Journalist David Zweig has reported that former FBI General Counsel and former Deputy Counsel at Twitter, Jim Baker, flagged an optimistic tweet of former President Donald Trump on Covid as possible “misinformation” to be censored. I have previously written about Baker becoming the Kevin Bacon of Washington scandals. He is now prominently featured in the censorship scandal and new disclosures show that he eagerly used his position at Twitter to seek to silence Trump and those with opposing views. The most recent exchange offers an insight into Baker’s hair-triggered tendencies on censorship. It appears that calling for optimism was intolerable for the former FBI general counsel.
Baker flagged a tweet from then-President Trump on October 5, 2020, that “I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”
Baker immediately pulled the trigger on the tweet and called on former head of Twitter Trust and Safety Yoel Roth and Twitter legal executive Stacia Cardille to look at the possible “violation.” Baker wrote “Yoel and Stacia,” Why isn’t this POTUS tweet a violation of our COVID-19 policy (especially the ‘Don’t be afraid of Covid’ statement)?”
Roth replied with the obvious:
“Adding you to the main thread on this subject. In short, this tweet is a broad, optimistic statement. It doesn’t incite people to do something harmful, nor does it recommend against taking precautions or following mask directives (or other guidelines). It doesn’t fall within the published scope of our policies. Curious whether you have a different read on it, though.”
It was a telling insight into the fluidity of these standards and the exchange of censors determining who can say what on Twitter, even the President of the United States.
Baker’s relatively low threshold for censorship is obvious but it is equally obvious that the outcome might have changed if different language were used on same point.
So if Trump was more specific (rather than “broad”) or more pointed (rather than “optimistic”) would the result be different? It is hard to tell because even the chief censors seem to just do gut checks on who should be silenced or suspended on any given tweet.
It is also notable that the mask mandate was viewed as inviolate. Those who questioned the efficacy of masks were suspended or banned but now have been seemingly vindicated. Among the suspended were the doctors who co-authored of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
As for Baker, the greatest concern seemed to be the optimism. He seemed to think that Twitter had to keep the fear of Covid unquestioned and uncontradicted on social media. The very notion of not being afraid set him off. Because he disagreed with the optimism, he felt it might be fair game to censor such sentiments.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Every aspect of American government brightly reflects this horrible tyrannizing fact.
Every minute, every hour, every day, every month of every year.
America is not free because Americans are no longer brave.
Dittos. Virtually every institution in American life has now been corrupted, and the people’s trust in those institutions has been lost, possibly forever. Besides governmental institutions, this includes all the private buffer spaces that society needs to survive by putting politics aside to enjoy things side-by-side with those whose political beliefs may differ from our own. The government has been corrupted by power, and the others have been corrupted by wokeness — which Elon Musk rights describes as a mind virus. Dennis Prager likewise commented that the Left ruins everything it touches. For example: late-night comedy is woke, and not funny; Hollywood is woke and not entertaining; sports is woke and losing its audience; many churches have gone woke and lost the power of their message by conforming to the world; Broadway musicals have succumbed to the disease and are alienating would-be ticket buyers; primary and secondary education has gone woke and American students are less competitive; the health care professions, including psychology, have gone woke and are harming their patients; private corporations have gone woke and are oppressive to their employees and less profitable; and now, even the military is moving fast in that direction and losing its preparedness. It all starts with academia, and moves to the rest of society from there. A fish rots from the head down, and academia is the head.
I think consideration for censoring trump at this point in history was an everyday occurrence since he was in such chronic violation of twitter policy and they’d really not acted on a disciplinary policy with him at that point. He walked the tightrope pushing twitter policy until, upon using tweets to build interest in an insurrection, he crossed over. Reaching back to look at an isolated tweet along that progression, without providing proper context, is seeking to rewrite history.
“So if Trump was more specific (rather than “broad”) or more pointed (rather than “optimistic”) would the result be different? It is hard to tell . . .” (JT)
Actually, it is *impossible* to tell or to predict, because censors are always ruled by their emotions. Does the opinion trigger me? Ban it. Does it make me feel warm and fuzzy? Broadcast it.
That is one of the evils of tyranny. One can never know where the hammer’s coming down next.
At the very beginning of the Covid Pandemic I read a piece out of London (University of London?) that predicted a frightening number of deaths. I told my daughter in Minnesota about my panicky fears, and she sent me a post from a local GP and state representative that turned out to be right on point. Apparently, the London study conflated the Covid infection rate with the Black Death mortality.
I think the London predictions came from a flawed model. Once again errors were made because hidden numbers replaced common sense.
A case out of England proves your point: a woman has now been charged criminally for the thoughts in her head. She was praying silently near an abortion clinic, and that act (silent prayer) set har apart from other persons near the clinic. Apparently the censors are triggered by silent thoughts in someone else’s head.
When did “FBI” become “POS” ?
A very long time ago – we just weren’t paying attention.
Could it have been when the FBI facilitated Oswald’s status as an operative and “patsy,” and scrubbed the 302s related to the Deep Deep State/CIA/Dulles/FBI/Mafia/Carlos Marcelo assassination of JFK (-cum-MLK-cum-RFK) in order to enable the honorable Warren Commission to reach an accurate and eminently unassailable conclusion regarding the “magic/single bullet theory?”
It’s an interminable continuum which Eisenhower referred to as the military/industrial complex; it’s aka The Deep Deep State.
When the first news of COVID appeared, I assume I was like a lot of people, both alarmed and confused. The Diamond Princess added to the confusion, since the infection rate and death toll were not comparable to those of a disease as deadly as the Spanish influenza of 1918-1919. So I began to search and found a CDC study which suggested that even among family members infection rates could be as low as 50 percent and among casual contacts in the order of 10-20 percent (sorry not to have the link at hand — a study done in California with 450 people tracked, if I recall correctly). I also heard a female doctor in Bergamo, the epicenter of the original outbreak in Europe caution that “dying of the virus is not the same as dying from it.” That piqued my curiosity, so I began to search the CDC website, the NHS website, and a couple of websites in the EU, and what I found confused me further because it appeared that the vast majority of people who had died had done so “with,” not “of” COVID, and that fatalities from influenza, pneumonia, and other respiratory diseases had unexpectedly fallen to a handful.
By then, we were into the spring of 2020, and I had a ‘control’ for the policy of locking down, a term I believe comes from the Attica riots of the last century. Sweden had allowed all school children under the age of 16 to attend school and selectively banned gatherings of a certain number, but otherwise had not locked down like the UK or the US or China. Their rates of COVID-related deaths were still high, but as they later explained, they had not realized that the disease could be fatal to the elderly, so they had not taken sufficient precautions to shield those in old-age homes and over the age of 70, an oversight for which they apologized. Throughout the ‘pandemic’ (a term of art to exaggerate the actual effect of an epidemic), I referred back to Sweden, which ended up having the fewest excess deaths for 2020-2021 of any EU country, and many fewer (as a percentage) than the US. Its economy also weathered the outbreak better. In short, Sweden, if we take it as a control, strongly suggested that the reaction to COVID was the problem, not COVID itself.
Now, I’m old, so I was a bit nervous, but I know young people as well, so I check the data bases of five or six countries and found that more males than females died from/with the virus, but that almost nobody died from/with it who was younger than 24, and that the rate roughly doubled for every ten years to 70, then it skyrocketed. Of course, the annual death rate for those of us over 70 is around 2-3 percent anyhow (if it was not, then there would be no room for all the youngsters), so I began to disentangle the with from the of and, sure enough, the bulk of those who died during the ‘pandemic,’ died with COVID, which administered the coup de grace to bodies already wracked with pain because they were the site of two to three serious comorbidities (heart, kidney, lung, liver disease, and simple old age).
As I was looking at data bases and watching Sweden, I also did my best to consult medical journals, and discovered that there was no evidence masks made a difference (the only large-scale random study, done in Denmark, showed they did not). I also ran across the Great Barrington Declaration, which made perfect sense, given what I had found, and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, a precious resource.
In short, by the summer of 2020, I was pretty sure the virus was air-borne, that it was deadly for those over the age of 70 (which did make me nervous), and that most of what we were hearing from the CDC, the NHS, and other public health professionals, including Redfield, Fauci, & WHO, was nonsense at worst, exaggeration and slipshod at best. But, of course, the media only listened to the acceptable experts — Kuldorff, Gupta, and those who disagreed were ignored, so when I ventured an opinion contrary to the conventional wisdom peddled by the official expersts and the media, friends, family, and colleagues thought I was a bit daft. Of course, I come from a generation born while polio was still a scourge, so I knew people crippled by polio, I lived through the Asian and Hong Kong flu ‘pandemics,’ and I survived childhood diseases before vaccinations. As a result, I also knew that natural immunity is at least as good as a vaccination. But who listens to the elderly, especially when all the experts and talking heads on the tube disagree?
And that is the problem with censorship — you cannot have an intelligent, well-informed conversation. You can only shout at one another, ridicule one another, and hunker down in your echo chamber. Given that Twitter had become the echo chamber of choice for a great many in the media and politics and academia, the censorship imposed by its executives was calamitous for those who put their trust in the Twitterati class and the rest of us who had no choice but to bend to their ill-informed and authoritarian dictates.
As for Trump, whatever you think of the man, he was being led around by the nose by the likes of Birx and Fauci (who we now know was linked to Eco-Health, the Wuhan lab, and the suppression of accurate information in the Lancet and elsewhere). And that is the other problem with censorship, not only can you not have a well-informed and civil discussion regarding a virus, you cannot have a well-informed political debate and you cannot formulate good policies because the evidence available will always be partisan and tainted.
If you want to test this, see how much information you can find on Sweden and COVID, check several national databases to see what the death rates of/from the virus were by age, see if you can find if Peter Daszak had any links to Anthony Fauci, Ecohealth Alliance, and WHO. And while you’re at it, see if you can find any information on the Diamond Princess and that early CDC study in California, the rivalry between Imperial College and Oxford, and other arcane matters.
The question of censorship is not about government versus private (that is a legalistic quibble), but about whom we can trust not to lie to us about serious matters. If our media is mendacious, if our officials lie as a matter of course, if experts put their self-interest above that of the society in which they live, and if our academies are riddled with partisan ideologues, then who censors and who lies is a moot point because there is nobody to trust and no source upon which we can depend to make us the informed citizens we need to be to make a representative republic function properly.
Old guy, you are absolutely right on every point! If you aren’t aware of it, check out Brownstone.org, which is a great site for collecting rational reviews of the evidence.
Thank you for the thumbs up and the reference to Brownstone.
It is always reassuring to know I am not writing nonsense and that others are thinking along similar lines. (I hope that does not mean I enjoy echo chambers, because I find them both constrictive and boring after the initial rush of dopamine).
I discovered Brownstone because Bhattachrya contributed to the site, and I have consulted it since. A link, if I may, for those not familiar with the site and the good doctor.
https://brownstone.org/video-podcast/where-are-we-now-an-interview-with-jay-bhattacharya/
“check out Brownstone.org”
Speaking of which:
“How an Occupied Twitter Ruined Countless Lives”
“These [social media] platforms colluded with the federal government’s administrative arm to craft a particular Covid narrative, throttling and censoring dissidents and boosting any credentialled expert who was willing to toe the line.”
