2 with Pete Santilli. Share this interview far and wide!
https://banned.video/watch?id=6340ff6ac72cc14484a7b67e
I have no animosity to experts.
I especially want to hear from all the experts YOU BANNED – including the doctor who literally invented the mRNA vaccine.
I am also going to weigh competing experts opinions.
Those working for govenrment – have low credibility – they have no skin in the game.
Nobody fired Fauxi for being wrong about nearly everything.
Those peopel with a reputation to lose – one that secures their employmnt – I will weigh more.
People who are actually treatingo others, actually doing the studies.
Again mostly the people YOU BANNED, those get the most weigh.
You are free to decide who to beleive using whatever criteria you want.
I would note, my personal track record on Covid has been pretty damn good.
I have only made a few errors – most of those wishful thinking on my part against obvious data.
I KNEW we were in deep $hit when I found out that the R0 for the early version was 2.5-3.8
When I heard that – in march 2020, I KNEW all the public policy stuff – much of which was just appearing was BS.
We have NEVER stopped a respiratory virus that contageous. – now we have BA.5 – I do not think any human disease ever has been as contageous. If you think masks and social distancing will stop it – YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
I had some hope because the early cruise ship data – a cruse ship is a near perfect place to spread Covid, had total infection rates of about 1/3.
There are very very few contagious infections that ever infect more than 1/3 of the population. My expectation was that Covid would stop after infecting 1/3 of the population. That 2/3 of us would have some kind of natural immunity. That is not an unreasonable assumption .
According to JHU there have been 96M covid cases in the US, maybe the same number that never got counted. That is closer to 1/2 the population.
“ I especially want to hear from all the experts YOU BANNED – including the doctor who literally invented the mRNA vaccine.”
Those people were NOT experts. That’s why they were banned. They were opportunists, profiteers, and run of the mill crackpots with an MD. Yes, they do exist. Those who were pushing invermectin made claims that were shown to be utter rubbish and later studies showed the treatment was inconclusive. People were buying the stuff for horses to treat themselves and those doctors pushing for the treatment didn’t try to dissuade people from using the stuff for horses. The FDA NEVER approved the drug as a treatment for COVID because it was never shown to be effective. I get that people were desperate. I get that. However those “experts” were taking advantage of the situation to profit from the drug by pushing the treatment while at the same time encouraging investors to buy stock in the companies making it, stock that they had.
This is why many were banned, it was the right thing to do because they were making things worse and prolonging the spread of the virus by sowing doubts and pushing crackpot conspiracy theories. Social media had every right to ban what they deemed misinformation or harmful advice. It was their prerogative as a private company.
The Problem Svelaz – is those people ARE experts
They were not banned for lack of expertise.
They were banned for deviation – however small from YOUR dogma.
That is one part of what is so evil about censorship.
As I noted, you banned the person who actually invented the mRNA vaccine.
you banned some of the most respected epidemiologists in the worlde
you banned the very people who have turned out to be right.
elsewhere I linked to a John Campbell video, where the Presitigious British medical journal responded to Zuckerburg over been banned by facebook. The video was excellent. It demonstrated how actual experts could be banned by people with very little knowledge, because SM set them up as getekeepers. Leads who has no expertise “Factchecked” wrongly the British Medical Journal which has been publishing since 1830 over a study they published.
Isn’t that whatever we want scientific journals to do – publish studies whatever their results might be ?
I would note the Twitter ban that is Turley’s topic – is because the FL SG has revised his Vax advice such that it matches that of European government policies.
So are all the government health experts in europe wrong ?
Europe Started Covid with generally more harsh public policies than the US. But oddly their government experts have been more open and better informed. They have been more inclined to actually look at the data and as a result most of europe has ended stupid and dogmatic covid policies much sooner than the US.
The Europeans have not approved a C19 vax for children, and likely wont, the adverse reaction rate is too high and the C19 risk to kids too low. Further in the US CDC blood test data indicated that BEFORE the US approved the Vax for children 86% of children had already been infected and survived C19. It is near certain that rates in Europe are higher. The Europeans returned to in person education a year before the US did. The Europeans followed the data and studies that YOU are banning.
” Nobody knew what the virus would do since it was something entirely NEW.”
Svelaz, you are ignorant of how science functions. Science builds on prior experience, and we had experience with viruses. Example: We talked about infection rates, but you learned nothing.
“Those people were NOT experts. “
You don’t even know what an expert is or how expertise develops. Almost everything you have said is wrong, and the ideas are dumb.
