Covid 19 - counter arguments

mapping

Forum Patron
Patron
Anyone know where we can apply for the jobs separating vaccinated/unvaccinated sewerage as I'm already annoyed my eldest is on his PS5 every day now that schools finished for them. I can provide the marigolds

Got a plan for mine, goes something like this

1. wake 8,
2. breakfast at 8.15
3 laptop open job hunt 8.30 till 5pm
4 repeat monday thru friday
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
Naomi Wolf is an idiot, tbh. Doesn't help the cause at all.

That said, if we banned everyone off Twitter for talking shit, it would soon be empty :D

Plus, as we have seen with the u-turn on allowing the lab leak hypothesis, where do you draw the line at booting people off for misinformation, and who decides?

Always a fine line once you start censoring views.
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
Anyone know where we can apply for the jobs separating vaccinated/unvaccinated sewerage as I'm already annoyed my eldest is on his PS5 every day now that schools finished for them. I can provide the marigolds
Mate, I wondered what the foul stench was, coming from the lads' bathroom this morning. Holy smoke. I was on my hands & knees for 30 minutes cleaning around the loo and the floor.

Dirty teenage bastards.

I'll be having words tonight.
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Forum Patron
Patron
Naomi Wolf is an idiot, tbh. Doesn't help the cause at all.

That said, if we banned everyone off Twitter for talking shit, it would soon be empty :D

Plus, as we have seen with the u-turn on allowing the lab leak hypothesis, where do you draw the line at booting people off for misinformation, and who decides?

Always a fine line once you start censoring views.

There are many doctors and scientists who don't agree with the official narrative on Covid.. like the guy in #1069.

I'm not sure what the suggestion is here..

"that videos and posts by doctors and scientists AREN'T being censored, suspended and banned by social media" ?

Or

"I disagree with the opinions of these doctors therefore it is misinformation so they deserve to be banned.."

We could always discuss the suspension of Anna Brees the former BBC reporter who has been suspended for sharing these medical professionals videos via Facebook, Youtube, Twitter. Her interview with Dr Anthony Hinton was removed by youtube... they same Dr Hinton who appeared on Jeremy Vine a few days ago.

Or how about we discuss the video in post 1070 from Dr John Campbell ? A guy that most on here would agree has provided excellent info on Covid throughout.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...lV8PSHDnl2Sqpph0qTDg6awBVv2MgAtt0j6hqEey94xi4 (Hit refersh and esc to bypass the paywall)

Above not aimed specifically at you Sepp... in all the talk about emails did you pick up on the "gain of function" thing ?
 
Last edited:

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
Naomi Wolf is an idiot, tbh. Doesn't help the cause at all.

That said, if we banned everyone off Twitter for talking shit, it would soon be empty :D

Plus, as we have seen with the u-turn on allowing the lab leak hypothesis, where do you draw the line at booting people off for misinformation, and who decides?

Always a fine line once you start censoring views.
There’s a difference between talking rubbish and presenting dangerous lies at fact, whilst pretending you have credibility to discuss such things in that way. Posting what she posts puts health and well-being at risk.

The fact that you can make a collage of said posts shows Twitter showed her plenty of leniency before suspending her

If Wakefield had been prevalent today, and had been posting his autism and MMR theories today on social media, would it have been right to leave those up knowing the damage it could cause?
 

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
There are many doctors and scientists who don't agree with the official narrative on Covid.. like the guy in #1069.

I'm not sure what the argument is here..

"that videos and posts by doctors and scientists AREN'T being censored, suspended and banned by social media" ?

Or

"I disagree with the opinions of the doctors therefore they deserve to be banned.."

We could always discuss the suspension of Anna Brees the former BBC reporter who has been suspended for sharing these medical professionals videos via Facebook, Youtube, Twitter
She’s not a doctor, scientist or medical professor though? She’s got a PHD in English literature. She’s about as qualified to discuss this as I am

Edit: Wolf that is
 
Last edited:

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
She’s not a doctor, scientist or medical professor though? She’s got a PHD in English literature. She’s about as qualified to discuss this as I am

Edit: Wolf that is
It’s almost as though she puts her title on there to buy scientific credibility. Maybe she should be stripped of her PhD too !
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
There’s a difference between talking rubbish and presenting dangerous lies at fact, whilst pretending you have credibility to discuss such things in that way. Posting what she posts puts health and well-being at risk.

