Coronavirus and You - Page 684

Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.

It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.

Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.

This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.

Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better.

BlackJack

United States10089 Posts

February 01 2023 11:50 GMT

#13661

On February 01 2023 20:21 Acrofales wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 01 2023 19:18 BlackJack wrote:

On February 01 2023 17:30 Acrofales wrote:

On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:

On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:

On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote:

On January 31 2023 18:10 Acrofales wrote:

On January 31 2023 17:30 bITt.mAN wrote:

On January 30 2023 06:51 Simberto wrote:
Project Veritas has very clearly shown that nothing they produce is worth interacting with. Thus, you shouldn't.

Also, i want to note that you are very close to falling into a massive conspiracy theory rabbit hole with the way you deal with information. "I cannot find anything, thus it must be surpressed and thus legitimate" is one of the worst lines of reasoning you can possibly apply.

Do you actually believe there is no censorship, no conflict of interest, no political favoritism, no suppression going on?

I find that very hard to believe because it is strongly disproved by the world we live in:
the US Government (using its agencies to lean on big tech companies e.g. FBI priming Twitter with false information, as revealed by The Twitter Files) systematically suppressed true-but-inconvenient information about Covid (and other legitimate things Hunter Biden's Laptop).

People live in their own filter bubbles that systematically exclude plenty of narratives and facts from their view. The information gatekeepers primarily work by attacking the credibility of competing narratives & data sources. If none of my people see or say that thing, it isn't a respectable concept, so I can successfully ignore it.

A great example of this was the treatment of the Lab Leak theory. It was initially dog-piled, shamed, and suppressed as being 'debunked'. But now it's taken seriously by those same outlets and tech companies' censorship boards that tried to delegitimize it.

We know that things are getting suppressed, systematically, skewed in favor of persevering the optics of those in power. That isn't arguing from ignorance - its arguing from evidence. The harder challenge is knowing which things are being deceptively suppressed.

The only thing you missed in that rant is something about democrats eating babies in a pizza joint. Other than that, keep listening to Alex Jones, it's clearly got you thinking straight!

What exactly do you dispute?

Wrong thread for most of this, but we can discuss at least the first one again for the umpteenth time. The rest have also been done ad nauseum in the uspol thread.

Do you think the lab leak theory wasn't dogpiled on in the beginning?

There's a rather large amount of nuance needed here: in the beginning the *only* people claiming the "Wuhan Flu" came from a lab were xenophobic crazies. They don't get a soapbox. Scientists were applying Occam's Razor and basically said: "the evidence so far points to zoonosis, but we're still looking for both patient 0 and the exact origin."

China didn't give access to scientists (for the longest time), which made the xenophobic crazies just go crazier. But that still doesn't mean they deserved a soapbox. In hindsight it turns out they were maybe right (still unknown), but their "rightness" didn't come from any informed position, it came from assuming the worst about people they hated. It's not something that should be encouraged.

That the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the social media companies?

It was. RIGHTFULLY. There was no story.

That the Biden White House hasn't leaned on the social media companies to delete things it deems as misinformation/disinformation?

I wouldn't know, but everything I read in the "Twitter files" seemed like a totally normal exchange between a government concerned about spreading bullshit and a social media company responsible for its spread/containment. Containment of bullshit seems like generally the correct approach to trash like "stolen elections1111" or anything PV touches. It's unfortunate you don't agree.

+ Show Spoiler +

Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas

"There's a rather large amount of nuance needed here: in the beginning the *only* people claiming the "Wuhan Flu" came from a lab were xenophobic crazies."

Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there.

But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors.

https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.html

Emails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus

Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab.

Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide.

But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular."

A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.

“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day.

You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated.

------------------------------------------------------

Onto Hunter Biden laptop story:

The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all?

---------------------------------------------------------

It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree?

Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it
Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it
Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it

You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you.

You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back.