And then a fascinating passage on how those distortions caused some to feel as if they were the ones at war with reality:
“‘I can’t have been the only person to have struggled psychologically during this time. This is why these Twitter files have been such a balm. This is the reality they stole from us!'” (Quoting Matt Taibbi)
(https://brownstone.org/articles/how-occupied-twitter-ruined-lives/)
Old Guy,
Great post!
At the very beginning of the Covid Pandemic I read a piece out of London (University of London?) that predicted a frightening number of deaths. I told my daughter in Minnesota about my panicky fears, and she sent me a post from a local GP and state representative that turned out to be right on point. Apparently, the London study conflated the Covid infection rate with the Black Death mortality.
I am impressed. You did a great job showing you were an excellent academic.
Many people had similar feelings to you. It was apparent early on that the elderly were dying. Influenza has an age distribution of deaths that is wider than Covid’s. The common sense of many was correct and stifled. The intellectual responses permitted, existed only on one side. Censorship caused tremendous death and destruction. We can blame that on the fascist leftist Democrats.
The book “The Wisdom of Crowds” explains how the crowd can provide answers despite the crowd’s lack of study.
If you ever put your data in numerical form, others might find it interesting.
“…former FBI General Counsel and former Deputy Counsel at Twitter, Jim Baker…”
– Professor Turley
______________
The acts of the officials and co-conspirators involved in the Obama Coup D’etat in America were unconstitutional and subversive crimes of high office, including the acts of Jim Baker.
If those high officials cannot be brought to justice by John Durham, there is something drastically wrong with America which must be corrected by any and all means.
A former official of the FBI may not act in an official capacity and he may do whatever else he chooses in his private life.
Twitter was and remains private property of which only the owners may “claim and exercise” dominion.
Twitter may be “taken” for public use.
_____________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
This comment is in response to some nonsense included in this comment section, including at least two “replies” to one or more of my comments or replies, where people are claiming — without supporting evidence — that $3,415,323 received by Twitter, apparently from the FBI, was limited to reimbursement for expenses Twitter accrued from responding to subpoenas or court orders passed along to Twitter by/from the FBI.
This topic regarding $3+ million paid to Twitter originates in a specific February 10, 2021, message cited by journalist Michael Shellenberger as part of the “Twitter Files”:
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604908670063906817/photo/1
The message in question was sent from a Twitter employee to Twitter’s then-General Counsel James Baker, and it’s noteworthy that the subject line of the message states “Run the business – we made money!”
The word “business” and the phrase “we made money!” (exclamation point included) indicate that the $3,415,323 referenced in the message is the result of a for-profit money-making enterprise, NOT reimbursement for law enforcement obligations. Further, the tweet states, “This money is used by LP for things like the TTR and other LE-related projects (LE training, tooling, etc.).
That appears to suggest that Twitter was using the PROFITS to train its employees in Law Enforcement (LE) as an adjunct of the FBI, and for investing in “tooling” — apparently meaning building hardware and/or software useful for FBI Law Enforcement purposes.
,
This is convincing evidence of a business relationship and MERGER of Twitter and the FBI, NOT a simple reimbursement for the expense of responding to subpoenas and court orders, which the law allos. In other words, Twitter had become a paid AGENT of the FBI/federal government while censoring or monitoring content, and was no longer acting in the capacity of a private company being reimbursed for expenses.
“The word “business” and the phrase “we made money!” (exclamation point included) indicate that the $3,415,323 referenced in the message is the result of a for-profit money-making enterprise, NOT reimbursement for law enforcement obligations.”
It doesn’t “indicate” that. You *believe* that the amount involves a profit, but the email says that they’re now receiving $ from the FBI that they’d previously chosen not to collect. Clearly in that situation, anything they collect means they’re ahead of where they were, and in this case they’re over $3M ahead, so no surprise that there’s an exclamation point.
“That appears to suggest…”
“Appears” … “suggest” … in other words, you don’t know. So just accept that you don’t know. Shellenberger doesn’t even say what most of the acronyms (SCALE, …) stand for.
Responding to subpoenas and court orders is NOT a “busness.” And people have never “made money” from responding to subpoenas and court orders — no anyone, anytime, anywhere.
And that includes Twitter. They “made money” — millions — but it wasn’t from responding to subpoenas and court orders, unless they WAY overcharged for their legal obligations.
And I used words like “appears” and “suggest” because in the absence of an official audit, I’m talking about reasonable inferences — logical deduction — critical thinking — concepts foreign to a paid rroll such as yourself.
Responding to subpoenas and court orders is *part of* running their business.
I am no more a paid troll than you are, and you lessen yourself by stooping to that accusation simply because we disagree.
I hope that Twitter is called in before Congress to answer questions about it, including what LP and TTR stand for.
BTW, I’ve now found what SCALE stands for: it’s Twitter’s Safety, Content, & Law Enforcement (SCALE) team.
And the fact that the money is referred to as “reimbursement” undermines your argument. The money one makes as profit is not a reimbursement; typically one only reimburses costs. More to the point, Twitter’s “Guidelines for law enforcement” (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-enforcement-support) state in the section titled “Cost reimbursement” that “Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706).” That 2706 reimbursement is explicitly for 2702, 2703, or 2704 orders: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2706
Twitter should publish the backup to the invoices to show what the payments were for. Without that there can be no certainty.
“. . . what the payments were for.”
It’s called “hush money.” As in: We wish to censor by proxy. Here’s a few million to help us get away with it.
Daniel wants evidence, unlike you. You want to believe it’s “hush money” without evidence.
“You want to believe it’s “hush money” without evidence.”
There’s not enough “evidence” in the universe to convince Apologists that it is what it is: Hush money.
Both testimony under oath and the invoices that Daniel asked for would convince me. Then again, I’m not an apologist.
You want to believe it’s “hush money” without evidence.
The evidence is the FBI’s corruption coming to surface since about 2015. The FBI has been caught dozens of times lying on documents to coverup their actions, or advance the narrative of the moment.
Since the FBI has no enumerated power to “advise” twitter, or any other social media company on what content needs censored, It is logical to color all their actions as corrupt.
“The evidence is the FBI’s corruption . . .”
Precisely!
Corrupt people do corrupt things, and have corrupt motivations.
Instead of ignorance refer to the GAAP accounting methods.
GAAP would have no relevance. The govt is not bound by GAAP
The response was addressed to anonymous who said, “Daniel wants evidence, unlike you. You want to believe it’s “hush money” without evidence.”
The evidence is in Twitters accounting. They are bound by GAAP
The evidence is in Twitters accounting. They are bound by GAAP
There is no doubt twitter recieved the cash. The unknown is for what purpose. That purpose would be found in the FBI accounting. Why you tossed out the term GAAP is the usual deflection and muddying up the conversation.
Just like claiming the money was required by law, with no evidence the law applied.
“. . . refer to the GAAP accounting methods.”
Sure, the FBI and Twitter have lines in their books for: “Hush money expenses,” and “Hush money receipts.”
Crooks always keep accurate books.
I doubt that Musk is going to publish the invoices, but surely he would if they confirmed his “pay for censorship” story. Nothing is stopping you from contacting Twitter and suggesting it. There can also be certainty if they’re asked about it under oath.
Indeed. And Congress could subpoena the records, both from Twitter and the FBI.
That is the standard way of doing things.
To get reimbursed, one sends an invoice. The other party sends a check outlining, by item, the payments for each item. If that procedure is left out, the assumption is the transfer of money was inappropriate.
The invoices and payments are carefully kept in accounting files using GAAP principles to prevent fraud and to leave a paper trail for an IRS audit.
Weisselberg may go to jail because he didn’t follow those procedures. Perhaps some at the FBI and Twitter need to go to jail.
The authors of and the signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration have been proven absolutely correct by the unfolding data, and the ideologues who ramrodded flawed public health policies have shown us what life will be like under regimes that politicize science.
Jonathan: The right-wing hysteria and misinformation about Covid-19 lives on in your column. Trump had a lot more advice on the virus than your quote. In 2020 Trump had 11 tweets promoting unproven therapies like hydroxychoroquine and chloroquine. Remember his suggestion about ingesting Lysol? One Trump follower took chloroquine and died! Fox and other conservative media promoted these quack cures and other unproven remedies. After all this misinformation I can understand why Twitter banned Trump. Sometimes public health comes first. See the National Library of Medicine (11/20/20) for a further analysis of how Trump promoted misinformation about Covid-19.
The Mayo Clinic still says “Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand washing and physical distancing can help slow the spread of the virus”…”. Of course, the ordinary medical mask is not the best choice. The N95 is the best. But I doubt many people have gotten it. Any mask is better than nothing.
Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic you joined the Covid-19 deniers. You even had a column defending a university professor who refused the university’s mandate for vaccinations. You even now reject the medical evidence– “questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination”. You still cling to the false claim that natural immunities can protect most people. There is no medical science that supports this false claim.
Covid-19 is still with us. The Omicron variant has flared up in China and anyone from that country trying to enter the US must be tested. And I know from personal experience the effect of Covid-19. Last month my wife flew to LA to visit friends. She returned and tested positive for the virus–despite the fact that both of us are fully vaccinated. She probably got it in the airport or on the plane and then transmitted it to me. I was sick for 10 days with flew-like symptoms. We both fully recovered. My doctor says without being fully vaccinated we probably would have ended up in the hospital. Not a pleasant prospect.
I remember a neighbor who died in 2021 from Covid-19. He followed Trump’s advice and refused to wear a face mask and didn’t get vaccinated. He came down with the virus and ended up in the hospital on a respirator. He died 3 days later. His wife related that her husband’s nurse told her that in his last hours the husband told the nurse: “Don’t let me die!”. The nurse responded: ” It’s a little late for that now”. That’s a lesson for all you out there who think you are immune.
Trump never said people should inject bleach or Lysol. The only idiot that said this was candidate Biden. https://youtu.be/tz46JG6Or3g
pburchins: I stand corrected. Looking again I also mistakenly used the phrase “ingesting Lysol”. I meant to say “injecting”. I have reviewed Trump’s press conference on 4/23/20. He specifically suggested “injecting” a “disinfectant”. What is bleach and Lysol? What Trump was suggesting was dangerous quack medicine!
Dennis, you continue to mistake what Trump said. He was talking about oxidizing agents (Bleach, disinfectants, etc.).
The white blood cells in the human body and other mammals produce oxidizing agents. Through oxidation and chlorination, they kill pathogens. That substance is known as Hypochlorous acid, related to Hypochlorite or Sodium Hypochlorite (a major component of Bleach). [HClO v ClO v NaClO]
Those with knowledge and understanding think about these things. Those without such knowledge errantly post garbage, trying to prove a point they know nothing about. Trump is not a doctor or scientist. He didn’t study chemistry. Trump got information from those knowledgeable people gathered to provide him with information. That led him in the right direction.
As President, he doesn’t have to know what the formulas look like or how they act. All he has to understand is the direction and then follow up to help the scientists follow that direction. Trump did so with tremendous success, pushing the creation of a vaccine in record time.
Dennis, your attempt at character assassination failed, and intelligent people recognize it. Ignorance is behind your type of character assassination. Maybe you should consider a different field of discussion.
Trump didn’t suggest actually injecting a disinfectant. That is your slanted and pure politically motivated rendition. What he said was that it was something that might be studied for further evaluation and use if it might prove possible. You say you have reviewed Trump’s 4/23/20 press conference. Now, if others will do as well, they will appreciate just how much your credibility is damaged.
“Trump didn’t suggest actually injecting a disinfectant.”