The fact that you can make a collage of said posts shows Twitter showed her plenty of leniency before suspending her

If Wakefield had been prevalent today, and had been posting his autism and MMR theories today on social media, would it have been right to leave those up knowing the damage it could cause?
As I said, I am no fan of Naomi Wolf and can live with her ban. However, as always with censorship, things can creep into sinister areas very quickly.

Where is the line drawn? Outright rubbish about 5G, or people questioning the efficiency of masks, talking about side effects of vaccines, or organising protests against lockdown? Someone has to make that decision, and does that affect our rights, as adults, to access information and make up our own minds?

The British government already has a special unit working with social media companies to 'combat misinformation.' Can we be sure that is actually fake news, or is it simply anything going outside their preferred narrative? It is a very fine line, but also a very important one.


We already saw with the lab leaks that fake news might not actually be fake news. The Indian government has outright demanded that FB take down posts critical of the government response to covid, and they are not alone.

Journalist unions and free speech organisations have been very vocal in condemning governments suppressing information under the guise of covid. It is something we should all be aware of.



Plus, there are plenty of other reasons to suggest that censorship is actually counterproductive, simply driving views underground where they cannot be challenged. Perhaps, if Wakefield had access to social media, he would have been challenged more quickly.
 

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
As I said, I am no fan of Naomi Wolf and can live with her ban. However, as always with censorship, things can creep into sinister areas very quickly.

Where is the line drawn? Outright rubbish about 5G, or people questioning the efficiency of masks, talking about side effects of vaccines, or organising protests against lockdown? Someone has to make that decision, and does that affect our rights, as adults, to access information and make up our own minds?

The British government already has a special unit working with social media companies to 'combat misinformation.' Can we be sure that is actually fake news, or is it simply anything going outside their preferred narrative? It is a very fine line, but also a very important one.


We already saw with the lab leaks that fake news might not actually be fake news. The Indian government has outright demanded that FB take down posts critical of the government response to covid, and they are not alone.

Journalist unions and free speech organisations have been very vocal in condemning governments suppressing information under the guise of covid. It is something we should all be aware of.



Plus, there are plenty of other reasons to suggest that censorship is actually counterproductive, simply driving views underground where they cannot be challenged. Perhaps, if Wakefield had access to social media, he would have been challenged more quickly.
She says vaccinated people are spreading Covid to unvaccinated people purely by being in their vicinity after having their jab. There’s a massive difference between a statement like this and questioning the efficacy about masks. Even more so when it’s coming from someone with a PHD in philosophy

For me, anyone who is even the slight bit qualified to discuss something can post something like this as long as either a) they have a basis for what they are posting b) there’s insufficient evidence to the contrary of what they’re posting

If you tried to publish a paper with the sort of science Wolf is posting, not a single publishing agency would publish it because there is no basis or science behind it. Is that censorship, or is it science bad science doesn’t become a mainstream opinion?
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
She says vaccinated people are spreading Covid to unvaccinated people purely by being in their vicinity after having their jab. There’s a massive difference between a statement like this and questioning the efficacy about masks. Even more so when it’s coming from someone with a PHD in philosophy

For me, anyone who is even the slight bit qualified to discuss something can post something like this as long as either a) they have a basis for what they are posting b) there’s insufficient evidence to the contrary of what they’re posting

If you tried to publish a paper with the sort of science Wolf is posting, not a single publishing agency would publish it because there is no basis or science behind it. Is that censorship, or is it science bad science doesn’t become a mainstream opinion?
Peer review is a completely different thing - and it is quite right that she would not have a paper published in a journal. Social media and the press do not go through the same process - nor should they be expected to.

You are fixating on Naomi and skirting around the rest of my points. I don't care for her views, btw, but it is surely better to challenge them and tear them apart.

Again, who decides whether there is a basis for posting or whether there is insufficient evidence to the contrary? Where is that particular line drawn? FB has already said that it is going to take down posts questioning mask efficiency, btw.

I remember, early on in the epidemic, tearing apart a lot of mainstream articles from the BBC etc. that pushed misleading science (without malice, I suspect). Yet, by your measure, these are an acceptable basis.

Have to go to the shops, but these articles reflect some of the points I am making:



As always, the question is: is any censorship designed to protect people, or to protect the government?
 

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
Peer review is a completely different thing - and it is quite right that she would not have a paper published in a journal. Social media and the press do not go through the same process - nor should they be expected to.

