Chief Twit

[Mr. Dazzle]

If anything I'm surprised that people are so surprised Twitter could be/might be/are partisan.

Twitter et al are actually way less regulated and controlled than traditional media, in amongst this whole topic there was the proposed amendment (I wanna say 230?) about making social media responsible for the content they post, like TV, Radio etc. are.

Is anyone screaming conspiracy over Fox News, The Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror's level of bias?

Above all else it's why it rates a solid "meh" on my (and seemingly lots of other people's) give-a-shit-ometer really.

[DefTrap]

I did ask you for a specific example and since you insist "you were wrong then and are <therefore> wrong now" you'll excuse me for asking for an actual example. Something I have said and not something in your imagination.

Right in front of you if you could be arsed to look M8 viewtopic.php?p=198833#p198833

You're putting a lot of effort into being defensive by the way.

[Screwdriver]

Right in front of you if you could be arsed to look M8 viewtopic.php?p=198833#p198833

You're putting a lot of effort into being defensive by the way.

Right in front of me to a page that you did not link to?

Anyhow, finally it appears this is your example of "where you are wrong":

I am sure Pfizer have provided a ton of numbers relating to efficacy data and yes they did conduct a number of trials.

I don't believe the numbers because they consistently refuse to provide the actual data those numbers are made up from. Secondly, there are plenty of "stories" about the veracity and quality of the trials themselves, again, most of that data is withheld. I'm not making this up, I follow articles from the BMJ and similar outlets I believe I can trust.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/27/4/199

So where exactly are you suggesting the BMJ are wrong?

"The lack of adequate transparency about COVID-19 vaccine trials and their regulation cannot be dismissed as unfortunate, stubborn problems emblematic of the present culture in biomedicine. In a time of increasing public scrutiny, transparency of regulatory decision making leading to the approval of drug treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 is important to ensure patient and stakeholder trust. It is a scientific, moral and ethical imperative that access to complete trial data of these global public health interventions is urgently granted to patients, researchers and other key stakeholders."

Perhaps the BMJ are "wrong" because they are not so tightly controlled by corporate entities as the WHO appear to be?

@weeksy This does I believe fit into the general Twitter topic area since Twitter was actively censoring any criticism of trials or mention of ivermectin efficacy for example. The "lab leak" theory and mask mandate are two other heavily censored topic areas.

Now before anyone jumps on my daring to mention "ivermectin", I am NOT suggesting it is a "miracle cure" for COVID, just that any and all reference to it was being actively censored and even ridiculed by the legacy media and every big tech outlet. As it happens, the jury is still out on its potential use as a COVID 'treatment" largely (I assume) because there is little to no actual sponsorship for a conclusive clinical trial.

Why would big pharma want to even know if a cheap alternative drug was available when they don't own the (expired) patent...

[weeksy]

This does I believe fit into the general Twitter topic area since Twitter was actively censoring any criticism of trials or mention of ivermectin efficacy for example. The "lab leak" theory and mask mandate are two other heavily censored topic areas.

sorry is there a question ?

[JamJar]

I think alot of people are seeing these Twitter reveals as some great "Aha! GOTCHA!" reveal, whereas the facts don't support (or refute TBF) that...all that's actually been proven is that the FBI talked to Twitter about content moderation. We should also remember that both the FBI ajs Twitter would have been pretty touchy about it at the time given the then recent goings on with alleged Russian collusion.

As I said both 'sides' ask for, and got, stuff removed which straight away pokes a pretty big hole in any arguments of conspiracy.

The rest is just conjecture to suit your bias.

That is about as tame a précis as I have seen for the extraordinary scale of the operation that was in place to suppress news stories the sitting government don't want aired. Don't forget, it's not just Twitter. It's Google, Youtube. Instagram, FaceBook et.al. (according to my tinfolhatometer).

Twitter has been revealed as an extension of the political propaganda machine. Totally one sided which was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. But now the truth is revealed, you can't dismiss such claims as "conspiracy theory", "lizard lords" so you're suggesting a sort of "meh, so what".

Is that where you're going with that? Seems like you haven't fully considered the implications of state controlled "news".

Free speech isn't some trivial facet of our society, nor is it something that just happens with every level of governance. It is a very hard won right that we all enjoy thanks to the extreme efforts of our armed forces for example.

Yes, as has been observed more openly by a number of politicians who should know better, authoritarianism is indeed a much easier way to run a country. I would hope we share the opinion that the China model is not one we would willingly subscribe to.