What you call an expert is a person approved by the government. What you call an expert is one who disagrees w.ith what the government says. Can anything be more stupid or authoritarian?
You stay away from discussing singular ideas or theories. Why? You know nothing, and that is why when one reverses a statement into a question, you stand there with your mouth open having nothing to say.
When you were educated, someone failed in their duty.
I have told you before alot of this is relatively simple math.
There is not a single RCT on masks – and 14 have been done in the 21st century, including several recently, that has found that masks actually work, Not against Covid, not even against the Flu which is far less contagious.
But lets say that an RCT was done that produced a phenomenal 50% effectiveness rate for Masks.
That is pie in the sky impossible. But lets assume it is true.
That is not even close to good enough. To beat the original Wuhan strain of Covid you would need higher than 98% effectiveness. To beat ommicron you would need 99.99%. The required effectiveness increases exponentially with the R0 rate.
A 50% effective mask would reduce the R0 from 2.5-3.8 down to 1.25-1.9 – that is not good enough.
If you can no get R0 below 1.0 – you will have exactly the same number of people die, the same number of people get infected, it will just take longer. You have the same overall negative health impacts, but more societal disruption. More economic problems, more anxiety and depression, more drugs, more violence, more suicides, more negative impact.
Delta had an R0 of 6-7, Omicron is somewhere near 12.
There are no measures even at the rediculous wish level that would get us below an R0 of 1 with the original Wuhan Covid.
Covid has been unstopable from the start.
The Vaccine was our best hope, and it was obvious before it arrived that it would be too little and too late.
The vaccine has an initial effectiveness of 97% and a half life of 8 months. that means in 8 months the effectiveness will be below 50%.
The math will tell you – that is not good enough. 97% effective enduring for 2 years was the minimum necescary to beat Wuhan Covid. Delta was going to require even higher effectiveness.
All of this is math. You must reduce the overall transmission rate Below 1.0, and you must hold it there.
If you could get R0 to 0 and you could hold it there globally for 30 days – you could wipe out Covid fast. with few deaths and infections. But if you can only get R0 to .9 – which is quite hard, you will have to hold it there for years, and get very nearly the same number of deaths and infections.
Any R0 value that is 1 or above AFTER all the measures you take. After masks, vaccines, SD, …. will result in the same total number of deaths and the same total number of infections.
There is not a single tool or combination of tools that we have that reduces R0 even to 1.0
All we have succeeded in doing is make the epidemic last longer.
Worse still the short half life of the vaccine greatly increases the odds that Covid will become endemic – instead of burning itself out.
It is near certain that if we had done NOTHING Covid would have burned through the planet in about 19months and infected and killed lots of people – and then vanished.
That is increasingly unlikely
We screwed up. Nations accross the world screwed up. They US among the worst.
And YOUR experts are responsible for that.
The spanish Flu had a higher mortality rate, it burned throught the world and was gone in 18months never to return.
we are going on 3 years now, it is increasingly likely that we will have a base level of covid killing people for many years to come.
Your public health experts did that.
That is NOT natural.
But it was predictable.
The fundimentals of epidemiology are mathematical.
Your trashing Ivarmection – which actually works – not well, but as well as the Big Pharma drug.
Yet, in the real world the actual data is that HCQ – which you excoriated, WORKS. Again not well.
But I would take a 10% reduction in the chance of dying.
Absolutely there are unscrupulous MD’s and there are far more just looking to do something, trying anything to see if anything works – and we WANT that. We have the same thing at the big pharma level and withing goverment.
Men are not angels. They do not become angels when they work for big pharma. They do not become angels when they work for Government.
Fauxi and many others in government have profited off of this.
I am simultaneously proud of the incredible accomplishment Big Pharma made in delivering the C19 vaccine in record time and disgusted by their efforts to cover up honest information about that vaccine – some of which was known from the start,
The BMJ article that FB fact checkers Trashed – was data from Pfiser’s studies on the effectiveness and adverse events from the Covid trials, that Pfiser had tried to bury.
Big Pharma has profited enormously from c19 vaccines – and they should have.
But they also should have been honest about them from the start.
One of the most fundimental problems with our dealing with C19 – was “the Fatal Conceipt”.
The beleif that you can manage problems like Covid Top Down – YOU CAN:T.
The best possible outcome was going to come from the OPPOSITE of the approach we took.
Myriads of doctors, labs, small pharma companies, people working in their garages trying to solve some C19 related issue.
HCQ was not the best solution – it is not even close, it will not change the total number of infections, but it does have a small impact on the number of deaths. Ivarmectin is slightly better. the Big Pharma drug is no better than Ivarmectin and probably worse.