You are fixating on Naomi and skirting around the rest of my points. I don't care for her views, btw, but it is surely better to challenge them and tear them apart.

Again, who decides whether there is a basis for posting or whether there is insufficient evidence to the contrary? Where is that particular line drawn? FB has already said that it is going to take down posts questioning mask efficiency, btw.

I remember, early on in the epidemic, tearing apart a lot of mainstream articles from the BBC etc. that pushed misleading science (without malice, I suspect). Yet, by your measure, these are an acceptable basis.

Have to go to the shops, but these articles reflect some of the points I am making:



As always, the question is: is any censorship designed to protect people, or to protect the government?
I’m skipping the rest of your points cos I agree with most of them.
The focus on Naomi is more because she’s the example Sliper offered, and I struggle to see why her being suspended indicates censorship. I get what you’re saying about challenging and tearing them apart, but the likes of Hopkins show that just as often these people are posting these views for attention and clicks and controversy, so they won’t give a toss if people tear them apart

As for your last point, I’d say it depends on what’s is being “censored”. I don’t think it’s as easy as giving it one reason. For example - going back to Wakefield again cos I’m lazy - would blocking those views from being posted be seen as protecting people or protecting government. I’d say the former, but maybe that’s just me. However, I do think your previous point about driving it underground is still valid
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Forum Patron
Patron
I’m skipping the rest of your points cos I agree with most of them.
The focus on Naomi is more because she’s the example Sliper offered, and I struggle to see why her being suspended indicates censorship. I get what you’re saying about challenging and tearing them apart, but the likes of Hopkins show that just as often these people are posting these views for attention and clicks and controversy, so they won’t give a toss if people tear them apart

As for your last point, I’d say it depends on what’s is being “censored”. I don’t think it’s as easy as giving it one reason. For example - going back to Wakefield again cos I’m lazy - would blocking those views from being posted be seen as protecting people or protecting government. I’d say the former, but maybe that’s just me. However, I do think your previous point about driving it underground is still valid

I post here to provide a range of alternative views to anyone who might be interested because I don't feel these views are being heard. I leave it largely to others to decide which have validity.

Personally I believe the crisis is being used to usher in global authoritarian rule and that is something I think people urgently need to be aware of.

You pointed out a problem with one of the examples but haven't bothered responding to anything else. You will pardon me if it appears that you are only looking to find fault... like others "having a go" at this thread.

I see almost no "fault finding" of the main stream media narrative on any of the other threads.. its a much more powerful narrative that is being pushed at millions continuously.. for example it could be argued that those who continue to refer to positive PCR tests as "cases" are being deliberately misleading.

Why don't you and others "find fault" with any of that ?
 
Last edited:

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
I’m skipping the rest of your points cos I agree with most of them.
The focus on Naomi is more because she’s the example Sliper offered, and I struggle to see why her being suspended indicates censorship. I get what you’re saying about challenging and tearing them apart, but the likes of Hopkins show that just as often these people are posting these views for attention and clicks and controversy, so they won’t give a toss if people tear them apart

As for your last point, I’d say it depends on what’s is being “censored”. I don’t think it’s as easy as giving it one reason. For example - going back to Wakefield again cos I’m lazy - would blocking those views from being posted be seen as protecting people or protecting government. I’d say the former, but maybe that’s just me. However, I do think your previous point about driving it underground is still valid
I'm no fan of Wolf or Hopkins - neither of them are a hill on which I would make my last stand, but that hill does not lie far beyond.

Of course they post for attention and clicks, but that is true of many mainstream journalists, too. Not all on the right!

You are right - it isn't one reason. However, if you ban an extreme anti-vaxxer, are you protecting the public? How many people read those views and think 'they are right,' and how many read it and think 'these people are crazy'? I would suggest that the second group is larger - by hiding these views, you prevent people from arriving at that judgement.

And, how easy is it for the government to shift the boundaries of the narrative, gradually labelling legitimate dissent as crazy anti-vaxx talk? Only takes a nudge...

Wakefield is an interesting one - think that the mainstream media was instrumental in promoting his views, but there were no calls for censorship of those.

I was unwittingly sucked into that morass about 12 years ago. A lady hired me to ghostwrite her book about bringing up a child with severe autism. An interesting project, so I thought.

Anyway, it turned out she felt that the MMR was fully responsible for her son's condition and wanted the book to be about that. She cc'ed me into a load of group emails, even though I cancelled the contract, and the stuff flying around was frightening.