They weren't the sitting government.

[Screwdriver]

They weren't the sitting government.

"They" who?

[DefTrap]

I don't believe the numbers because they consistently refuse to provide the actual data those numbers are made up from. Secondly, there are plenty of "stories" about the veracity and quality of the trials themselves, again, most of that data is withheld. I'm not making this up, I follow articles from the BMJ and similar outlets I believe I can trust.

Like I said before there are very good reasons (mainly laws to protect patient safety and identity) why the full extent of medical data isn't just handed out like confetti for armchair expert analysis. The whole point of it is to preserve the data integrity, protect the patient and encourage them to participate in trials. Most of these laws were tightened up decades ago, so it's slightly odd that (a) you suddenly have a problem with it (b) you're probably gulping down masses of meds that have been through exactly the same processes with the same control over the data.

It's not a symptom of a cover up, or censorship, it's probably one of the worst examples of 'definitely a cover up' literally ever.
But carry on harping on about it, you'll still be wrong, and it just makes you seem wronger about everything else.

[Screwdriver]

Like I said before there are very good reasons (mainly laws to protect patient safety and identity) why the full extent of medical data isn't just handed out like confetti for armchair expert analysis. The whole point of it is to preserve the data integrity, protect the patient and encourage them to participate in trials. Most of these laws were tightened up decades ago, so it's slightly odd that (a) you suddenly have a problem with it (b) you're probably gulping down masses of meds that have been through exactly the same processes with the same control over the data.

It's not a symptom of a cover up, or censorship, it's probably one of the worst examples of 'definitely a cover up' literally ever.
But carry on harping on about it, you'll still be wrong, and it just makes you seem wronger about everything else.

...and like I have said, that is not the thrust of my argument or observation. That is why I link to a source I trust (and point out that my comments are based on that trust) which itself points out the problems with those data which are not covered by your patient safety/identity excuse.

They are pointing out the lack of transparency in the entire process and therefore the validity of the results they claim. Results which frankly have recently been proven to be overly optimistic to say the least.

You claim that "proves" "it" is not a "cover up" when all the evidence suggests that Pfizer are in fact controlling information from within the legacy media, big tech and of course WHO. They are doing that in order to maintain their astronomical profits from tightly controlling COVID vaccines.

Remembering Pfizer (to take one example) is not a pharmaceutical company per se. they operate more like an asset management company, profiting from ownership of any rights to produce medicines (ask a diabetic). Not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of their shareholders. I **think** the profit margin for "compulsory"(!) COVID jabs is in the 1000's of %.

Even that in itself is not my complaint (or observation if you prefer). My complaint (observation) is that information around the process by which governments and societies is being controlled is being directed by global corporations who now control both the political agenda, media narrative and the output from larger ngo's like the WHO. They do this with increasingly obvious direct control of media outlets where no one would dare to raise a dissenting or questioning voice because any who do will be vilified and ridiculed.

You know, like you are trying to do by misrepresenting my comments as above.

[Hoonercat]

The democrats weren’t in government at the time.

They were the majority in both the Senate & Congress at the time.

There's a difference between a newspaper choosing to print or not print a story & being strong-armed into not printing a story by a political party.

The right wing, Murdoch-owned New York Post, the US equivalent of the Daily Mail, was the newspaper given access to the hard drive in the run-up to the election. The WSJ was given some files, but concluded "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden". The Washington Post, among others, repeatedly asked for access but were 'ignored or rebuffed' by Trump's aides. Meanwhile, Trump was loudly complaining about US media not running the story...

After the New York Post began publishing reports on the contents of the laptop in October 2020, The Washington Post repeatedly asked Giuliani and Republican strategist Stephen K. Bannon for a copy of the data to review, but the requests were rebuffed or ignored.
In June 2021, Maxey, who previously worked as a researcher for Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, delivered to The Washington Post a portable hard drive that he said contained the data. He said he had obtained it from Giuliani.

Complaining about media not running a story when you deny them access to verify it first doesn't elicit much sympathy

[DefTrap]

...and like I have said, that is not the thrust of my argument or observation. That is why I link to a source I trust (and point out that my comments are based on that trust) which itself points out the problems with those data which are not covered by your patient safety/identity excuse.

They are pointing out the lack of transparency in the entire process and therefore the validity of the results they claim. Results which frankly have recently been proven to be overly optimistic to say the least.