Ok, we can rehash the lab leak theory. You don't really seem to know how science works. Let's move away from something that is polemic and in the news a lot right now, and instead look at nuclear fusion. We know how nuclear fusion works. A rather crude summary: apply enough force, and the cores of two atoms can fuse together. This releases a lot of energy. The problem is applying that force. It's technically difficult and costs a LOT of energy. It's why practical use of nuclear fusion is 30 years away (and will be for the foreseeable future).

Let's call this type of fusion, HOT nuclear fusion. We know it exists, we know it works, and we know why. In the 1970s, Pons and Fleischman published an experiment in which they claimed more energy was released than they put in, and their hypothesis for this was that atoms were fusing... but at room temperature and 1 bar pressure. We'll call this COLD nuclear fusion. It made a ruckus, people tried to reproduce the experiment and explain what was going on. Problem was that nobody could reproduce it (on purpose) and soon there were plenty of alternative theories (about how Pons and Fleischman probably failed to properly isolate their experiment, or other things wrong with the setup). Nevertheless, it captured the imagination and scientists til this day are trying to advance and find repeatable COLD nuclear fusion. So far, no luck. It's basically a crackpot theory based on an almost certainly flawed experimental setup. Nevertheless, every now and then something worth publishing in a scientific journal pops up.

Now, when people cover the science of fusion, do you think they should cover hot fusion, cold fusion, or 50/50 coverage for both?

If you hadn't noticed yet... the correct way of covering scientific progress into fusion research should be to cover hot fusion exclusively. Maybe you could add a footnote that there are also people trying to find alternative methods for harnessing fusion reactions, and leave it at that.

Now back to covid. Obviously it happened in the middle of a shitstorm and anything anybody said about the origin was going to be magnified a billion times by the press. However, there wasn't any credible scientific evidence for a lab leak theory in the same way that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of cold fusion. That doesn't mean that at no point in the future there will be credible evidence of cold fusion. Just as, over time, the lab leak hypothesis has gained some scientific credibility (albeit NOT MUCH).

Slate just put out this article on the whole "debate", and I can't say I disagree:

https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/lab-leak-three-years-debate-covid-origins.html

Anyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political.

As for the other two points, bring them to the uspol thread. It seems quiet and I'm sure it's time for another rehash of the laptop debate.

Anyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political.

I think if you and the other people in this thread had confidence in your own arguments you wouldn't find it necessary to repeat this strawman of "We shouldn't accept a hypothesis at face value." Or "We shouldn't accept what Project Veritas says at face value." Nobody has argued that.

The topic is why do you think certain topics should be suppressed or killed in their infancy instead of being fleeced out by journalists. The response "Because we shouldn't accept them at face value" doesn't even begin to answer that question.

Also I don't know what the whole aside about cold fusion has to do with this. Are social media companies trying suppress stories on cold fusion? Are media companies ignoring a viral video on cold fusion that got 50 million views?

Here's a thread on TL.net about cold fusion that got over 1,000 posts

https://tl.net/forum/general/247932-rossis-energy-catalyzer

Plenty of crackpot/conspiracy theories were allowed to be discussed on TL.net back in the day before the right-wing started to corner the market and now you'll get warned/banned.

Clearly I didnt make my point as clearly as I wanted: the place for debate on what the possible origin of Covid was, is amongst virologists, epidemiologists, and maybe other microbiologists who have something insightful and new to discuss. The role of journalists isn't to hit upon some singular publication and yell from the top of the roofs: "LAB LEAK THEORY CONFIRMED!!!". Just as it isn't to hit upon a singular publication and yell "COLD FUSION IS REAL!!!"

Both are clear instances of misinformation and misinformation should be suppressed. Now, if instead the articles you are referring to as being suppressed had instead said something along the lines of

"Science shows that the origin of SARS-Cov-2 is most likely zoonotic. However, there are some discrepancies that cannot be explained. One alternative that is being investigated is that its origin is from genetic manipulation in a lab. However, while it cannot be ruled out, so far no evidence points that way."