It was also a very large group - with similar groups elsewhere around the world. This was nothing to do with social media and purely by email. My concern is that, if you censor these views on social media, they simply return to emails or other areas where they fester without any criticism.

She was a very nice, well educated lady, but she wasn't well. I can only imagine the strain she had been under and she was lashing out, trying to find someone to blame.
 

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
I'm no fan of Wolf or Hopkins - neither of them are a hill on which I would make my last stand, but that hill does not lie far beyond.

Of course they post for attention and clicks, but that is true of many mainstream journalists, too. Not all on the right!

You are right - it isn't one reason. However, if you ban an extreme anti-vaxxer, are you protecting the public? How many people read those views and think 'they are right,' and how many read it and think 'these people are crazy'? I would suggest that the second group is larger - by hiding these views, you prevent people from arriving at that judgement.

And, how easy is it for the government to shift the boundaries of the narrative, gradually labelling legitimate dissent as crazy anti-vaxx talk? Only takes a nudge...

Wakefield is an interesting one - think that the mainstream media was instrumental in promoting his views, but there were no calls for censorship of those.

I was unwittingly sucked into that morass about 12 years ago. A lady hired me to ghostwrite her book about bringing up a child with severe autism. An interesting project, so I thought.

Anyway, it turned out she felt that the MMR was fully responsible for her son's condition and wanted the book to be about that. She cc'ed me into a load of group emails, even though I cancelled the contract, and the stuff flying around was frightening.

It was also a very large group - with similar groups elsewhere around the world. This was nothing to do with social media and purely by email. My concern is that, if you censor these views on social media, they simply return to emails or other areas where they fester without any criticism.

She was a very nice, well educated lady, but she wasn't well. I can only imagine the strain she had been under and she was lashing out, trying to find someone to blame.
Fascinating. Did anything send up red flags when she initially hired you or only once you started investigating/hearing some of her views

Also terrifying, and shows just how much damage that scumbag did
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
Fascinating. Did anything send up red flags when she initially hired you or only once you started investigating/hearing some of her views

Also terrifying, and shows just how much damage that scumbag did
Nope - initially just a story about life with autism.

I was deep into the research when the emails started - all very sad, to be honest.

Roy Meadow is someone else who caused great damage...
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Forum Patron
Patron
I'm no fan of Wolf or Hopkins - neither of them are a hill on which I would make my last stand, but that hill does not lie far beyond.

Of course they post for attention and clicks, but that is true of many mainstream journalists, too. Not all on the right!

You are right - it isn't one reason. However, if you ban an extreme anti-vaxxer, are you protecting the public? How many people read those views and think 'they are right,' and how many read it and think 'these people are crazy'? I would suggest that the second group is larger - by hiding these views, you prevent people from arriving at that judgement.

And, how easy is it for the government to shift the boundaries of the narrative, gradually labelling legitimate dissent as crazy anti-vaxx talk? Only takes a nudge...

Wakefield is an interesting one - think that the mainstream media was instrumental in promoting his views, but there were no calls for censorship of those.

I think its worth mentioning.. it was the "crazies" who said that lockdown wouldn't end after 3-6-12 weeks.

The "crazies" said it was globally co-ordinated...

It was crazies like us who said they wouldn't give back their emergency powers without a struggle...

The "crazies" said from the beginning this was about vaccinating the entire population.. and guess what is happening ?

In these respects the conspiracy theorists..turned out to be "factualists
 
Last edited:

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
I think its worth mentioning.. it was the "crazies" who said that lockdown wouldn't end after 3-6-12 weeks.

The "crazies" said it was globally co-ordinated.

It was crazies like us who said they wouldn't give back their emergency powers without a struggle...

The "crazies" said from the beginning this was about vaccinating the entire population.. and guess what has happened ?

Conspiracy theorists..turned out to be "factualists"
Yup - there have been some perfectly valid counterarguments written off as crazy, conspiracies, right wing etc.

Very conveniently despite legitimate concerns over censorship.

I draw the line at 5G and chips in vaccines, though!
 

jamesOB

Forum Patron
Patron
Yup - there have been some perfectly valid counterarguments written off as crazy, conspiracies, right wing etc.

Very conveniently despite legitimate concerns over censorship.

I draw the line at 5G and chips in vaccines, though!
Just saying, but my phone signal has never been better, even on hilltops…take your own advice and don’t be so quick to judge 👀
 
Top