But we should have had ten times as many things tried. But YOU thwarted that.
BTW the vast majority of people pushing or trying things that you disapprove of where not charlatans, they were not profiteers.
They were decent people trying to solve the problem.
And YOU do not understand that.
It is math and it was against you from the start.
R0 Wuhan variant – 2.5-3.8.
Laboratory max effectiveness of a mask – 77% per encounter.
Initial effectiveness of the vaccine 95%, declining to about 50% in 8 months.
From those numbers alone and Math you can tell – nothing will stop Covid.
There is a video by 3blue1brown on Youtube – 3B1B does math education videos. He has never discussed Covid.
But he did a video in Feb 2020 with simple yet accurate models of virus spreading. These are really just permutations of the famous early computer game called “life”. Watch the video. You can do all kinds of things to slow down the spread of a highly contageous virus.
But you need astronomically highly effective measures that you can sustain for long periods to actually beat it.
Slowing it down results in the same number of infections and deaths – it just takes longer.
There is not a weapon or combination of weapons that we have that were even close to effective enough to stop covid.
I had great holes for the vaccine. When I heard the effectiveness was 95%, I already knew it was not going to work – but I pretended.
When I learned that the half life of protection is 8 months – I knew we would not be able to vaccinate people fast enough.
at 95% initial effectiveness, if you could vaccinate every person in the world on the same day – you still probably could not stop Covid.
It still would linger arround long enough for immunity to decline.
And we can not vaccinate 100% of the world in 1 days.
With respect to the vaccine. The chinese vax is garbage. I am not sure they are giving it anymore.
That gets rid of half your vax doses.
The Russian one is no better – again I do not think it is being given any more.
The Israeli vax is not so hot.
On the general population the death rate of the vaccinated is no different from the unvaccinated – the difference is how they die.
The mRNA vaccine population has 3 times the normal rate of cardiac deaths.
The only vaccine that has a lower death rate than the unvaccinated is the J&J one – and the benefit is small.
The mRNA vaccine should not be given to anyone under 20. Probably no one under 20 should be vaccinated at all.
The death rate from covid is way too low in that population.
Men under 50 should not receive the mRNA vaccine.
Most of the above is established through population death rates comparative studies NOT adverse reaction databases.
Though the actual US VAERS data shows an adverse reaction rate of 3-5 times the flue shot.
There are no caveats to the population study death rates. Comparing different vaccines and the unvaccinated.
The overall all cause death rate among those given an mRNA vaccine, is slightly higher than the unvaccinated.
With a factor of 3 increase in cardiac issues being the leading problem.
Of those given a DNA vaccine it is slightly lower.
All studies have some quality issues. We can not do laboratory controlled studies on Covid that are real world applicable.
There is no overall difference in quality between the Studies that favor your outcomes than those that undermine it.
There is also no study – even those that your experts rely on, that show significant benefit to any policy.
There is not a single RCT that shows any benefit to masking – not against Covid, not against any respiratory virus.
14 large scale RCT’s have been done.
Science is about questioning, isn’t it?
I wonder why the censors don’t believe that people are incapable of making up their own minds? Given my age, medical condition, and body habitus, catching Covid is problematic. I am vaxed and boosted, and will get another booster upon the advice of my physician. I control my own health care by making informed choices, taking all risks into consideration. Everyone should have access to all the information available to make their own informed choice. WHy does that threaten people?
“ I wonder why the censors don’t believe that people are incapable of making up their own minds?”
It’s not so much as what the censors believe. It’s about how the information is portrayed and. Twitter being a private entity it IS entitled to censor what it deems misinformation. Since they did restore it it may mean they had a process to determine if it did indeed violate their policy. There are a LOT of people who are scientifically illiterate or have no clue what they are reading and there is certainly a lot of folks who are just as clueless and misinformed giving advice to these people who may be mislead about what is really effective and what is not. The majority of people don’t have the time or comprehension capability to determine whether an scientific study is genuine or not. It can lead to harm and doctors have to fight their patients own ignorance when they tell them what they have heard is not accurate. This is why twitter censors what it considers misinformation and it’s their prerogative as a private entity. They set their rules just as Elon Musk can set his if he ends up buying twitter.
Professor Turley: “If Musk moves Twitter out of San Francisco, it may help in that restructuring in replacing staff with those committed to free speech values.”
Sounds like Operation Paperclip, except this time we take the tech and leave the NAZI’s behind. I love it!!