Excuse?(!) It is the foundation upon which all medical trials are based. Your analysis makes no sense. You can't have access to ALL of the data, for obvious reasons, so a 'lack of transparency' in the availability of complete data is pretty much built in but that doesn't immediately call into question the validity. And you can't just throw in 'the entire process' like one piece of perceived conspiracy automatically leads to another. The appropriate regulatory authorities do have access to all the data. There is absolutely no evidence for any of this other than a load of vague waffle.

Remembering Pfizer (to take one example) is not a pharmaceutical company per se. they operate more like an asset management company, profiting from ownership of any rights to produce medicines (ask a diabetic). Not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of their shareholders. I **think** the profit margin for "compulsory"(!) COVID jabs is in the 1000's of %.

Pharmas make money? Who'd have thought preventing early deaths and diseases, and limiting the impact of pandemics would be a thing.
You realise of course that most drugs don't make it to market (because they don't effing work and yes because the this is actually borne out in the interim analyses). Drug research isn't free, and sadly there aren't enough filthy rich philanthropists.

They do this with increasingly obvious direct control of media outlets where no one would dare to raise a dissenting or questioning voice because any who do will be vilified and ridiculed.
You know, like you are trying to do by misrepresenting my comments as above.

I'm annoyed that the "what if?" cry babies seem to get so much airtime, if that's what you mean.
But like I say, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this covid vaccine issue, and I feel suitably personally qualified on the subject to pursue the rather flimsy rationale that you're using. I think it's nonsense I'm afraid. If you were being interviewed on the TV about it they would just let your rubbishy accusation hang in the air like it had equal weight with those who actually knew what they were talking about - that's a bigger issue in modern media than all these accusations of censorship.

[Mr. Dazzle]

that's a bigger issue in modern media than all these accusations of censorship.

It's the crux of the whole matter IMO.

Taking the FBI as just one easy example...we should remember that the report which found, quote, 'no collusion', also found it likely that the Russian state did indeed interfere in the 2016 election chiefly through electronic means. So you could just as easily argue that the FBI would be remiss if they didn't have a heavy presence at social media firms in 2020.

That ^^^ is just a different interpretation of the same set of fairly sparse facts.

Similarly everyone is sure that the media is being silenced and yet everyone knows about it. So it's some pretty shoddy silencing. Or maybe just a biased interpretation.

The truth usually lies on average in the middle and is far more due to random uncoordinated acts than people in the shadows.

The problem is not big tech, big pharma or big government. It's little people being taken in and falling down rabbit holes way too easily.

[Count Steer]

The problem is not big tech, big pharma or big government. It's little people being taken in and falling down rabbit holes way too easily.

Taking Ivermectin as a case in point. There's a duty of care to stop people doing stupid, potentially harmful things - not that the social media platforms are very good at it. If 'the media' had deleted suggestions that drinking bleach would cure Covid I don't think many would have been too surprised or upset. This one just happens to fit the endemic paranoia that 'they' are hiding information, 'big pharma' don't want people taking cheap stuff (so won't do proper testing and wouldn't publish the results if it worked anyway), anything that suggests otherwise is disinformation, data that shows increases in prescription levels are linked to consumption related illness are 'misleading' and 'the jury' is still out

I suppose once you get far enough down the rabbit hole, everything that you don't like is conspiracy.

At least no-one has said 'wake up sheeple!' yet.

[irie]

I did ask you for a specific example and since you insist "you were wrong then and are <therefore> wrong now" you'll excuse me for asking for an actual example. Something I have said and not something in your imagination.

Right in front of you if you could be arsed to look M8 viewtopic.php?p=198833#p198833

You're putting a lot of effort into being defensive by the way.

I think this post ...

Anyway, clearly my opinion is not welcome here so while I may have concerns regarding the safety of this vaccine for the reasons stated, it may be that I am more worried than most due to my own personal circumstances which include immune deficiency. I'm not sure I even want to go into it in any more detail, suffice to say a number of ailments I suffered from which were coincident with my Astrazenaca jabs are only now being revealed as potential "side effects" of the mRNA jab.

... defines what lies behind his conspiracy theory. He needs to blame an external force of which he has been a victim and "Big Pharma" fills that need. Convenient and simplistic if course, but correlation does not imply causation.

[Mr. Dazzle]

He needs to blame an external force of which he has been a victim, and spite of the fact that correlation does not imply causation, "Big Pharma" fills that need.

