Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Is this the best thread ever and the other poxy international thread should be closed

  • Yes because I’m a winner

    Votes: 9 90.0%
  • No because I’m a loser

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.


How many times are we going to fall for the guys going on high profile platforms claiming to be 'cancelled', 'silenced', 'attacked'. Bret Weinstein would have been bad enough if it had stopped there.

Often they were never heard of before and have their profile and ideas hugely raised while still claiming to be silenced. Often funded and pushed to the point of having their 'truth telling' contrarian opinion heard much more loudly than they ever would be naturally.


Bhattacharya co-authored the Santa Clara antibody seroprevalence study, a preprint published in Aprilopens in a new tab or window that suggested coronavirus infections (and possibly, immunity) were up to 85 times higher than scientists originally thought. The study, which became a tool in the political debate to reopen the economy, was criticized for lacking sound evidenceopens in a new tab or window. It was later revealed by BuzzFeed News that the study received funding from the founder of JetBlueopens in a new tab or window, which the authors hadn't disclosed.

In this case including access to government officials



We thank Phillip Magness and James Harrigan for helping to clarify the extent of involvement of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in crafting the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), which came in the form of providing meeting space and lodging, arranging a meeting with journalists, editorial feedback, and amplification in the media (including videography, social media, and web services). Determining the scope of AIER’s involvement in the publication and dissemination of the GBD is crucial to understanding its ideological underpinnings and is a matter of national importance given that Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, and Sunetra Gupta, the authors of the GBD, met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, on 5 October 2020, the day the document was published.

it is now clear that the AIER did more than merely “host” the GBD. In an episode of the official podcast of the John Locke Foundation (a libertarian think tank) posted online a week after the GBD conference, Tucker described how he had been in the room with the GBD signatories during its drafting, adding, “I made a couple of suggestions here and there.” Tucker further described how he himself had been central to organizing the GBD conference

The AIER’s support of the GBD and AIER’s own sources of financing are important to understanding its ideological agenda and motives, for example, its well documented climate and tobacco denialism. Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt and a scholar of science denialism, wrote about AIER and the GBD in her book Why Trust Science?, stating that AIER “promotes anti-scientific discussion of climate change, much of which promotes the familiar canard that climate change will be minor and manageable.”

As we said previously, scientists should understand that, when it comes to AIER, we are dealing with “a well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests.


I understand the attraction to well credentialed figures telling you they know the hidden truth that all the mainstream figures won't tell you but again and again those types are just snake oil salesmen. It seems pretty clear what happened here - wealthy/powerful figures had an obvious financial incentive to downplay COVID and especially to minimise any prevention measures and they boosted the figures telling them what they wanted to hear so that they could claim scientific credibility where it didn't exist, all while these figures claimed they were being silenced.

And it turns out the ideas pushed where wrong as many pointed out at the time.


In October 2020, you said

An infection is a severe problem for older populations, and also for people who have certain chronic conditions. For younger populations under 70, it’s much milder.
The next year, COVID was a top 10 killer for every age group except babies, and 2022 was even worse for children.

Question:

You said a 1 in 500 risk of a 40-year-old dying of COVID was “moderate“. However, you also said that a 15,000 risk of vaccine-myocarditis was a “serious side-effect.” Why is a low risk of a usually mild and temporary vaccine side effect more concerning than a high risk of literal death?

Question:

On August 1st, 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis quoted you as saying, “We have protected the vulnerable by vaccinating the older population.” That same day, the headlines read Florida Reports A Record Number Of COVID-19 Cases. Here are some headlines that followed immediately after this:

Had Florida protected the vulnerable at that time? Why did schools close while you were advising the state?

It further claimed this mass “natural infection” of unvaccinated people would lead to herd immunity in “3 to 6 months“. What countries used focused protection to achieve herd immunity in 3-6 months? If you cannot provide any examples, why do you claim the Great Barrington Declaration was “vindicated.”

 
Last edited:
I imagine shit like this will stop once the adults take charge on 20 January 2025. Espionage should come with very very harsh penalties


The Secret Service allowed a drone to fly over Trumps rally a Butler without question.
Maybe just another practice run before the next attempt :think:
 
Last edited:
That so accurately describes every single bog-standard health bureaucrat in charge of this nation’s Covid response.

My main contention is it is not accurate to call yourself silenced while meeting with government officials like Alex Azar, being brought on board to advise Ron DeSantis, and having yourself and your ideas funded and pushed by wealthy backers.

There are people that are actually silenced but it's not the guys you see going on Joe Rogan and Fox news to complain about it.
 
And also they were just wrong about their claims and ideas, especially herd immunity when natural infection did not provide long lasting protection against reinfection.
 
Why would the Crooked Joe Biden Team need to spend so much ?

Biden spent big to fight contrary narratives; ‘misinformation’ on virus, climate​

The massive 'misinformation' effort by the Biden-Harris White House was worse than most people realize. It reached throughout the administration and cost at least $267 million.

OpenTheBooks examined spending dating back to fiscal 2017, which roughly coincides with the start of Mr. Trump’s first term in office.

Misinformation spending soared in 2021, when Mr. Biden took office, with $126 million spent — chiefly on pandemic-related projects. It has steadily dropped but totaled $18 million in the just-ended fiscal 2024.

Most of the COVID-19 spending went to Health and Human Services Department projects to boost vaccine use and other government-urged measures for racial and ethnic minorities. That includes “evidence-based interventions to address vaccine misinformation.”