Yes, he did. Here’s his direct quote.
“So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous – whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, “and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it’d be interesting to check that.”
Do you not understand that the word “suppose” means only to think carefully about something before making a decision? Each and every time in offering his comments Trump looked to his advisors to report on the feasibilities and not that any of it should be undertaken before hand without studied research. Listen to the press conference again. Only this time set your bias aside and do it much more carefully.
He suggested “is there a way we can do something like that [with disinfectant], by injection inside…?”
Do you truly think you needs a study to tell you that injecting a disinfectant is dangerous?
“Is there a way?” That’s one of the first questions that has prompted scientists to test hypotheses that might under certain circumstances provide us greater viability. If there isn’t a way, then we trust scientists to tell us that as well. Or, at least we did prior to them not telling us experimental vaccines would not do what they were advertised to do, and could actually be quite harmful and life threatening to many people.
Ron A, Hoffman, do you really need a study to tell you or anyone else that the idea of injecting disinfectant into your body is a good one? disinfectants contain bleach. Common sense would be that NO it’s NOT a good idea and any scientist does not need to study the idea because it’s very well established that injecting a disinfectant into the body will kill anyone. Experimental vaccines are one thing, disinfectants are an entirely different thing. One is designed to be in the body. The other is commonly understood to be an industrial chemical used for non-living things. Seriously, you you really think it needs to be studied as trump suggested?
While chemical disinfectants as you and I may mean them are not practical for human consumption, common sense should tell us it is not a bad idea if any chemical can be made viable. One cannot know if they do not hypothesize that a chemical can be made to work and then experiment to determine whether or not it will..
There’s an overarching point here–Trump had NO business dominating the CDC news conferences, offering his opinions on science, public health, communicable diseases or anything else. But, there were cameras there–he can’t let the doctors have the limelight when he’s up for reelection–so he waddled his fat axx out there, trying to pretend to be important and in control. There is no dispute that Trump made COVID far worse than it had to be by lying about the seriousness, failing to lead by wearing a mask, pushing for the quack “cure” of Hydroxychloroquine, and the other dumb things he said and did. He didn’t, and still doesn’t, understand what leadership is–it’s not getting out in front of the cameras and pretending to be knowledgeable and in charge when in reallity, you are clueless. That’s what narcissism is. Leadership involves deferring to the real experts, supporting their recommendations, encouraging people to do everything possible to stop the spread, instead of saying things like “15 cases will soon be 0 cases”; “you’ll be back in church for Easter”; “it’s just one person coming from China”;….etc.. Thanks to his disinformation and the distrust of science he promoted, parents of children are refusing vaccination for childhood diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, meningitis, and other diseases. Children will die. Pregnant women who contract the rubella virus may miscarry or give birth to a brain-damaged infant, if they come in contact with an unvaccinated child. Trump’s legacy of promoting ignorance and distrust of science and public health continues to pay negative dividends.
Before Penicillin you would be rolling on the floor laughing that such an injection could treat an infection. You are demonstrating the ignorance seen in the fascist mindset.
tell you that injecting a disinfectant is dangerous?
A disinfectant is just something that kills germs. Alcohol is a great disinfectant. So is so is sunlight. Small minds limit themselves to small solutions.
Injecting alcohol will harm you. One cannot bottle sunlight to inject it. No doubt you’ll now move the goalposts to non-injection of non-sunlight.
“Injecting alcohol will harm you.”
Surgeons can put alcohol in IV’s to prevent withdrawal.
“No doubt you’ll now move the goalposts to non-injection of non-sunlight.”
Or one can add capsules of vitamin D.
They don’t infuse it at a concentration where is acts as a disinfectant, which is what we were discussing.
ATS, you said, “Injecting alcohol will harm you.”
You were WRONG. Then you doubled down and said,
“They don’t infuse it at a concentration where is acts as a disinfectant, which is what we were discussing.”
You are WRONG. We are discussing potential Covid treatments, not disinfectants or doses. The infused alcohol prevents withdrawal symptoms, yet alcohol is not a replacement for the Friday night binge. Chemotherapy uses limited medication. Everything provided is in limited amounts, so your comment makes little sense. YOU ARE WRONG.
I’ve been discussing the following:
He suggested “is there a way we can do something like that [with disinfectant], by injection inside…?”
Do you truly think you needs a study to tell you that injecting a disinfectant is dangerous?
iowan said in response that “Alcohol is a great disinfectant.” But it’s only a great disinfectant when it’s sufficiently concentrated. It’s not a good disinfectant when it’s dilute.
I figured that any reader would understand that my response was in the context of alcohol at sufficient concentration that it’s an effective disinfectant, because the entire exchange was about injecting a disinfectant. You are not talking about injecting a disinfectant. You’re talking about infusing very dilute alcohol.
I have no problem clarifying my meaning: Injecting alcohol at a concentration that it’s an effective disinfectant will harm you. You can now act like a good faith discussant and accept that meaning, or you can continue your bad faith trolling ways and make an excuse to reject it.
ATS, YOU ARE WRONG, AND YOU CAN’T TAKE IT.
You are trying to back peddle.
These are your words!
“Injecting alcohol will harm you. ”
I will repeat. “Injecting alcohol will harm you.” Get your statement into your head. Then recognize that surgeons might add a bit of alcohol to the IV fluid if they are worried about withdrawal.
YOU ARE WRONG, plain and simple.
The discussion is not quantitative. It involves effectiveness and safety. The fact that you don’t know what you are talking about is obvious, and so is your back peddling. YOU ARE WRONG, AND EVERYONE SENTIENT KNOWS IT.
“I figured that any reader would understand”
No, you didn’t, ATS. You are now making excuses and playing your usual games. You don’t know what you are talking about. YOU ARE WRONG!
Generally, we use the term disinfectant when cleaning things outside the human body. Disinfectants kill bacteria. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Are they disinfectants when injected? Are disinfectants when added to soap?
You will dishonestly manipulate words at will while picking specific phrases out of responses to create an argument that doesn’t exist. That is your nature. You said, “Injecting alcohol will harm you. ” YOU ARE WRONG. Tuck your tail in and return from where you came.
Trump asked if there was an injection that could do something like that. That is a question, not a fact. You can’t get those two words straight, nor can you think a second layer deep to note that we already inject things to kill pathogens.
Svelaz, should you develop bacterial pneumonia, injecting antibiotics is a treatment. To remove heavy metals, some doctors use chelation. The treatment of dehydration is a continuous injection of fluids until the problem resolves.
The first thing to correct your problems is understanding that learning by rote denotes no understanding of the subject matter. Repeating what you learn by rote, is a duplication of fragments, not an understanding of the concepts repeated.
You show no intellectual ability, and I don’t know if you are capable of any.
Start learning what a dictionary is to discover what the words you are using mean. Then try analyzing what you are saying.
S. Meyer, maybe you should take your own advice.
Trump said “disinfectant”. You know what disinfectants are made of? Alcohols, chlorine and chlorine compounds, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, ortho-phthalaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, iodophors, peracetic acid, phenolics, and quaternary ammonium compounds. Injecting any of that into your body WILL kill you.
Antibiotics are NOT disinfectants.
Chelation uses special drugs specifically to work within the body to remove heavy metals in the blood stream.
Treating dehydration uses saline which is NOT poisonous to the body.
Trump suggested using UV light thru the skin which will not only DAMAGE your skin but also give you cancer. You don’t “shine UV light inside your body either because that is not only stupid, it’s also very harmful to the surrounding tissue. It kills everything including cells.
The “stable genius” was making very stupid suggestions that any scientist would not even consider because we KNOW how harmful those things are.
You’re making arguments from ignorance.
“S. Meyer, maybe you should take your own advice.
Trump said “disinfectant”. You know what disinfectants are made of? Alcohols, chlorine and chlorine compounds”
You are a stupid person. HClO is chlorine-based and produced by the body to kill pathogens. Disinfectants kill pathogens. It is an oxidizing agent like Bleach and Hydrogen Peroxide though they are all different.
Note my words, “that we already inject things to kill pathogens”, and then note the various examples. As I said, you learn by rote, so when you piece things together, the whole makes no sense.
” Injecting any of that into your body WILL kill you.
Yet in smaller amounts, they may not and if injected slowly could help. People get cardiac arrhythmias from low potassium. They can even die. If potassium is injected it might save their lives, but if it is injected too fast it will kill them.
I think a chemical called EDTA is used in chelation. It is also used in sizing to protect the whiteness of your dirty underwear.
Though your brain doesn’t realize it, different things have multiple uses. You can name some of those things while having no understanding of them.
The education system failed you.
Hello S. Meyer:
I’m certain that you and I are both smiling at the omnipotence of Svelaz’s knowledge and authority.
As you know, Svelaz and his counterpart Anonymous are very critical and exacting when it comes to qualitative or quantitative words used in others’ comments. Perhaps Svelaz did not mean to use the word “any” when he said, “Injecting any of that into your body WILL kill you.”
Perhaps Svelaz did not know that formaldehyde (which he cites) can be found in many vaccines, including the flu vaccine. And hydrogen peroxide (which he cites) is administered by IV infusion in some treatment protocols.
(But most of these disinfectants are primarily used NOT as active ingredients, but as adjuvants (to enhance the effect(s) of the main ingredients and/or to stabilize/sterilize them in storage.) So, “injecting” them–as primary/active ingredients for “cidal” effect– is still nascent in R&D, because we currently rely on several proven bacteriocidal and virucidal treatment.
Of course, as to ingestion v. injection, hydrogen peroxide (which he cites) was once heavily used to disinfect drinking water, especially in Europe. God knows, my very healthy springer spaniel has had as much as a half bottle poured into him (by the veterinarian) after ingesting (1) animal remains in the woods, and (2) RV antifreeze left in winterized RV toilet, -the propylene glycol type. (Of course, most of it came back up–the very purpose in this case!) Today, we use chlorine (which he cites) in drinking water.
-Oh, and household bleach (which he cites) “is fairly benign when ingested.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441921/.
As an aside, I,for one, did not find Trump’s question (as a lay person) dumb or deserving of the political scorn that it received in the media. It was an honest question from him. I am neither a doctor nor a medical researcher and my knowledge is limited to my time in medicine. (Where is Estovir when I need him, ha ha!) but I believe Estovir would agree with what I just said (above).
Perhaps Svelaz needs to stay away from wikipedia and internet searches when he advises others.
(I think you and I knew most of this already, but perhaps Svelaz needs to either ingest or inject this information into his brain, n’est ce pas? Or give up wikipedia as a New Year’s resolution.
Lin, people drink bleach Clorox to kill themselves. They can survive, but it racks hell out of the esophagus because the Ph is high.
Svelaz is an idiot and a liar. I stopped being polite to him because of that. If one provides proof, Svelaz continues repeating what he said. If the proof came from a reliable source, he would claim it was not sent. If again it is resent, he repeats the same things he did before and says he never got it. When you show him the links proving the responses exist in multiple places, he walks away but repeats the same claims later.
This type of individual should be shunned and insulted because the game he plays is dissing everyone.
Here are two links showing why Svelaz should be insulted.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/09/trust-but-verify-new-documents-show-how-trust-executives-misled-congress-and-the-public/comment-page-2/#comment-2244914
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
Thanks for all your wonderful comments.
S. Meyer: Excerpted from the NIH article I cited:
“The toxicity of bleach….It causes significant eye irritation and irritates the mouth and throat but is fairly benign when ingested.”