I reiterate what Daniel says. What Twitter, Facebook, and Google (YouTube) seem to forget is that there are always significant discussions and disagreement in Medical Circles on virtually any subject. And argument and discussion is the rule at virtually any medical meeting whether it is be new publications, discussion on up to date treatments, or panels of experts discussing 1 particular subject. There are always disagreements. That is how truth is slowly discovered. They seem to fail to understand (or don’t want to understand) that there is rarely universal agreement in science and particularly medicine. “Settled Science” is an oxymoron. Medicine is not so scrupulous in it’s history and has had many shameful chapters through the centuries and recently that cast significant doubt on the settled science of medicine. We, in medicine, have often gone astray when we let money, political zealotry, stupidity, bias, and a desire for simple answers sway us away from the scientific methods and the real complexities of medical care and this world in general. Eugenics, frontal lobotomy, Tuskegee Institute and syphilis, bone marrow transplants in treatment of breast cancer, widespread chelation therapy, are just recent examples. Tread lightly on “Settled Science” lest it blow up in your face.
The rest of the world has by and large moved on – there is something seriously wrong with these gatekeepers and their partners, and it appears to finally be obvious to most. Wish these conversations had taken place 15 years ago, as it was also obvious in Obama’s second term that suppressive alliances were forming right in plain sight. Remember his regular breakfasts with tech CEOs? Or all of the google folks pitching their tents in the White House, only later to actually join campaigns and secure government positions?
None of this is coincidence, and it is the endgame of something that started years ago. Thankfully in this age it is much more difficult to get away with – unless the perpetrators do indeed take total control, and there will be no stops pulled in that aim.
A whole lot of us are still woefully tech-illiterate, and that needs to be remedied big time, IMO. Not in the sense of knowing how to use devices, but in how Silicon Valley actually operates (e.g.: a terms of service agreement that all users sign for these services actually states that no, legally, social media is decidedly NOT a public square, and a TOS, by its verbiage, can legally be changed retroactively into infinity and at any time). Somehow we are in a digital dark age even *worse* than back when most thought AOL ‘was’ the internet.
Meanwhile in Coo-Coo California the state passed a law that makes it a CRIME for a DOCTOR to give “misinformation” to a PATIENT. Imagine allowing people like Gavin Newsom to decide what a DOCTOR can tell a PATIENT. Now if you were a new doctor deciding where to set up an office what would you do, open up in Yorba Linda or move to Texas or Arizona?
Again, the state that elected Pelosi, Swalwell, Newsome, Harris and George Gascon and has decriminalized theft is now making it a crime for a doctor to give his or her best advice to a patient if the politicians don’t agree with said advice.
Thank you Professor Turley, or as my brother likes to call you “Turls”, for being a committed Refounder of our great nation. Your First Amendment Model is the key to restoring liberty to our nation.
Jonathan wrote, “The company seemingly wrote off free speech years ago. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.” “
These things that CEO Parag Agrawal said are signature significant of an anti-American totalitarian.
Agrawal wasn’t wrong. Twitter or Facebook or any private entities are NOT bound by the first amendment. Even Turley quietly, grudgingly admits this in some of his columns.
Florida is 6 months behind the 10 European countries that have already banned vaccinations for people under 30 but Twitter is so blinkered it would not know that.
The rest of the world outside of the west has also successfully use Hydroxy and Ivermection but here we are beholden to Big Pharma and their government stooges
A physician entrepreneur friend of mine, John Abeles, was blocked many months ago from LinkedIn for sharing scientific studies making this point. The politicization of science and medicine is terrifying.
This may be the first time a senior public health official has been censored, despite all the mistaken information and recommendations put out by the CDC and Fauci during the course of the pandemic. The new recommendation is based on a study that, so far as I am aware, has not been refuted. The recommendation is similar to that of the public health authorities of several European countries.
@Daniel,
The issue is that much of the data is being blocked or not captured in any meaningful way.
VAERS which many anti-vaxxers point to as reasons for concern,. Yet the data reported in VAERS is not confirmed and anecdotal. The other issue is that you have repoert of ‘patient coughing up blood from lungs and then died…’ where this is more likely due to their end stage lung cancer than from the vaccine, yet because they were required to receive the vaccine, and thus report the death. (I kid you not.) You could also report that the vaccine turned you into a newt but that you subsequently got better. So as a data source… meaningless. Yet that doesn’t mean that it didn’t capture relevant information like those with an allergic reaction and died because they didn’t get treatment in time. So this is not a good source which is often touted.
But I digress. The other issue is data was improperly recorded too. Patients admitted to hospital w COVID is not the same as admitted due to COVID.
