Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[McBell]

There is no reason to believe a word you say.

Again, completely backwards...

Again, no surprise.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, yes, hurry up and get you next booster.

I have and will continue to do so thanks for your concern for my health and well being. I hope the same good things for you.

 

[Ebionite]

Again, completely backwards...

Keep posting, there are bound to be some ****wits here who believe you.

 

[McBell]

Keep posting, there are bound to be some ****wits here who believe you.

Perhaps you should do a poll to see who is more believable, Ebionite of McBell...

But we both know you are the one who will disagree with the results.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The Biden administration "ran afoul" of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.

Biden administration violated First Amendment over COVID-19 content on social media, court of appeals rules

The Biden administration violated the First Amendment by trying to "coerce" social media platforms to remove coronavirus content it found problematic, a federal court of appeals ruled.

news.yahoo.com

I think not only did they pressure websites -- but also silenced opposing medical voices to maintain a narrative. IMV

Makes one wonder how many platforms were forced to police, or make their own decision, as to what was right and what was wrong violating Constitutional free speech and the conversations that were pertinent to the issue.

It wasn't just the Biden administration; it was a global phenomenon. If you look back into history there have been a lot of that sort of thing, it wasn't anything new. It's been going on at least since the early 1900s. Probably longer, especially with JD Rockefeller's influence in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Covid was just more of the same. Big business, the capture of medical journals, corrupt government agencies, the NIAID, NIH, FDA, WHO, USAMRIID, CDC, etc.

 

[Argentbear]

Thanks, but unless there is access to the actual data used the study isn't repeatable and threfore is not actual science.

Thanks but the actual data used in the study is available from the centers of disease control's Vaccine Safety Datalink a collection of mandatory reporting of adverse vaccine events.

 

[Argentbear]

Due to the volume of communications, confusing statements, and the amount of distrust in the research
community, an apparent attempt by a head researcher (Mills) to communicate more openly about their trial
with researchers in favor of ivermectin ended in frustration. The press and ’fact-checkers’ widely disseminated
misleading information that conflicted with the opinion of the head researcher expressed in more informal
contexts such as a video presentation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359993590_Notes_about_ivermectin-related_events_in_the_COVID-19_pandemic_working_paper_April_15_2022

Not a published study much less a peer reviewed one. Hey it even says so right at the top of your link.

and head researcher Mills stated in a march 18 Wall Street Journal interview "ivermectin could improve outcomes in patients with parasitic co-infections but didn’t ’seem to have any effect onCOVID-19 itself".

 

[Ebionite]

Not a published study much less a peer reviewed one. Hey it even says so right at the top of your link.

Peer review has no scientific value because it's not part of the scientific method.

 

[Ebionite]

Thanks but the actual data used in the study is available from the centers of disease control's Vaccine Safety Datalink a collection of mandatory reporting of adverse vaccine events.

Not all of it is publcy available:

Depending on the study, interested researchers may be able to access VSD data and data from VSD publications through public use datasets, the VSD data sharing program, and collaboration with current VSD investigators.

 

[Argentbear]

Peer review has no scientific value because it's not part of the scientific method.

Peer review is a form of quality control that helps maintain the integrity of science by filtering out poor quality or invalid articles. It also helps determine if a paper is suitable for publication by checking if it's within the journal's scope, if the research topic is clear, and if the approach is appropriate. Peer review can also be a valuable source of feedback for authors to improve their work before publication.

So year, it is valuable

You saw it's value when your fake complaint about it let you dodge addressing the remainder of my post "researcher Mills stated in a march 18 Wall Street Journal interview "ivermectin could improve outcomes in patients with parasitic co-infections but didn’t ’seem to have any effect onCOVID-19 itself."

 

[Argentbear]

Not all of it is publcy available:

Evidence that not all of it is available?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Trying and succeeding are different things. Reliance on peer-reviewed science did not help those who were injured or killed by the "safe and effective vaccine".

Yes, it most definitely does. Should such people exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Leaked RFK Jr. Call with Trump Talking About Vaccines After Assassination Attempt

"Footage of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talking on the phone with presidential frontrunner Donald Trump was leaked online this week.

Speaking about Kennedy’s beliefs on the corrupt U.S. medical industry, Trump said, “I agree with you, man. Something’s wrong with that whole system, and it’s the doctors you find.”

The 45th President pointed out there are “like 38 different vaccines” for babies nowadays and said some of them look like their meant “for a horse,” not a 10-pound baby.

“And then you see the baby starting to change radically. I’ve seen it too many times,” Trump said, adding, “And then you hear that it doesn’t have an impact, right?”"

This one is hilarious.

You're now taking medical advice from Trump?
You really believe that Trump has seen a bunch of babies "starting to change radically" after being vaccinated?

LOL

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you say what the lies were, or are you just a repeater for the ignorant?

Oh the utter irony ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only person I know personally who died of COVID was "vaccinated" five times before she got it just a few weeks after her last vaccination. So no thanks. I mean, it just is not predictable. I also got COVID just a few weeks after I was "vaccinated" against it but hey, I didn't die so there's that to be grateful for I guess. However, the people I know who were not vaccinated against it also didn't die even though they did get sick with COVID, like everyone else I know. So I guess it's a crap shoot.

I think the bottom line is that none of us are likely to die from COVID, unless we have pre existing conditions or are elderly or both. All I know is that the last time I got a COVID shot, I had a headache for FOUR DAYS so no thanks. And I wasn't expecting any side effects (I had three shots because I was traveling so much).

Please don't start with the anecdotes again.

I thought you said this subject bores you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peer review has no scientific value because it's not part of the scientific method.

Wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Peer review has no scientific value because it's not part of the scientific method.

Dumbest post of the week!
(And it's been a busy week.)

 

[Kathryn]

Please don't start with the anecdotes again.

I thought you said this subject bores you?

It does bore me but I'm bored anyway so there's that.

 

[Ebionite]

Peer review is a form of quality control that helps maintain the integrity of science by filtering out poor quality or invalid articles.

Except that it doesn't.

‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point

Last year, 10,000 sham papers had to be retracted by academic journals, but experts think this is just the tip of the iceberg

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ebionite]

Dumbest post of the week!
(And it's been a busy week.)

Projecting much? You can't say why it's wrong.