Yeah, it would have no clickbait value at all. But it also wouldn't be misinformation. Now note that the idea is NOT being suppressed in the place where it should be discussed. Virologists can continue to publish work showing that novel gene sequencing work points to A or B as more likely. These continued to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

But there is NO REASON for Jimmybob who knows nothing about virology to be convinced by Breitbart that "China intentionally released the Wuhan Flu from the lab as a bioweapon", which is exactly the type of misinformation I was talking about that should be suppressed. It has NO purpose other than to spread fear, xenophobia and hatred and has no basis in fact.

As to whether or not TL.net should have a thread discussing a scammer trying to make money off gullible idiots with a cold fusion machine? I am not against mature discussion on topics of fringe science. Whether or not TL.net is the place for that? I'm not a mod. But there's a significant difference between the two which is that the origin of covid was super polemic and political. The chances of having a mature discussion on this topic at the time were approximately 0. So suppressing such a discussion is not a bad idea. It's a bit like how generally speaking, live threads don't allow balance discussions: it's hard to have a mature discussion on the merits of early game protoss and terran units, when your favorite terran is having his face stomped in by a filthy protosser as you talk...

Sure, if you want to say that only the crazy bioweapon conspiracy nuts should have been piled on and not everyone that believes in the lab-leak hypothesis, that's fine. But that means you essentially agree with me and bltt.man because the media did dogpile on anyone that doubted the natural origin story.

You quoted Slate in your last post as having good take on the lab-leak Debate.

Here is Slate in 2020: https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/coronavirus-bioweapon-conspiracy-theories.html

In the case of COVID-19, there are a number of clear explanations for its sudden emergence. But it does not matter how effectively we counter conspiracies claiming evidence that the virus shows signs of being engineered. That’s because the rumors of a lab escape or a bioweapon stem from historical amnesia, a caricatured villain, and good old-fashioned racism.

No distinction between lab escape or bioweapon. If you believe in either you're probably just a good old-fashioned racist. If you believe the virus looks engineered you're a conspiracy nut. This is the same month that the top scientists in the field while on a conference call with Fauci were saying the virus looks engineered.

Magic Powers

Austria3547 Posts

February 01 2023 12:06 GMT

#13662

On February 01 2023 20:36 bITt.mAN wrote:
Here's a quick rundown of other inconvenient truths which have probably been discussed to death in this thread:

masks (don't wear them, no wait, wear them),
natural immunity (it doesn't exist, no wait, it does),
the shots preventing infection and transmission (they do, no wait, they don't),
the shots providing immunity (you'll be immune, no wait, boost boost boost cuz oh crap it's an influenza virus like the Cold which always changes),
side effects (there are none, no wait, let's pull J&J)
long term effects of the shots (we know they have none, no wait, we don't have years & years of safety data like for all other clinical trials so we *hope* they have none)

In brief, the things settled as The Science™ keep changing. Which is fine, that's how science works — through free and open discussion, and careful evaluation & re-evaluation of all the evidence we have available. We should be free to discuss things carefully and considerately, without censorship.

Someone please correct me but as far as I'm aware every single one of these points is a false representation of what actually happened (due to leaving out every single bit of relevant context, a very common play by right-wing hoaxers).

DarkPlasmaBall

United States43580 Posts

February 01 2023 12:33 GMT

#13663

On February 01 2023 21:06 Magic Powers wrote:

Show nested quote +

You are correct. bITt.mAN is summarizing years of data, multiple covid strains, and different vaccines all into short, absurd one-liners. For example, a more nuanced exploration of masks (bITt.mAN's first point) could discuss which kinds of masks are more effective, where it makes the most sense to actually wear masks, which time period was the most crucial to stay masked, how we could have dealt with limited PPE better, etc. Similarly, a more nuanced exploration of vaccines lowering infection/transmission rates would require us to look at which vaccines vs. which strains vs. for how long (one week vs. one month vs. six months after being vaccinated, etc.). bITt.mAN seems a lot more interested in misrepresenting in-depth conversations we've all had in the past, and continuing to peddle conspiracy theories and still post about PV, even after being warned, so I for one will be completely ignoring that poster.