Or tracking number of hospitalizations of people who had gotten COVID more than once. The effectiveness of ‘masks’. So anything covering your mouth is better than nothing therefore we should mandate it even though the level of protection is meaning less. Or that the study of where you are likely to get COVID … e.g. outdoors, was initially flawed but then corrected. Initially it said 10% chance of getting infected outdoors. The reality was much less. Yet even today… walk down a city street in Chicago and you see people wearing masks as they walk around outdoors and even indoors.
There’s more too. Some data that was being reported was stopped because it showed that while the vaccine greatly reduced the rate of infection, it didn’t actually reduce the percentage of deaths. So overall the vaccine worked, yet the same percentage of those who did get COVID died. Note that this was for the initial strain. As COVID mutated the death rates were reduced.
So any and all information surrounding COVID should be treated with a bit of skepticism. Something lost on these censors.
-G
“So this is not a good source which is often touted.”
Ian, we can compare the VAERS morbidity and mortality number between the Covid shots and other similar vaccinations to look for a deviation from the expected. If that deviation is wide, it necessitates a look at the potential reasons for such a deviation.
Early in the game, I noted some stating that such a deviation occurred, and I don’t know that a good explanation exists. Only limited numbers of trained people control what data is permitted to be known. Unfortunately, the total experts not censored have less knowledge than the entire body of experts that exist. Free exchange of information is supposed to occur so that the limited number of trained people in charge don’t develop tunnel vision. This did not happen, and we paid for it whether we realize it yet, or not.
Have you looked at any studies that parsed the data?
@S Meyer.
Did you not understand what I wrote?
Again VAERS is not a good source of data period.
In VAERS you have reporting of where a cancer patient has been given the vaccine and the patient dies due to the cancer. Yet it has to be reported.
Anyone can report any ‘side effect’ that they want. Like I said. you could have posted that the vaccine turned you into a newt but you subsequently got better.
This is not a good data source.
That said, there is an issue with the type and quality of the data that was presented by the CDC.
Along with what data was captured and how.
Then there’s the issue of how to interpret the data.
There’s a professor in the US that used Israel’s data and showed how the Israeli Government’s website was wrong.
-G
“Did you not understand what I wrote? Again VAERS is not a good source of data period.”
Ian, I clearly understand what you wrote and recognize that many Covid deaths were deaths from disease and an incidental Covid positive test. However, VAERS functions in the same fashion when other vaccine data, ie the flu vaccine, is reported.
Reports to VAERS are without question, not proven, but the same occurs with these other vaccines. There was likely more negative hype with the Covid vaccine, which could cause more reports to VAERS. I am not arguing one way, only stating that the initial VAERS reports I was alerted to seemed to deviate from the expected. When seeing deviation, isn’t it prudent to try and assess why? If not, why does VAERS exist? Do you think such assessments are wrong?
Recently, we saw complaints of myocarditis and recommendations that men between the ages of 18- 39 be cautious about receiving the vaccine. Where did that data come from? We know that research exists, but were there any unusual reports of myocarditis and similar illness where troponin levels rose on the VAERS data? That is what I am interested in. That is why I asked if you knew of any researchers that parsed the VAERS data.
I am not sure what your issue is with what I wrote. Was there a misinterpretation, or was I not clear enough?
“In VAERS you have reporting of where a cancer patient has been given the vaccine and the patient dies due to the cancer. Yet it has to be reported.”
No, it does not have to be reported. It is voluntary, not mandatory. It is estimated that only 1-2% of adverse events are reported into VAERS, so the reports of injury are under reported by approximately 98 percent. VAERS is managed by FDA and CDC and used to spot safety signals. It is a time consuming process to enter a case report into VAERS, the vast majority of them being submitted by healthcare professionals, not individuals. The reports are reviewed by CDC. With these covid shots, there are clear safety signals, most of which are actively being downplayed or ignored by health officials. It is a massive scandal.
Numerous health experts are looking at mortality data, excess deaths and their causes, as well as vaccine status.
This bypasses the problems with VAERS.
There appear to be patterns emerging from that data.
All vaccines are not alike. the mRNA vaccines have very high rates of excess deaths compared to other vaccines or the unvaxed.
The largest increase in those deaths is in Cardio.
Ian MG, the Florida study made no use of VAERS data, so whatever the quality of VAERS data VAERS is simply irrelevant to the study.
How do you know that? The study just says the following:
Data from Florida’s reportable disease repository (Merlin), Florida State Health Online Tracking System (FLSHOTS), and death records data from vital statistics were linked.
How do you know the “death records data from vital statistics” were from VAERS?
What makes you think they were?