“Common household bleach is relatively benign to the skin and GI tract; dilution is usually sufficient.”
“Mouth/throat: In the home and emergency department, give plenty of water to drink. Milk may be more soothing but not necessarily.”
“Stomach/GI tract: At home and in the emergency department, do not induce vomiting; if the bleach burned on the way down, it would burn on the way back up. Give plenty of water.”
I was simply intending to address Svelaz’s authoritative declaration and especially, his use of the word “any.”
But yeah, you are correct, we don’t want to mix bleach with our vodka or champagne on New Years Eve.
-Here’s to a good new year for you and yours.
You too, Lin. I bet Svelaz doesn’t know that one can throw Clorox (Bleach) in the pool because the real stuff is more concentrated. Yet people are known to swallow a lot of pool water. I bet he also doesn’t know that epsom salts good for baths can also be used to make plants grow greener. I use salt in my pool because it provides the chlorine.
He is stuck on individual items of information and is unable to piece things together.
Happy New year in advance to you and your family.
COVID in early 2020 was a crisis. That it came from China (just like the previous COVID) was concerning. Nothing was off of the table for discussion. And yet, what morphed into a death panel of health “experts” to silence, mock, denigrate and ruin professionally anybody who disagreed with them was something I thought would never, ever happen. Yet it did. Trump asked a question. The apoplectic response by the usual suspects was a sign that our nation was no longer slouching towards Gomorrah. We were now sinking in the La Brea Tar Pits
I saw nothing wrong with Trump’s question. Perhaps a bit off but Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, et al are just as culpable if not worse given their decades in Congress. We had far more important things to address than what Trump asked. But perhaps I misread all of the signs.
the Feds have now ipso facto taken command of the US health care, which I suspect was their plan all along. IMHO, COVID was used by the Feds to throw millions of people into Medicaid, crack the whip to ensure all us followed the dictums of the CDC and FDA guidelines, and here we are. The more I learn how the FBI used Big Tech to silence differing opinions, the more I believe COVID was an opportunity to convert America’s healthcare system into the UK’s NICE healthcare system. The latter is on the edge of literally collapsing
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/26/rishi-sunak-told-care-system-risk-collapse-workers-not-paid/
”
Estovir says:
December 30, 2022 at 4:45 PM
COVID in early 2020 was a crisis. ……… ”
I agree with most of what you wrote here.
Svelaz – you people seem to have no object in life but maligning Trump. “Shining light” on the body is not “injecting” the body in any way. And calling for research is not a recommendation for doing anything. Trump has the same right of speculation and even “thinking out loud” that anyone of us has.
You are such an idiot and not worth the brain cells to rebut your nonsense.
Dennis, you say that Trump had 11 Tweets ” Promoting unproven therapies”. Anyone who takes medical advise from a social media format ( Twitter) or from a non-medical professional ( Trump) deserves exactly what they get.
My wife is a medical practice manager. Has 11 doctors in her practice. I have had many conversations with them. There is a tremendous difference in dying WITH and dying FROM Covid. Basically if you are not obese, not elderly and don’t have any comorbidities it is a bad flu.
I am vaccinated. But I am NEVER putting on a mask again. Unless I am in a hospital or medical facility where people are already likely compromised.
I will carry around 2 masks in my pocket. And if someone vilifies me for not having a mask on, I will simply hand them my extra mask. Total of 2 masks.
Covid is not going away. Just like influenza. But I don’t think that shutting down the economy or denying children in person learning is the appropriate response.
For those who may not know, the sociopathic nurse who said “It’s a little late for that now” was Mildred Ratched.
“Covid-19 is still with us.”
Then why does the administration want to drop Title 42? Is Covid only an eastern border virus, but not a southern border one? Does it say to itself: I’ll infect certain ethnicities but not others?
Ugh Dennis, get some new material. Your TDS talking points are so old. None of what you said holds any water. Especially now. As for masks Dennis, did you ever read the warning on the side of the box they came in?
The flimsy excuse you use is meaningless
The warrants attained have NOTHING to do with any investigation. The sweet thing about warrants, they cannot be challenged until the evidence is presented in court. Since there is no crime, there will be no charges, and the warrant has served its purpose to lavishly reward private business to follow the orders of the FBI.
This is an accounting scam the OIG should be investigating. Using this scam to pay off big tech is criminal
What warrants are you referring to?
The warrants required to trigger payments.
You’re confusing warrants and court orders.
For some bizarre reason, you’re also assuming that investigations of child porn, etc., never lead to court cases.
They didnt spend $3mill for child porn.
Apparently you don’t know the meaning of “etc.”
The facts are the same. Court approved orders can’t be shown to be corrupt if cases never appear at trial. The corrupt FBI has figured out the scam. Lying to get subpoenas, and court orders, is barely a loitering offense as compared to lying to FISA courts.
You are intent on defending a corrupt, terribly political federal police agency. That you support such an anti democratic institution, colors everything you support.
It was not just twitter. its also google, apple, amazon, facebook, etal.
The fact is that you imagine “The warrants attained have NOTHING to do with any investigation,” but have zero evidence for your claim. Nada. Zilch. Nothing but your imagination.
” but have zero evidence for your claim.
I have the evidence of FBI corruption.
You have zero evidence the payments were due to legal investigations
That’s false. We have Twitter’s own reference to SCALE (their Safety, Content, & Law Enforcement team) and the fact that the money is referred to as “reimbursement.” The money one makes as profit is not a reimbursement; typically one only reimburses costs. More to the point, Twitter’s “Guidelines for law enforcement” (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-enforcement-support) state in the section titled “Cost reimbursement” that “Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706).” That 2706 reimbursement is explicitly for 2702, 2703, or 2704 orders: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2706
That 2706 reimbursement is explicitly for 2702, 2703,…
twitter is a willing partner with the Govt.
Twitter is a partner with the govt
The govt agress to pay them to censor, and hide the payments as 2706 reimbursements.
Nobody was going to challenge it. If they do get caught, Garland wont prosecute. That’s the problem with corrupt enforcement agencies and corrupt DoJ.
But you fully support the corruption.
“That 2706 reimbursement is explicitly for 2702, 2703,…”
Yes!!
Those are court-ordered data gathering for criminal investigations!
“The govt agress to pay them to censor, and hide the payments as 2706 reimbursements.”
You have zero evidence of that.
There is a reason for the constitution preventing the govt from abridging the freedom of the Press. In the context of the time, ‘press’ meant printing press. The conduit of mass communication. It did not mean the media. ‘News’ was an amorphous concept with no easily definable meaning. But free and open communication and debate was one of the guard rails protecting a free and transparent Government.
Proving that the FBI and various other federal and state Govt
wereare actively censoring citizens speech through using private entities as government proxies.“Proving that the FBI and various other federal and state Govt were are actively censoring citizens . . .”
And as we’re now discovering, there are Propaganda Ministers not only at the FBI, but also at DHS, the CDC, HHS (among others).
When DHS dumped “Mary Poppins,” some cheered — too soon.
James Baker needs to be held accountable for his multitude of actions, so many of which either break the law, push the envelope of the legal restraints he was obligated to abide by, or acted just plain vindictively and stupidly, Unamerican in the extreme.
After having been a close associate of FBI Director James Comey, James Baker resigned from the FBI in May, 2018, and went to the Brookings Institute (democrat think tank), then joined a lobbying firm, and eventually landed at Twitter as General Counsel. Clearly, he brought his political opinions and ideology along with him in his travels from government to private sector, and ended up serving the anti-Trump establishment in the private sector just has he had while at the FBI.
And THAT highlights a serious loophole in arguments concerning private sector censorship.
It’s well established that the government is prohibited by the First Amendment from engaging in censorship, while the private sector has no such prohibition when acting on its own volition. But via litigation, more people are recognizing that the private sector is also prohibited from engaging in censorship if it is done at the behest of the government, either per request, command, or coercion:
“2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to
take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a
lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220,
1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of
adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”
Paragraph 2 of original Complaint, Missouri v Biden Case 3:22-cv-01213, filed 5=5=2022 — ongoing
So James Baker is a prime example of the reason people should remain alert to the gaping loophole in the law, where people in government might do as James Baker did in this instance, which was (1) leave government, (2) take a position in the private sector, and (3) proceed to engage in the censorship that he was prohibited from engaging in while in government, without needing to be asked, commanded, or coerced into engaging in that censorship.
Perhaps the laws need amending, such that private companies also are prohibited from engaging in censorship regardless of government requests, commands, or coercion if they have former government officials working in upper decision-making positions.
People also need to start demanding to know WHERE our Attorneys General and Inspectors General have been for the last several years while dozens of backchannels have apparently been set up and operating — some OPENLY — by which our lawless government has been passing along requests, commands, or threats aimed at getting private companies to engage in Soviet-style censorship advantageous to the government or to a political party that has members strategically positioned in our sprawling bureaucracy.
Well, I think we can say that AG Barr was very busy refusing to prosecute Federal LEO miscreants and making speeches. As for AG Garland, let’s not even pretend he’d consider lifting a finger.
As for the Inspectors General, perhaps they are made to take sleeping pills when they arrive at work, and allowed to wake up enough to get them home after 5PM. Or else the swamp has mutated them into something other than they are employed to serve as.
About the Inspectors General, there is this information concerning their function(s):
https://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/FAQs-About-OIG-Investigations.aspx#:~:text=OIG%20initiates%20investigations%20based%20on,from%20OSC%20regarding%20whistleblower%20disclosures.
“Q: What matters does OIG investigate and how do they originate?
A: OIG investigates a variety of matters, including allegations of fraud involving Commerce Department grants and contracts; improprieties in the administration of Department programs and operations; allegations of employee misconduct; and other issues concerning ethics and compliance received through OIG’s hotline. OIG also investigates alleged reprisals against whistleblowers within the Department, as well as its contractors and certain grant recipients.
OIG initiates investigations based on information received from a variety of sources, including: OIG’s fraud, waste and abuse hotline; Departmental, GAO, and DOJ referrals; Congressional requests; and referrals from OSC regarding whistleblower disclosures. While anonymous complaints are accepted, they often present the greatest difficulty to investigate as there is not a person for OIG to contact for allegation particulars.”
Key sentences: “OIG investigates — improprieties in the administration of Department programs and operations; allegations of employee misconduct; and other issues concerning ethics and compliance received through OIG’s hotline.”
Considering the staggering volume of censorship revealed in just the EARLY stages (according to Musk) of the “Twitter Files” and ongoing Missouri v Biden lawsuit, it’s VERY hard to imagine that none of the Inspectors General received complaints over the last several years about government officials coordinating censorship with Twitter, Facebook, and Google, so it looks to me like we need to revamp the Inspectors General Corp simultaneously with dismantelling the FBI and other agencies that have fallen into lawless disrepair.
If we dismantled every federal agency which has fallen into irreprably lawless disrepair, how many would be left? ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, indeed.
“Brick by brick, my fellow citizens, brick by brick.”
Ralph, you’re overlooking a major flaw in your argument. Baker was a private citizen when he went to work for twitter as counsel. Just because he used to work in government doesn’t mean he wasn’t able to “violate” the 1st amendment. What you describe is not a “loophole”. It’s how the law works. Once Baker left government he was free to suggest censorship if he thought it was something that needed to be. Nothing in the law or the constitution says he can’t do that. He was well within his right to ask whether Trump’s tweet was worthy of being censored according to twitter’s TOS.