HHS also authorized grants that paid for outfits to monitor social media for vaccine and other medical information contradicting the department’s preferred narratives.



 
And also they were just wrong about their claims and ideas, especially herd immunity when natural infection did not provide long lasting protection against reinfection.



The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine
 


The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine

Yes it provided protection, not enough for herd immunity even with vaccines, as seen by the fact that nowhere achieved herd immunity despite these people claiming it had been achieved or was just around the corner.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My main contention is it is not accurate to call yourself silenced while meeting with government officials like Alex Azar, being brought on board to advise Ron DeSantis, and having yourself and your ideas funded and pushed by wealthy backers.

There are people that are actually silenced but it's not the guys you see going on Joe Rogan and Fox news to complain about it.

Please. Of course they were silenced.

If those voices were cutting through, these things would’ve been addressed as they were happening. But they weren’t.

The few brave experts who were pointing out these things were dismissed, ridiculed and labelled conspiracy theorists.


The most disturbing finding from the year-long COVID inquiry released on Tuesday is that trust among the Australian community has been eroded.

It is so broken that the inquiry’s surveys, from June this year, found one in five people would not get a vaccine offered by the government in a future health emergency. Only three in 10 had high trust in the federal government to have done the right thing at the height of the pandemic.

This will be its most damaging legacy.

Transparency is another: when asking people to accept significant curbs to their freedom, finances, social lives and mental health, governments must publish their reasons and supporting advice.

Responses should also evolve according to evidence. Instead, some measures were as blunt and restrictive 18 months after their initial implementation.

The next government to face a major health crisis will inherit a difficult predicament. “Many of the measures taken during COVID‑19 are unlikely to be accepted by the population again,” the report found.
 

How many times are we going to fall for the guys going on high profile platforms claiming to be 'cancelled', 'silenced', 'attacked'. Bret Weinstein would have been bad enough if it had stopped there.

Often they were never heard of before and have their profile and ideas hugely raised while still claiming to be silenced. Often funded and pushed to the point of having their 'truth telling' contrarian opinion heard much more loudly than they ever would be naturally.




In this case including access to government officials











I understand the attraction to well credentialed figures telling you they know the hidden truth that all the mainstream figures won't tell you but again and again those types are just snake oil salesmen. It seems pretty clear what happened here - wealthy/powerful figures had an obvious financial incentive to downplay COVID and especially to minimise any prevention measures and they boosted the figures telling them what they wanted to hear so that they could claim scientific credibility where it didn't exist, all while these figures claimed they were being silenced.

And it turns out the ideas pushed where wrong as many pointed out at the time.











This needs to be posted in the cookers thread. I can hear the teeth gnashing in advance. Hahaha.
 
Yes it provided protection, not enough for herd immunity even with vaccines, as seen by the fact that nowhere achieved herd immunity despite these people claiming it had been achieved or was just around the corner.

One thing that I don't recall being reported were the mass deaths (in the context of deaths per capita of population) in places like India, Pakistan, African nations etc where there would have been no social distancing, masking (or very little) and access to vaccines was few and far between.

How could that possibly be if there was not herd immunity?

India for example has a population closing in on 2 Billion people and yet had 500K deaths - 379/million population in an overcrowded majority 3rd world country.

The states where everything was shut down, masking was everywhere, social distancing was everywhere and access to vaccines was as good as any country in the world had 3642 deaths / million people - close to 10 x the deaths per capita as India

 
If those voices were cutting through

Is your argument that they were silenced or that they weren't given enough power? I would argue they had too much power and the people that dismissed them turned out to be correct.

Obviously the pandemic could have been handled better, transparency is always good, public messaging was confusing at times, responses should be evidence based, all good. And I'm fine with people being politically against prevention measures like the lockdowns or school closures. They have negative impacts, they infringe on civil liberties. It's fine to say you're against these things.

I think you just don't get to live in a fantasy where we could have just done nothing and everything turned out to be ok, if you want to argue those measures should not have been in place you have to also accept the large number of preventable deaths that would have come with that, including deaths of children.

I'd also suggest some of the loss of confidence in government and vaccines comes from the people spreading anti-vaccine and COVID minimising information which turned out to be incorrect but many bought into. People like Bhattacharya for example.
 
I think you just don't get to live in a fantasy where we could have just done nothing and everything turned out to be ok, if you want to argue those measures should not have been in place you have to also accept the large number of preventable deaths that would have come with that, including deaths of children.

Yeah look I just can’t take this conversation seriously when you live in this sort of alternate reality.

The physical and mental health & wellbeing of children was sacrificed en masse during Covid to protect 80 year olds.

That was one of the specific points of feedback that came out of the inquiry.

And it was a point that was obvious all the way through, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
 
Yeah look I just can’t take this conversation seriously when you live in this sort of alternate reality.

The physical and mental health & wellbeing of children was sacrificed en masse during Covid to protect 80 year olds.

That was one of the specific points of feedback that came out of the inquiry.

And it was a point that was obvious all the way through, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

When this type of thinking was put into action however

 
When this type of thinking was put into action however


Yeah, we know how those “statistics” work.

Go to hospital with a major illness or injury. Test positive for Covid….

The reality is the number of those kids that actually died because of Covid would be close to zero.

I’m not reading that rubbish article but I bet somewhere in there it says those kids had serious illnesses.

We knew from the very beginning that this disease was less dangerous to kids than the flu. At worst on a par.

There was no reason to destroy two years of their education, mask them, lock them inside and force an experimental jab on them. None whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top