BlackJack

United States10089 Posts

February 01 2023 13:04 GMT

#13664

I remember when Fauci and the experts were saying masks don’t help prevent COVID. I got into some arguments with Redditors who were enraged with me that I dared to doubt the health experts. Apparently my simple argument of “why the fuck do u think nurses and doctors are wearing them then” wasn’t very convincing. Some people will literally believe anything as long as they trust the people telling them.

Acrofales

Spain17743 Posts

February 01 2023 13:04 GMT

#13665

Also, just for the record: absolutely nobody should watch PV. The world would be a better place if somebody payed O'Keefe his current income to NEVER produce any content ever again. Or, better yet, all the dumdums (including Tucker Carlson) just finally stopped watching his crap and his income dwindled to 0 causing him to never produce any content ever again.

So yes, suppressing PV is a good thing! It has negative news value. Watching PV and then asking why nobody is addressing it, is equivalent to watching Game of Thrones and then asking why no historians are looking into the impact of dragons on medieval European politics.

However, given that there ARE dumdums who watch it (25m of them apparently), it forces some non-dumdums to watch it too in order to be able to refute whatever fiction PV is currently spewing out of its ahole.

Btw, the same goes for infowars. If O'Keefe or Alex Jones is claiming something, you can safely assume the exact opposite is true.

BlackJack

United States10089 Posts

February 01 2023 13:09 GMT

#13666

On February 01 2023 22:04 Acrofales wrote:
Also, just for the record: absolutely nobody should watch PV. The world would be a better place if somebody payed O'Keefe his current income to NEVER produce any content ever again. Or, better yet, all the dumdums (including Tucker Carlson) just finally stopped watching his crap and his income dwindled to 0 causing him to never produce any content ever again.

So yes, suppressing PV is a good thing! It has negative news value. Watching PV and then asking why nobody is addressing it, is equivalent to watching Game of Thrones and then asking why no historians are looking into the impact of dragons on medieval European politics.

However, given that there ARE dumdums who watch it (25m of them apparently), it forces some non-dumdums to watch it too in order to be able to refute whatever fiction PV is currently spewing out of its ahole.

Btw, the same goes for infowars. If O'Keefe or Alex Jones is claiming something, you can safely assume the exact opposite is true.

If you’re so confident that the PV video is bullshit simply because it’s PV want to do a 1 month ban bet on whether the guy in the video actually works for Pfizer either as an employee or consultant?

Acrofales

Spain17743 Posts

February 01 2023 13:20 GMT

#13667

On February 01 2023 22:09 BlackJack wrote:

Show nested quote +

No. i believe he works for Pfizer. Pfizer has janitors too. I'll happily take a ban-bet on that he isn't their "Director of Research and Development - Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning" tho!

BlackJack

United States10089 Posts

February 01 2023 13:36 GMT

#13668

On February 01 2023 22:20 Acrofales wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hmm. Seems like it would be hard to prove a title

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

February 01 2023 13:53 GMT

#13669

--- Nuked ---

Acrofales

Spain17743 Posts

February 01 2023 14:31 GMT

#13670

On February 01 2023 22:36 BlackJack wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hmm. Seems like it would be hard to prove a title

Obviously every company is different, but a title like that sounds very senior. In fact, that's what PV claim, don't they? A Pfizer "executive"?

Anyway, if you don't want the exact title, I'm also happy to bet that he isn't employed anywhere in a senior position (and wasn't at the time of the "interview" either) in Pfizer's vaccine research department(s). What does it mean to have a senior position in research? Any of the following:
(1) having a PhD in pharmacology or a related field before working at Pfizer and work includes conducting research into something to do with vaccine development for Covid.
(2) managing a team of people, who are working as researchers. they have MScs, PhDs or MDs and are conducting research into something to do with vaccine development for Covid.
(3) directing a department or higher with one or more teams of researchers (see (2))

It does not include:
(1) directing the marketing department
(2) cleaning the toilets
(3) research interns, or junior researchers.