You inadvertently made a case against your own argument by mentioning the fact that Baker LEFT government to be in the PRIVATE sector. Wishing to ban Trump’s tweet was not illegal or unconstitutional and it’s certainly not a “loophole”.
Baker left the FBI, became General Counsel at Twitter, and suddenly Twitter began receiving payments FROM THE FBI — there’fore acting as an agent-employee OF THE FBI.
There are no holes in my argument — only holes in your understanding of the law and applicable FACTS. My argument is easy enough to understand for anyone who WANTS to understand it, troll.
Ralph, the payments and Baker becoming counsel at twitter are two separate issues. One having nothing to do with the other.
He was not an “agent-employee”. He was a private individual working for twitter. Your argument is still flawed.
Despite Turley’s conspiracy theorist insinuations. He neglects the fact that Twitter DID the right thing according to their policies. Baker is a private citizen and not government agent and he is, like everyone else, human and has his own impulses. That is why twitter as shown by the files so far debates these issues all the time. What is interesting is that they were essentially forced to make those decisions often due to the nature of Trump’s massive tweet dumps often violating their policies. It shows that twitter gave Trump a LOT of leeway in what he tweeted despite the fact that a lot of his tweets DID violate twitter”s TOS.
Trump abused that privilege to the point where Twitter had enough and finally as it was their right, decided to ban Trump permanently.
These “scandals” only serve as fodder for Turley’s MAGA nutties and those addicted to raging against anything democrat or leftist. He loves to feed the rage and it shows. The hypocrisy is stark. He’s critical of “age of rage” politics and punditry and those who enable it while doing it as if none would really notice it.
Read the twitter files.
Take a course in morality and ethics.
Read something by Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Buber, Mill, Nietche, Kierkegard
Given the tenor of its comments, I don’t believe Szvelaz capable of comprehending any of those, from the twitter files on up. Alas.
Then he can start with the ten commandments.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
Self government is not possible without morality.
Kudos – possibly my favorite Adams quote. But Szvelaz is in need of something more along the lines of deprogramming first.
I cannot disagree with your final point. However, morality requires backbone, not an echo chamber for aggrievement and outrage.
One problem I have with Svelaz is that it actually requires above average intelligence to engage in the convoluted games of delusion and self delusion that he does constantly.
No John, your problem lies with your inability to comprehend what you are reading because you are so entrenched in your biases that you cannot see things any other way. You’re already stuck with the immorality argument because you can’t argue or debate on the facts.
When you ARE faced with unimpeachable facts you willfully dismiss them or declare that you don’t care, deflect, obfuscate, or move the goalposts like many do on the blog.
For example we have those folks claiming the FBI paid twitter to censor content. But when faced with the facts and the law saying exactly what it is that they are doing they dismiss it as “garbage” or “nonsense” because they DON”T want to acknowledge that the facts are NOT supporting THEIR speculations and assumptions gleaned from others who are just as ignorant of the facts as they are. These claims are borne out of a vicious cycle of ignorance fed by the ignorance of others that becomes a wall against reality. That’s how religions function. It’s not surprising that it has the same effect with the conspiracy theories that you enable and participate in.
What a confused and muddled post of yours.
I am biased – because I will not accept “unimpeachable facts” which you admit are just reading between the lines.
Regardless, ONCE AGAIN – you have not read what you claimed to have read.
And what little of it you have does not say what you claim.
Your “unimpeachable facts” are your biases coming through, not only without basis in fact, but usually directly contradicting fact.
And you wonder why you are immoral ?
John,
Svelaz is not going to start with the Ten Commandments, the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, The Law, or any other resource readily available to inform and educate citizens in this republic. Svelaz is not, as I’ve previously suggested, a useful idiot. Even a useful idiot will accidentally admit when some entity is abusing power. Not Svelaz. With atomic clock reliability, he will argue in defense of whatever entity is alleged to be abusing power, with one exception. If that entity is conservative or linked to the Republican party. Svelaz is a modern day Tory. Unfortunately we aren’t in the 18th century where he’d be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail.
Olly, you left out the communist manifesto. That would be his bible.
While his defenses of abuse of power are nearly always stupid. They are often creative displaying that he has atleast slightly above average intellect.
Though I can not honestly understand how anyone much a smart person can tolerate the massive conflicts within their values.
I have at times throughout my life held atleast partly to just about every ideology there is – though the current of libertarianism was always present if deep below the surface.
But my views have changed over time whenever they confront a contradiction that can not be resolved while retaining my values.
While at GA Tech in the late 70’s studying architecture we were asked to redesign the entire city of Atlanta to be sustainable within 3 years.
Because oil was projected to run out by 1984. It quickly became obvious that was an impossible project.
But what effected me was – lets assume that this catastrophe occurs. And assume that at most 1/3 of Atlanta is sustainable (5% would be massively optomistic) What happens when 1/3 of people have heat and food, and 2/3 do not ? I realized that an essential element of a sustainable home in atlanta was machine gun turrets. I also realized that I did not want to be among the “wise” who had shifted to sustainable living and was going to have to murder the people who had not to stay alive myself.
John, it’s not an abuse of power. You only see it that way because there are others telling you and lying to you, exploiting that heavy bias you have against the left and taking advantage of your inability to see anything else. You’re applying morality to all of this as the basis of your objections and that is all fine and dandy by itself, BUT, BUT, that’s not all that is involved in looking at the issue. It requires much more than just seeing things thru a moral lens. Complex issues require complex understanding and views in order to make sense of it. Inferences of what is between the lines of all the articles, reports, opinion pieces, rhetoric, analyses, etc. Many people don’t want to deal with all that despite the fact that most of the time you HAVE to do that in order to understand the proper context of what is being debated or argued. Many on this blog go for the easiest, simplest explanation that doesn’t require any effort on their part to understand, but just accept.
To really get the whole picture on a issue requires a LOT of research that others already do. Some choose to cherry pick for partisan reasons and create a false narrative to feed to those too lazy or not able to understand everything because it’s too much or beyond their comprehension.
It’s like farmers trying to argue with quantum physics scientist about a problem related to quantum physics.
Svelaz, I think for myself. Something you do not do.
To the extent that “others” influence me that would be people like Plato, or Augustine or Aquinas or Kant or Locke or John Stuart Mill.
When I accuse you and others of immoral action – it is for conduct that violated moral precepts we have taken thousands of years to evolve.
You may not infringe on the rights of others by force without justification. Justifified infringement is rare, It is things like self defense.
If you seek to infringe on the rights of others the DUTY to justify your action is with YOU – the actor, the infringer, not those whose rights you are infringing on. That is an afirmative duty – the Burden of proof is on YOU and it is high.
Many people find your conduct and that you defend immoral and outrageous. I would not be surprised that some are on Fox.
But my principles do not derive from Fox.
I have cited John Stuart Mill, Voltaire, Locke, Adam’s, Jefferson, and could cite many many others.
I did not cite Tucker Carlson. Frankly while I have little doubt he has reported on this – which he should.
I have no idea what he has said.
If he has made the same arguments as I have – good for him.
If he has made better ones – good for him.
While may principles and arguments do not come from Fox, ultimately it does not matter where they come from .
That Adolph Hitler was a vile human, does not change the fact that he treated dogs well.
What is true, is true, regardless of where it comes from.
And it is true that your actions and those you defend are immoral.
Time and again you have demonstrated a complete inability to deal with anything complex.
That said, most of the issues you and I debate are NOT complex.
Government is FORCE – Always.
If you doubt that – see how long you can refuse to do something government asks of you.
I would note that Government is FORCE specifically because it is tasked to do what requires force.
The social contract surrenders each individuals right to initiate force in return for Government protection from force initiated by others.
Government protects our rights using FORCE.
The use of force to infringe on the rights of another Must be justified, and the burden is on the party infringing on others rights.
The unjustified infringement on the rights of others is immoral.
Your acts and those you defend are immoral.
There is nothing complex about this.
While it is immoral to silence lies, it is all the more immoral to silence the truth.
It is a violation of the rights of those you silence, it is also a violation of the right of those who may have chosen to hear.
In this instance what is true was known or knowable at the time.
Often it is not – again another reason you can not silence others at whim, because no matter how sure you are of what is true.
Often you will be wrong.
What I have against the left – particularly the left today is that they are a regression to an ideology that has failed bloodily.
I think that is an excellent justification for animus against the left.
As a teen I had some involvement with christian evangelicals. I recall Prof. Haidt more recently saying that religion is one of the attributes that is both universal and unique to humans. I have found that with a few individual exceptions nearly everyone who does not adhere to some organized religion has made a religion of something else. No communist regime has ever failed to make a religion out of socialism.
Global Warming is not just a religion it is a cult. The left today is more religious than any evangelical bible study I encountered as a teen.
One thing that is very common in all religions is the emergence of those who use the religious to acheive power. It is often true that the leaders of religious movements excempt themselves from the precepts of the religion that prosthelitze
Whether it is Jimmy Swiegart or Al Gore.
“ Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
John if you’re going to quote John Adams. Quote the full statement. It is not what your partial statement implies. Here’s the full quote which doesn’t say what you imply.
“ But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in the rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Note that Adams is equating morality with religion. He’s using religion as a synonym for moral thinking opposed to greed, revenge, and other motives that make the workings of democracy difficult.
Some people today have been using the last part of the quote to quite inaccurately claim that Adams was a supporter of organized religion and a proponent of a closer relationship between organized religion and government.
That’s simply not the case.“
Context matters.
that Adams was a supporter of organized religion and a proponent of a closer relationship between organized religion and government.
Meaningless twaddle. You are using church and religion interchangeably. The are distinct to themselves. Adams never sought a close relationship between the Federal Govt and the church.
For someone who is constantly arguing that critical thinking means “reading between the lines” svelaz is remarkably bad at reading what is actually written.
The FIRST step in “reading comprehension” is to accurately read what is actually written.
Your full quote and the more frequently referenced single sentence are not at odds.
Adam’s does equate morality with religion. That is a reasonable connection.
Teaching morality is the domain of religion.
Adam’s did beleive that morality and religion could not be separated.
But that is not my argument, and not critical to his.
Adam’s remark is a tautology.
Without a moral foundation people can not govern themselves.
If they get that foundation from religion – fine.
If they can get a solid moral foundation elsewhere – that is OK too.
But I would note that Morality is not subjective.
The left today is itself a new religion and offers a new morality.
It is a religion absent a god or gods, But still a religion.
For the most part I do not much care about that religion – except that it may not be imposed on the rest of us by force any more than Methodism can.
The more important feature is that this religion offers a new and false morality.
And that makes self govenrment increasingly difficult in a country where the left is a part of the electorate.
We see this with the twitter files.
Not only was what occurred OBVIOUSLY immoral – tens of thousands of people were involved in that immorality.
Large conspiracies are very rare – because the larger the conspiracy the more likely someone can not cope with the moral conflict and comes forward.
The destruction of morality in the left makes large scale conspiracies possible.
Because those involved – like you do not believe they did anything wrong.
That is BTW why socialism nearly always leads to bloodshed.
When people lose proper moral foundations and replace those with the faux beleif of leftists that they are good people for forcing their will on others. it becomes easier and easier to use violence against those that oppose – because obviously they are bad people and deserve violence.
Ellen, I understand the files just fine. What they are saying is not what Turley or those on the right want them to say.
John, I’ve read the files. The problem is that a lot of what is claimed to be in those files is not what many people think. They WANT it to be about what they have been told by others instead of really thinking for themselves.
Again this has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Twitter was well within it’s right to censor things they deemed in violation of their policies even things that didn’t really fit the definitions of their policies. Was it unethical at times? Sure. Would I have agreed with it. No, but as you have acknowledged recently EVERYONE who agrees to their terms is bound to be subjected to those terms and that includes censorship regardless of whether it’s unethical or immoral and that is the point that you keep missing despite acknowledging it briefly.
Now that Elon runs it a lot o things he’s done are unethical and immoral since he has violated his own company’s TOS multiple times. Do I think it’s right? No. BUT I do know that it’s HIS right and HIS prerogative and those who signed up and agreed to the TOS under his terms are still being subjected to the same “unethical or immoral”, even “unfair” actions that have happened under his command. yet I don’t see you whining and complaining about it like you are now. I know why and I know it’s exactly what I’m doing with these arguments taking the logical position.
“Twitter was well within it’s right to censor things they deemed in violation of their policies even things that didn’t really fit the definitions of their policies.”
The “Twitter Files” reveal that Twitter received over $3 million payment from or through the FBI (accounting audit NEEDED).
That payment describes an employer-employee relationship whereby Twitter was acting as an AGENT of the FBI (or whoever was passing the money through the FBI to Twitter). It is a basic principle of law that an agent cannot do for it’s client or employer what the client or employer are prohibited by law from doing for themselves.
Twitter was paid for work done by court order in criminal investigations:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
I’m not aware of any information indicating or confirming that the payments referenced in the “Twitter Files” were, IN FACT, related to subpoenas or court orders. The fact that the law allows for payments for those purposes does NOT constitute evidence that the payments were made for those purposes.
That article is pure rhetorical garbage concocted by an FBI apologist.
The vast bulk of communications between government entities and Twitter were either flagging information under the pretense that the FBI was concerning about people violating Twitter’s “rules” or direct requests that information be removed. Acting as fact-checkers and screeners for Twitter is NOT the proper function of the FBI — or DHS, CDC, CIA, State Department, or any of the other agencies that were (and likely still are) in continuous communication with Twitter.
Meanwhile, until there is an official AUDIT confirming what the payments were for and where the money came from, the payments are highly suspect, and the one thing they confirm beyond doubt is a BUSINESS relationship whereby Twitter was paid with money that came from the FBI, but was not necessarily the FBI’s money.
It reminds one of how the FBI was “investigating” the Russia Collusion Hoax without mentioning that the allegations came from Hillary and the DNC. I won’t be a bit suprised to learn that the money that the FBI paid to Twitter came from the same sources. And the date mentioned in relation to the payments is also worth noting. Why cite THAT date? Wasn’t the FBI sending demands for information pursuant to subpoenas and court orders for a decade PRIOR to that date?
Ralph,
“I’m not aware of any information indicating or confirming that the payments referenced in the “Twitter Files” were, IN FACT, related to subpoenas or court orders.”
That’s exactly why your view is wrong. You’re not aware of the facts and yet you keep saying things that are not supported by the facts.
“that article is pure rhetorical garbage concocted by an FBI apologist.”
Nope. It’s your inability to refute it that makes it a problem for you, so you dismiss it out of hand. It’s still true, even if you disagree with it.
ATS, you are hanging on to junk, Tech Dirt. Buy stock in clean dirt. It will be more productive. The reason you don’t quote from the site and defend the quote is you are linking to garbage. The Empty Wheel you used to cite is brilliant compared to Tech Dirt and the Empty Wheel was such a failure you abandoned it.
Your appeals to authority are non stop.
Your appeals to common sense and fact do not exist.
Ralph, that payment was required by law. Here’s a great explanation of what those payments really are.
“ The law already says that if the FBI is legally requesting information for an investigation under a number of different legal authorities, the companies receiving those requests can be reimbursed for fulfilling them.
(a)Payment.—
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.
But note what this is limited to. These are investigatory requests for information, or so called 2703(d) requests, which require a court order.”
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
This is why one needs to think for themselves instead of relying on others to tell you, especially others who are equally uninformed about the facts.
Sorry, troll. The fact that there are legal mechanisms for making payments under certain circumstances doesn’t constitute evidence that those circumstances relate to THESE payments. The vast majority of commnications evidenced in the “Twitter Files” so far have ZERO to do with responding to subpoenas or court orders.
Ralph, your ignorance is your biggest impediment to understanding what the law is telling you about these payments. The FBI is required to pay twitter for the cost providing certain information related to a court order in an investigation.
“ Twitter Files” so far have ZERO to do with responding to subpoenas or court orders.”
That’s because the payments are an entirely separate issue. It’s what you’re not getting.
Since this very argument – that governmental influence to the point of suasion over private entity decisions can render those entities effective agents of the state under the law as it stands, I’m afraid he/she/them/it/unicornself/completenonentitysearchingforidentity can’t actually read, but must rely on oral reports before commenting.
“ Since this very argument – that governmental influence to the point of suasion over private entity decisions can render those entities effective agents of the state under the law”
That’s not how the law works. Merely flagging content or referring tweets to twitter does not automatically make them agents of the government. The law is very specific on what is required for that to be legally relevant. Wishing it to be is not a valid legal argument.
Obviously you have not.
Are you going to tell us all you “read between the lines” ?
Regardless, this is not about “what is in there is not what people think”.
You can not even get basic facts correct.
Why should you be trusted ?
The answer is you can’t.
I do not believe that you have actually read the twitter files.
Your remarks show no evidence you read them
You get basic facts wrong.
But then you are immoral
“ Regardless, this is not about “what is in there is not what people think”.
Yes it is, because that’s a basic component of what constitutes reading for comprehension. It’s literally what thinking critically means.
“ I do not believe that you have actually read the twitter files.
Your remarks show no evidence you read them
You get basic facts wrong.
But then you are immoral”
That’s because what you consider to be basic facts are not what you think it means. You’re the one who is having difficulty comprehending what you are reading because of your need to see everything regarding the left ad evil and always wrong. You don’t read with an objective mind. You read with a heavily biased view that skews your understanding. That’s why you keep reverting to red herring arguments involving morality.
“Yes it is, because that’s a basic component of what constitutes reading for comprehension. It’s literally what thinking critically means.”
No.
Reading between the lines is not reading comprehension.
Reading between the lines is not thinking critically.
You are confusing trying to guess at what is not said,
What can be derived logically from the facts provided.
You are confusing being intuitive with being logical and methodical.
Some people are extremely intuitive – they are actually good at “reading between the lines”.
You are not one of those. The people who are good at it are not common.
Most of us suck. Most of us do not know that we suck.
Being logical and methodical are completely different. Most anyone with an above average IQ can manage logical and methodical
and reliably get good results.
Intuition – even with those who are good at it, gets them rapidly to good results maybe 70% of the time – if they are really good.
The rest they are stuck.
Logical and methodical is slower but should ALWAYS get you to the correct solution eventually.
Optimally we can combine them. But very few people have good intuition.
Again YOU are not one of those.
I beleive my personal intuitive skills are better than average.
But I am well aware that intuition can and frequently does lead to dead ends.
I address problems logically and methodically.
I allow intuition to direct my initial application of logic.
But all answers must be tested against facts and logic.
It is very easy to intuit an answer, be completely wrong and never figure out that you are wrong.
Mind reading is a mistake. Few people are good at it.
Almost no one is good enough to rely on.
Further too much emphasis on mind reading an intuition leads people to try to decide right and wrong by intentions, and feelings, rather than actions and results.
John B. Say,
Comprehension by inference IS reading between the lines. It’s an important skill to have to really be able to understand what you are reading. Applying inference skills involves the interpretive level of comprehension. Often a textbook author does not literally state information. Thus, it is up to you to infer such implied facts from the information given. This can be applied to the twitter files.
“Comprehension by inference IS reading between the lines.”
Nope, that is not at all what reading comprehension is.
“It’s an important skill to have to really be able to understand what you are reading.”
Some people are better at mind reading that others.
Being actually good at it is useful.
Very few are.
It is also dangerous even for those who are good at it
“Applying inference skills involves the interpretive level of comprehension.”
Your jumping arround – inferance is not reading between the lines. It is a valid form of ligic.
It is also objectively testable for correctness.
You can telll if you are mind reading rather than drawing a valid inference, because you can test the inference for validity.
“Often a textbook author does not literally state information.”
That would be a poor text book.
“Thus, it is up to you to infer such implied facts from the information given.”
Textbooks should never require reading between the lines. With rare exceptions textbooks should not require “inferance” which is something different.
“This can be applied to the twitter files.”
Reading between the lines can not validly be applied to anything.
Proper logical inferences can. One differences is that inferances follow rules of logic and are testable.
More left wing nut word salad.
You can not change actions by changing the words you use to describe them.
What you are now calling “inferances” are not valid. They are testable and they fail.
You can not equate mind reading, ouija boards, or guessing with the application of logic or probability.
Lets start with simple.
Were people silenced who were telling the truth ?
About the NY Post story ?
About Covid ?
About Election problems ?
Ordinary problems have ZERO problems answering YES to each of those questions.
That is a violation of their rights.
It is also a violation of the rights of those denied the opportunity to hear the truth.
Was this violation of rights justified ?
Ordinary people have no problem answering NO.
But you can not because that would require accepting that conduct was not moral.
“ Were people silenced who were telling the truth ?
About the NY Post story ?
About Covid ?
About Election problems ?”
Yes.
“ That is a violation of their rights.
It is also a violation of the rights of those denied the opportunity to hear the truth.”
No. Because private entities cannot literally violate their rights since those very same people AGREED to the terms of that private entity that they voluntarily signed up to use. They gave their rights away the moment they agreed.
They don’t have a constitutional right to post on Twitter or hear the truth on twitter. They have plenty of other options besides twitter to exercise their rights.
“ Was this violation of rights justified ?”
Yes, because they literally gave away their rights the moment they signed up and agreed to their terms. The constitution’s prohibitions don’t apply to private entities. This is not a difficult concept, but you seem to be unable to grasp the basic reality that every one of those folks who signed up and ended up banned or censored AGREED to THEIR terms. They stupidly and literally gave away their rights to be able to join a private social media platform.
“Ordinary people have no problem answering NO.
But you can not because that would require accepting that conduct was not moral.”
Ordinary people keep agreeing to terms and conditions that they never read. It’s not about morality. It’s about simple stupidity that people mindlessly keep repeating because they need to be on the platform at any cost, oblivious to the fact that the cost involves giving twitter the right to censor them or ban them if they deem their actions in violation of the terms they…AGREED TO.
“No. Because private entities cannot literally violate their rights”
Of course they can.
First just because you agree to something does not mean it is not a violation of your rights.
If I contract with you to allow you to kill me – isn’t killing me a violation of my rights ?
There are limits on your ability to agree to violate your own rights.
We are both agreed that the First amendment only applies to government.
But the principle of free speech is not limited to government.
Lets try another example. You are an employee at a biolab.
You have signed an NDA – a contract that forbids you from telling anyone anything that occurs inside the lab.
You witness a failure that results in a very dangerous pathogen getting to the public.
If you violate the NDA, the release can be quickly contained and only a few people will die.
If you do not violate the NDA – millions will die.
What is the moral choice ?
Morality is about right and wrong.