My actual guess on who this guy is, is a former Research Intern whose contract ran out and wasn't renewed/got fired.

ChristianS

United States3177 Posts

February 01 2023 15:41 GMT

#13671

Damn this thread sucks again.

I’m not gonna watch a whole Project Veritas video for multiple reasons, but I did read a Newsweek summary. Apparently it’s his usual MO, hidden camera “candid” interview with some employee of a supposedly evil organization, with a lot of deceptive editing to make it look like they said stuff they didn’t. If O’Keefe were a journalist this would be deeply irresponsible, both because he’s lying about what they said and because one employee’s testimony he didn’t know was an interview is poor evidence of what that organization is actually doing. Since he’s a propagandist, not a journalist, those criticisms don’t really apply; his job is to deceive the public, and he’s doing it. Any decent person should despise that regardless of whether he’s on your “side,” but it’s not a violation of professional ethics; he has none.

In this case the claim of the video is that Pfizer is doing so-called “gain of function” research (to the extent there’s a claim at all, anyway; often with this sort of thing it’s more about innuendo than any specific claim). This is not my area; that’s pretty much pure biology, and I’m a chemist, so I only know a little about what those weirdos get up to in lab. But my impression is that part of the confusion here is that a lot of weird right-wingers suddenly thought they were experts on virology because we all did a lot of googling during the pandemic. So there’s a lot of experiments that no expert was calling “gain of function” that a bunch of laymen think sounds like gain of function. Then they cry and scream and shit and piss when experts say that’s not what that is.

Consider viral attenuation. My chemist-brain limited understanding of this process is that you take a virus which infects humans, and suspend it in a media with a mix of human cells and, say, chicken cells. At first the virus is much more adapted to infect the human cells, but over time you reduce the human cells in the media and increase the chicken cells, creating evolutionary pressure to adapt. If you do it just right, you’ve created a virus that’s much better at infecting chickens - but no longer very good at infecting humans. I believe several vaccines in the last century are based on this approach. Nobody calls this gain of function. But the virus gained function, didn’t it? It’s better at infecting chicken cells now? This is where there’s not much you can tell the weird right-wingers besides “you really don’t have the relevant expertise to have an informed opinion here.” Frankly, I don’t think I do either.

Anyway Project Veritas published a video in which somebody who supposedly works for Pfizer (and FWIW it’s not really O’Keefe’s MO to hire an actor for that part) says Pfizer is doing some stuff that sounds a little gain of function-ey, at least with enough jump cuts to narration that recontextualizes the quotes. From the footage alone it might not even be clear he’s saying that.

But we’re past that now. We’re no longer talking about the video, we’re talking about the response to the video. As usual BlackJack isn’t particularly interested in the thing itself, as much as what the thing can tell us about wokeness, censorship, etc. in our society. If the video is bullshit, why aren’t the MSM writing refutations of it?

But what is there to refute exactly? The video claims Pfizer is doing types of research they shouldn’t. Pfizer denies this, and there’s no real evidence that they are. But it’s pretty hard to prove a negative. Pfizer has extensive business ventures in all kinds of areas, and they’re mostly confidential, but even if they gave some journalists unprecedented access in the name of transparency, how could you ever know they didn’t just hide the bad stuff? That it wasn’t a controlled PR stunt like the Twitter Files?

Meanwhile the weird right-wingers have already decided the video proves all kinds of insane nonsense I don’t think even O’Keefe claims. It wasn’t a lab leak, Pfizer engineered the virus so they could sell us the cure! They’re already planning the next one! Something something JFK Jr! As usual, it’s not clear to what extent they actually believe all of this; it often feels like there’s an element of spontaneous grassroots disinformation, like Day9’s chat telling him to find the rope.