Sometimes, often other rules, contracts, etc. are the guidelines for morality
It is usually wrong to violate a contract.
But it is not aways wrong.
Contracts are not inherently right or wrong.
They are suggestive of right and wrong.
A contract that deprives people the truth of a significant issue is not binding.
“The constitution’s prohibitions don’t apply to private entities. This is not a difficult concept”
Correct, also irrelevant.
First the constitutions prohibitions do apply to the government.
That is why so much of this discussion has focused on the FBI.
The FBI violated the constitution. Government can not do indirectly what it can not do directly.
Next, we all hope that the constitution and the laws that derive from it are moral.
But the constitution is NOT and does not pretend to be a framework for morality.
It is a framework for govenrment, the constitution has roots in morality.
The first amendment right to free speech goes far beyond government.
It is just not generally enforceable by government outside of government.
The right to free speech is both derived from morality – right and wrong.
And ultitiy – what works and what does not.
People do contract to do immoral things – like murder people.
We neither consider those contracts legally binding nor moral.
Assuming Twitter followed its TOS – which they did not,
Assuming every claim you have made is correct – which it is not.
It would still be immoral for Twitter to silence the truth – particularly about a significant public figure running for president.
As I have said repeatedly – you have no moral foundations.
This is an important essay. It clearly delineates the “truths” that weren’t so true, the religious adherence the entire country was forced to follow WITHOUT QUESTION.
WITH NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED – being the scariest part of the story.
I would hope that as a country we have not exhausted the utility of the first two boxes in maintaining liberty.
Great quote MDM! Pick any image of a cat hanging on by it’s nails; that’s where we are with the first two.
I think what all these censors failed to realize is that there is a sizable portion of us that the more they squeezed, the tighter we dug our heels in. I never wore a mask anywhere. I never did, and will never get a shot. Throughout we found grocery stores, bars, restaurants, clothing stores, etc that made no pretense whatsoever about following or buying into any imposed mandate. I don’t care what title or authority you claim, you do not have the power or authority to tell me how to live.
Control every single media outlet if you want. It will not sap or change my determination to be left alone to make my own decisions.
Personally, I found it easy enough to mask – though knowing that was merely virtue-signaling, that masks were useless to stop transmission. But the shots were and are another matter – I have not now and will never get the jabs (they are NOT vaccines, since the CDC eventually had to change the definition so they might qualify).
Happily, I learned to think from my parents (NOT in public schools). I need no censorship of information – but that’s probably why they did it, so there would be fewer of us who do evaluate and choose for ourselves.
I do not have the answers, and so far it appears we will not get the answers regarding Covid.
We know Masks do not work against the Flu which is much easier to stop that Covid.
It is evident with an R0 rate of 20 that Covid is airborne, not Aerosole. probabaly N95 masks are not good enough.
Social distancing is inefective against airborne diseases.
We know this is less dangerous than the flu for anyone under 20, about the same as the flue from 20-40, and more dangerous as you grow old.
There are problems with the mRNA Vaccines – these have a very high rate of excess deaths that are not covid related.
It is hard to tell today whether the benefits of he vaccine are worthwhile for those at fairly high risk.
Alot of this was known or knowable early on.
It is self evident that choices should have been left up to individuals.
I do not know that you made the right choice.
I do not know that those who chose differetnly made the right choice.
Today for most it is not possible to tell.
“ We know Masks do not work against the Flu which is much easier to stop that Covid.”
Nope. There was a very noticeable drop in flu cases during the pandemic precisely because more people were wearing masks. It was notable that flu cases were so few and less severe when people were masking up.
“ Precautions taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, including wearing masks and distancing, are likely the major reason for a steep decline of flu cases in the U.S., according to experts.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that it had logged 1,316 positive flu cases in its surveillance network between September 2020 and the end of January 2021. During that same period last year, the CDC had recorded nearly 130,000 cases.
Stephen Kissler, a research fellow in the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a February 11, 2021 Vox article that while more people received a flu vaccine this year, the sharp drop in cases was probably largely driven by mask-wearing and distancing. Kissler suggested that wearing masks in the future could be an effective way of helping control flu outbreaks. “Wearing masks in the wintertime, I think it’s something that might be here to stay,” he said.”
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/a-sharp-drop-in-flu-cases-during-covid-19-pandemic/
“ The unexpected but welcome plummeting of influenza cases during the COVID-19 pandemic “certainly showed that many of the social-distancing things we were doing were very effective,” Vanderbilt University School of Medicine infectious disease and health policy professor William Schaffner, MD, said in an interview.
On top of mask wearing, social distancing, and handwashing, Schaffner noted, most international travel was halted and many countries closed schools, keeping children—“the great engine of the distribution of influenza virus”—at home and away from each other.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783644
If flu is much easier to stop the COVID then wearing a mask is more effective at preventing flu transmission. Coupled with social distancing and hand washing is an effective method of preventing the spread of the flu. Masks did help.
There was a noticeable drop in flue cases because one highly infectuous disease displaced another.
This is normal, and has nothing to do with masks.
There have been 14 Randomized control trials of Masks in the 21st century All but one or two were for the flu.
NONE found a benefit to masks.
The Flu is actually spread aerosol – social distancing works, plexiglass works, hand cleaner works.
Covid is airborn. This was BTW known early on. There was lots of evidence of transmission beyond 6 ft.
Merely being in a large closed room with someone with Covid long enough resulted in infection in some cases and that proves airborn rather than aerosol transmission.
“ There was a noticeable drop in flue cases because one highly infectuous disease displaced another.
This is normal, and has nothing to do with masks.”
Yeah, PLUS people we’re wearing masks, practicing social distancing, and hand washing.
You even said it yourself. The flu is easier to stop than COVID-19. A mask that is only 40% effective against COVID will be much more effective against the flu. That’s based on your logic.
“ The Flu is actually spread aerosol – social distancing works, plexiglass works, hand cleaner works.
Covid is airborn.”
That’s a distinction without a difference. Both viruses are aerosolized. Both are spread by air and close contact. COVID is much more contagious than the flu which is why it is more dangerous. COVID lingered in the air longer because the virus traveled within the smallest droplets of water in the air at greater concentrations per droplet. The flu is bigger and less able to penetrate a regular surgical style mask.
The only masks that were truly effective against COVID were the N95. Others were merely a means of reducing the risk as much as possible.
“The flu is easier to stop than COVID-19. A mask that is only 40% effective against COVID will be much more effective against the flu. ”
Wrong! Your interpretation is wrong. Your understanding is wrong. The reason to believe that is not the mask, but the R0. You lack the intellect to adequately interpret the findings.
“ The Flu is actually spread aerosol – social distancing works, plexiglass works, hand cleaner works.
Covid is airborn.”
“The flu is bigger and less able to penetrate a regular surgical style mask.”
The sizes of each variant vary. I think the flu is on average smaller, but I can’t see how the difference in size is appreciable enough to cause one to penetrate more than the other. I don’t think any such studies were done. You are repeating from rote
“The only masks that were truly effective against COVID were the N95. Others were merely a means of reducing the risk as much as possible.”
Do you know what you are saying? LOL
You are repeating sentences and phrases incorrectly and by rote.
“The sizes of each variant vary. I think the flu is on average smaller, but I can’t see how the difference in size is appreciable enough to cause one to penetrate more than the other. I don’t think any such studies were done. You are repeating from rote”
Nope.
The viral particles of SARS-CoV-2 are 80-120 nm in size. Influenza virions are filamentous structures with lengths of around 300 nm.
masks worked and this is why the flu was virtually absent during the pandemic.
Svelaz, I can be wrong on sizing since I am going by memory and what I read, but I don’t think so.
You disregarded the other comments because you didn’t understand what you were talking about. You were reproducing thoughts but didn’t understand them or copied them erroneously.
Let’s take this sentence of yours: “The viral particles of SARS-CoV-2 are 80-120 nm in size. Influenza virions are filamentous structures with lengths of around 300 nm.”
You are not cognizant of the fact that virions and viruses mean different things. I will not tell you the difference because all you do is combine thoughts with NO UNDERSTANDING.
The filamentous structures you are talking about could be artifactual or real. I won’t explain this in detail because you will copy without knowledge. Look it up in depth. You will find that though one can explain what your words mean, you don’t know what they mean.
The influenza virus can be seen with and without the filamentous structure, so one has to compare apples to apples. Again, I will not make things clear because I am tired of you lying and misrepresenting almost everything that is said.
Even after one provides proof, you deny they did, so proved that multiple times, including linking you to your past postings where you were bald-faced lying.
You are not worth anyone’s time.
No a mask that is only 40% effective agains the Flu is not effective.
This is simple Math. A 40% effective mask does not mean that over the course of the duration of the epidemic 40% less people get infected.
It means that the spread rate is reduced 40% – that is not sufficient to reduce the spread below 1.0 and therefore the same number of people get infected the Epidemic just lasts longer.
A 40% efective mask reduces your chance of getting infected 40% for each exposure. By the 2nd exposure your risk has been reduced by 16% not 40% by the 3rd exposure it is 6%
There have been 14RCT’s since 2000 NONE have found masks effective. 12 of those RCT’s have been Flu Studies.
Cloth masks may be worse than useless. N95 masks are not what mot people are wearing.
They are NOT good enough to thwart Covid, they probably are not good enough to stop the Flu.
Towards the begining of Covid Dr.’s and Nurses on Covid wards with 98% effective PPE – gloves, masks, gowns, respirators all tested positive for covid antibodies after 2 weeks. Most got covid.
That level of equipment MIGHT be good enough to stop the flu.
With respect to Social distancing etc. These measures are good enough to reduce your PERSONAL chance of getting the flu, but only if practiced religiously. But if as little as 5% of people do not practice this religiously – the same number of people will ultimately be infected, the duration of the epidemic will just increase.
It is REALLY REALLY hard to stop a respiratory virus, and there is an enormous difference between increasing your personal odds by 50% and reducing the national infection and death rate 50%.
The best tool we have against the flu is Flu vaccines and they are very hit and miss. On a good year when they get the vaccine right. getting it might give YOU a 70% chance of avoiding the flu. But that will not change the epidemic itself.
You must get the overall R0 significantly below 1.0. If you dont you change how long the epidemic lasts and which specific people get infected, not how many.
There is an excellent 3Blue1Black video on this on Youtube.
“That’s a distinction without a difference. Both viruses are aerosolized.”
Here is a good discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Airborne_transmission
This is FALSE. It is one of the major errors we made with Covid.
Aerosolized – as I am using it means the virus in in droplets of water that are typically sprayed into the air by coughing or sneezing.
These droplets are heavy and generally fall to the ground within 6ft – hence social distancing.
Airborne as I am using it means either the droplets are smaller or there are no droplets at all. The virus is shed into the air, just by breathing and the particles are light enough they stay in the air for a long time.
Masks, social distancing, hand sanitizer do not work against airborne viruses.
Early studies should have told us this.
People were getting infected riding an elevator someone with covid had ridden sometime earlier.
People were getting covid when in a large room with someone infected at distances greater than 6ft.
There was data in June 2020 that indicated that if you were in a 15×15 room with no ventilation with a person with Covid you had a 50% chance of getting infected within 15min. If you were in a typical school classroom with several air changes per hour it would take 80hrs to reach a 50% chance of infection.
Covid like most viruses is killed by UV therefore there is very very very low chance of getting infected outdoors during the day
Between UV and excellent air circulation getting infected is very hard.
Lab studies indicate N95 masks are 77% effective against Covid.
At the 2.8 spread rate of the Wuhan strain that was not good enough
If 100% of people wore n95 masks – that would have made the epidemic last longer but infect and kill just as many people.
At the current R0 of 20 for the latest omicron – even n95 masks are useless.
“according to experts.”
That says it all.
Not according to facts. not according to studies.
But according to a self select group of experts
Not all experts.
Some of the most reknowned experts in these fields were excluded specifically because their expertise lead them to different conclusions.
In the end the self anointed experts silenced all the dissenting experts.
Or just more simply – “no, NOT according to experts” – just according to the self anointed.
It should not surprise anyone that someone who is not moral, can not see immorality in others.
“according to experts.”
That says it all.
Not according to facts. not according to studies.
Experts who ran said studies. Experts are the same people who do this for a living. Those dissenting experts you mention showed questionable data and often incomplete data.
As usual, morality has nothing to do with these issues.
Hand washing works with the Flu. Social distancing works with the Flu.
Masks do not work with the flu.
None of the above work with Covid.
BTW this fall the Flu has been highly active.
“Hand washing works with the Flu. Social distancing works with the Flu.
Masks do not work with the flu.
None of the above work with Covid.
BTW this fall the Flu has been highly active.”
Masks worked John. It’s one of the reasons why the flu barely registered during the pandemic. Hand washing worked for both. Masks were not meant to be 100% effective. The point of wearing them was to minimize the chances of infection as much as possible. 30 or 40% effectiveness is always going to be better than 0% when not wearing a mask. Two people wearing one increases that effectiveness. That was the whole point. It wasn’t to stop the spread. It was a way of minimizing it as much as possible.
This fall the flu has been highly active because people are no longer masking as they used to during the pandemic and people are going back to old habits that allow the flu to spread.
“Masks worked John. ”
Not according to the science. As I said before 11RCT’s prior to Covid found no statistical benefit to masks.
These were all Flu studies.
Since 3 Covid Studies found no effect in prventing the spread of Covid.
You do not just get to make things up.
“It’s one of the reasons why the flu barely registered during the pandemic.”
Already addressed – it is normal for a highly contageous disease to diminish the frequency of all others.
There are actual biological reasons that the Flu will diminish when Covid is highly active.
“Hand washing worked for both.”
The benefit of Handwashing for Covid is negligible. Anything with a spread rate of 20 is pretty much unstopable.
We have NEVER succeeded against the Flu which has a spread rate of 1.4 with is very law.
“Masks were not meant to be 100% effective.”
N95 masks are 77% effective in the lab. for a SINGLE exposure. That is not even close to enough to stop Covid.
I doubt it is close to good enough to stop the flu.
Regardless, only a small portion of people are wearing N95 masks.
Cloth masks may make things WORSE.
“The point of wearing them was to minimize the chances of infection as much as possible. 30 or 40% effectiveness is always going to be better than 0% when not wearing a mask.”
This is actually FALSE. It sounds reasonable, but it is not true.
If you can not reduce the transmission rate of a Virus blow 1.0 for a sustained period of time, then nothing you do will have any effect other than prolonging the epidemic.
If you get the transmission rate down to 1.01 and keep it there. You will prolong the epidemic many many times. But the same total number of people will get infected and die as if you did nothing. It will just take longer.
The one POSSIBLE benefit of Masks and similar measures is if ONLY the most vulnerable Mask, get Vaccinated, etc.
You will still end up with the same total number of infections before the disease fades away. But you will likely have a small reduction in deaths among the most vulnerable.
Put simply if you try to protect everyone – you protect no one.
I would further note that Masks, the vaccine etc. may well have caused another huge problem.
Covid may have become endemic – in which case it is never going away, and you have far more deaths and infections.
“Two people wearing one increases that effectiveness. That was the whole point. It wasn’t to stop the spread. It was a way of minimizing it as much as possible.”
If you do not stop the spread all you do is make the pandemic last longer.
“This fall the flu has been highly active because people are no longer masking as they used to during the pandemic and people are going back to old habits that allow the flu to spread.”
This fall flu is highly active because it does not have to compete with Covid.
Most people abandoned habbits that did not work long ago.
Most of what you claim is the junk science being sold by CDC and Fauxi.
It has no foundation in data, or actual studies – before, during early covid or now.
Forever the most effective way we have to reduce disease spread is quarantine.
But quarantie does not work for Covid – because people can spread covid BEFORE they show symptoms.
This alone should have told you and expets that Covide is airborne, not aerosol.
Covid can be spread by people who are just breathing – not coughing or sneezing.
That is what no symptoms means.
We have know that asymptomatic people spread Covid in Feb 2020 – from the very start.
One of the reasons that after some brief legal fights at the start we stopped forceably quarantining people.
Because it was not going to be effective.
Had quaranties worked we could have stopped Covid.
We could stop the flu via quarantine. Just order anyone with coughs or sneezing to stay home.
Get 97% complaince and you will stop ALL aerosole diseases. You weill actually completely eradicate them within a year or two.
I would suggest spending less time listening to Fauxi, the news, etc.
And more time reading actual Studies – such as those on the CDC web site.
There are many things we are still not clear on – such as which populations the mRNA vaccine is actually of more benefit that harm.
Healthy men under 40 should not be vaccinated. Healthy kids under 20 should not be vaccinated.
The reason for this is that the vaccine itself is more dangerous in those groups than Covid.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the effects of 3rd and 4th boosters is negative. Particularly for men.
Overall the mRNA vaccine is significantly more dangerous for men than women.
Atleast one study is indicating that 3rd and 4th boosters may increase your susceptability to Covid and your risk.
It is pretty solid at this point that the overall all cause death rate among those vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine is 3 times higher than the unvaccinated. I would note this increase in all cause deaths from vaccines is NOT unique to Covid Vaccines.
It is not try of all vaccines, but it is true of some. Generally what are called live vaccines correlate to a decrease in diseases and a decrease in deaths OVERALL, while dead vaccines result in a decrease in desease but an increase in all cause deaths.
Svelaz, it should be obvious from the world at large and from various states outcomes that much of what you are claiming is nonsense.
From very near the start and remaning completely true today,
Covid infection and death rates throughout the world can be predicted entirely by demographics and geography – there is little correlation to “public policy”
Despite getting abused by the media for 2 years – Sweden ultimately had near the best results in europe – despite being a northern country with low sunlight – we KNOW that Covid and most viruses do poorly where there is lots of sunlight and particularly UV.
Regardless, Sweden essentially folowed the “Great Barrington” policies – before there was a great barrington declaration.
Masking was voluntary from the start and few masked. After early failures, sweden focused on protecting the vulnerable – particulaly the elderly.
Sweden as a result has smong the lowest covid death rates of developed countries and the lowest all cause death rate in developed countries.
Covid had been nearly eradicated in Swedent prior to omicron – while the US was having its delta surge.
Omicron struck sweden later than elsewhere and did less damage.
And sweden is just one example.
Covid pretty much disappeared in Africa by 2022.
In the US there were enormous differences in policies between red states and blue ones.
But very little differences in outcomes.
Which anyone but a Moron would graps means those policies – masking etc were ineffective.
People like you have shamed half the country for not doing as you did.
Yet in the end there was no difference in outcomes.
Your shaming was IMMORAL.
Your lying – and continuing to lie about Covid is immoral
You have caused people harm by your restrictions on their liberties.
Nope. There was a very noticeable drop in flu cases during the pandemic precisely because more people were wearing masks. It was notable that flu cases were so few and less severe when people were masking up.
Correlation vs causation. Nobody falls for that crap. What some people are opining in the public health sphere of influence, is of zero consequence, the vast majority of those are beholden to the system for their financial welfare. grants, jobs, appointments. So they go along to get along.
what you are doing is called confirmation bias. And you have a bad case of it.
iowan2, the causation is clear. The masks help keep the viruses from spreading to new hosts.
Its why masks are worn during surgery, for example.
The studies show that the typical Wuhan virus mask has the exact efficacy as a chain link does in stoppng mosquito penetration.
Make that chainlink fence.
Benson, anecdotes, and correlation are not science.
No study has found masks have any effect on the spread of a respiratory virus. Surgical masks are to keep spit out the surgical field. Also they are single use, for a few hours. Covid masks were cloth and might have been washed once a week.
Bringing up surgical masks in this discussion just shows how ignorant people get led around by the nose by people like Fauci.
“It will not sap or change my determination to be left alone to make my own decisions.”
Coming soon for dissidents like you, drones (like those currently in China) demanding that you: “Control your soul’s desire for freedom.”
(Yes, that is an actual quote.)
It would seem that our government has figured out how to get around that pesky constitution, once and for all. It’s the same model; public/private partnerships, used by the WEF, but without the paper trail of a partnership that would be challengeable through the courts. So either through national security state coercion, or government enticements, we have government tyranny by proxy. Well done globalists!
But what is most certainly notable is that the U.S. national security state has leveraged threats to ban TikTok from the U.S. entirely into concessions that they, rather than TikTok’s Chinese owners, will now make “content moderation” decisions for the platform, thus leaving TikTok now in the same bucket along with Google, Meta and Apple as massive companies subject to the censorship directives of the U.S. Government (whether Twitter remains in that group will be determined by future decisions of its new owner Elon Musk, though if the Twitter Files revealed anything, it is that Twitter’s censorship decisions had, prior to Musk’s acquisition, largely been driven by those same U.S. security agencies).
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/reflecting-new-us-control-of-tiktoks?publication_id=128662&post_id=93378260&isFreemail=true
Speaking of government enticements, how much of the billions of dollars American taxpayers have shelled out to Ukraine are going into Blackrock’s globalist (WEF) pockets?
On Wednesday it was revealed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government is prepping to participate in January’s World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, and that the Ukrainian leader is in talks with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink regarding rebuilding efforts following the war with Russia.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-zelensky-announces-he-is-planning-to-join-world-economic-forum-in-davos-to-sign-new-postwar-loans-with-blackrock
QUOTE: The most recent exchange offers an insight into Baker’s hair-triggered tendencies on censorship. It appears that calling for optimism was intolerable for the former FBI general counsel.”
Yes . . . calling for optimism is, to me, a tell. I believe Baker considers opponents not to be “loyal opposition” but instead to be outright enemies.
Baker does not want optimism, AKA hope, to strengthen his enemies.
It’s much easier to defeat an enemy whose morale is at rock bottom.
My only concern, at this time, is how do we fumigate our government of these figurative parasites and termites that are destroying this nation from within. It has become more and more apparent that using elections and the courts prove futile. We will not survive as the nation envisioned by our founding fathers if we cannot rid our nation of this infestation of the pathological ideology of the prog/left.
“From the first I saw no chance of bettering the condition of the freedman, until he should cease to be merely a freedman, and should become a citizen. I insisted that there was no safety for him, nor for anybody else in America, outside the American Government: that to guard, protect, and maintain his liberty, the freedman should have the ballot; that the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the Ballot-box, the Jury-box, and the Cartridge-box, that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country; and this was now the word for the hour with me, and the word to which the people of the North willingly listened when I spoke. ”
–Frederick Douglass
I would hope that as a country we have not exhausted the utility of the first two boxes in maintaining liberty.
Considering what we have seen with our elections and our sham trials, I do think we have passed on to the last box.