Frankly, I think an article enumerating the video’s claims and clarifying what we actually know about each one would be a public service, but it’s just not all that newsworthy. It certainly wouldn’t get many clicks. Project Veritas’s schtick has gotten pretty old, they’re a pretty known quantity, and they haven’t really provided anything useful to discuss. I’m sure the video has gotten however many million views and weird right-wingers will yell about it for a bit, but they just don’t make the splash they used to. Their last few videos didn’t really shift the public conversation much, and even the conspiracy theorists moved on to new stuff to yell about after a bit; in all likelihood this will play out similarly.

Magic Powers

Austria3547 Posts

February 01 2023 16:08 GMT

#13672

On February 01 2023 22:04 BlackJack wrote:
I remember when Fauci and the experts were saying masks don’t help prevent COVID. I got into some arguments with Redditors who were enraged with me that I dared to doubt the health experts. Apparently my simple argument of “why the fuck do u think nurses and doctors are wearing them then” wasn’t very convincing. Some people will literally believe anything as long as they trust the people telling them.

Either you fell for context-less clickbait or you only read the title of the news.

"In the clip, Dr Fauci says “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

Fauci made this comment on an interview with 60 Minutes on March 8, during the early stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak in the United States."

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks-idUSKBN26T2TR

Between March 1-8 in 2020, cases in the USA had increased from 62 to 213. Nothing that the general population could've done anything about.

[image loading]

Fauci was (as usual) right at that time. Later, when cases had increased, he sent a different message telling people that wearing masks is a good idea. That's because eventually the United States had significant numbers that constituted an epidemic, not just the beginnings of an outbreak, and by then mask-wearing would have an effect.
There was no goalpost shifting by Fauci in that regard. It's just the usual misinformation tactic by right-wing hoaxers to discredit one of their most disliked public figures.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28528 Posts

February 01 2023 18:29 GMT

#13673

But that quote has fauci stating 'when you're in the middle of an outbreak', that to me means it is entirely fair to consider it applicable advice for when an outbreak happens, even if the statement was technically made before the outbreak broke out.

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

February 01 2023 18:34 GMT

#13674

+ Show Spoiler +

I am sure the majority of you are still 1000 years behind reality, but for those that are interested in actual facts, and properly executed scientific method:

Steve Kirsch has had an open challenge for months now, for anyone to debate him for $1,000,000 on various topics regarding the pandemic and the covid vaccines. No one took him up on any of them. I wonder why. He even sent open challenges to some very outspoken pro-vax people - no takers, of course. He was willing to change the amount of money, so that isn't the reason why.

Anyways, someone finally took him up on one of his debate topics. The claim that will be debated is: Do the Covid-19 mrna vaccines cause more deaths than they prevent. Steve Kirsch says yes, Saar Wilf, representing Dardalin Ltd, says no.

I don't know much about Saar Wilf or his company, but I do know Kirsch has a team of around ~75 volunteers(including me) helping him prepare for this debate. Many of these people are experts in related fields (attorneys, professors, doctors, epidemiologists, statisticians, data scientists, etc). We are all very passionate about this because we believe the debate could potentially save lives, and we care about that.

We formed 2 primary sub-teams, one team is taking each side, and then attacking their own side. Then we do mock debates, and afterwards help the other team. I can tell you, for anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty who actually cares, the evidence is overwhelming. The debate should be hilariously one sided.

Here is a copy of the signed memorandum of understanding,
https://www.skirsch.com/covid/GreatDebateTermsheet.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Last thing I will say is, there's gonna be a reckoning for some of you. Brainwashed worshipers of the state. I actually find this thread so distasteful, it's literally gross to me. I don't feel bad for saying this, it's just the truth.

User was warned for this post

DarkPlasmaBall

United States43580 Posts

February 01 2023 18:41 GMT

#13675

On February 02 2023 03:34 travis wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

So you saw the posts about Project Veritas and a slew of various conspiracy theories, and you thought to yourself "You know what this thread needs: millionaire anti-vaxxers." Because that's going to make this thread better.