I say it in every one of these threads, but I'll say it again anyway

Conspiracy theories gain traction primarily, IMO, because they allow you to assign blame and cause to random events. They're very much like religion in that way really.

[ZRX61]

Taking Ivermectin as a case in point. There's a duty of care to stop people doing stupid, potentially harmful things - not that the social media platforms are very good at it. If 'the media' had deleted suggestions that drinking bleach would cure Covid I don't think many would have been too surprised or upset. This one just happens to fit the endemic paranoia that 'they' are hiding information, 'big pharma' don't want people taking cheap stuff (so won't do proper testing and wouldn't publish the results if it worked anyway), anything that suggests otherwise is disinformation, data that shows increases in prescription levels are linked to consumption related illness are 'misleading' and 'the jury' is still out

I suppose once you get far enough down the rabbit hole, everything that you don't like is conspiracy.

At least no-one has said 'wake up sheeple!' yet.

Governor Benito Newsolini of California recently signed a new law that makes it illegal for medical professionals to talk about any Covid treatment (including potential treatments) that aren't backed by the CDC.

[Count Steer]

Taking Ivermectin as a case in point. There's a duty of care to stop people doing stupid, potentially harmful things - not that the social media platforms are very good at it. If 'the media' had deleted suggestions that drinking bleach would cure Covid I don't think many would have been too surprised or upset. This one just happens to fit the endemic paranoia that 'they' are hiding information, 'big pharma' don't want people taking cheap stuff (so won't do proper testing and wouldn't publish the results if it worked anyway), anything that suggests otherwise is disinformation, data that shows increases in prescription levels are linked to consumption related illness are 'misleading' and 'the jury' is still out

I suppose once you get far enough down the rabbit hole, everything that you don't like is conspiracy.

At least no-one has said 'wake up sheeple!' yet.

Governor Benito Newsolini of California recently signed a new law that makes it illegal for medical professionals to talk about any Covid treatment (including potential treatments) that aren't backed by the CDC.

Well it'll save time arguing with the people that insist on being treated with pile ointment and paraquat + it'll put the mockers on a load of quacks that would be recommending rat bile and frankincense infusions.

[Count Steer]

He needs to blame an external force of which he has been a victim, and spite of the fact that correlation does not imply causation, "Big Pharma" fills that need.

I say it in every one of these threads, but I'll say it again anyway

Conspiracy theories gain traction primarily, IMO, because they allow you to assign blame and cause to random events. They're very much like religion in that way really.

They gain even more traction because there's no evidence to support them because well, obvs, the 'truth' is being suppressed. It's all self reinforcing...if you want it to be.

[ZRX61]

Well it'll save time arguing with the people that insist on being treated with pile ointment and paraquat + it'll put the mockers on a load of quacks that would be recommending rat bile and frankincense infusions.

or natural immunity, which 50% of us apparently have...or any of the therapeutics etc...or taking Tylenol to help with the fever...

[DefTrap]

Well it'll save time arguing with the people that insist on being treated with pile ointment and paraquat + it'll put the mockers on a load of quacks that would be recommending rat bile and frankincense infusions.

It does make you wonder how and why folk are so keen to whack alternative meds into their bodies, whilst at the same time decrying a properly tested vaccine.

I'm still laughing at my covid-denying sister-in-law, taking unlabelled chinese herbal remedies, and shitting her pants in the night.

[Screwdriver]

...and like I have said, that is not the thrust of my argument or observation. That is why I link to a source I trust (and point out that my comments are based on that trust) which itself points out the problems with those data which are not covered by your patient safety/identity excuse.

They are pointing out the lack of transparency in the entire process and therefore the validity of the results they claim. Results which frankly have recently been proven to be overly optimistic to say the least.

Excuse?(!) It is the foundation upon which all medical trials are based. Your analysis makes no sense. You can't have access to ALL of the data, for obvious reasons, so a 'lack of transparency' in the availability of complete data is pretty much built in but that doesn't immediately call into question the validity. And you can't just throw in 'the entire process' like one piece of perceived conspiracy automatically leads to another. The appropriate regulatory authorities do have access to all the data. There is absolutely no evidence for any of this other than a load of vague waffle.

Remembering Pfizer (to take one example) is not a pharmaceutical company per se. they operate more like an asset management company, profiting from ownership of any rights to produce medicines (ask a diabetic). Not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of their shareholders. I **think** the profit margin for "compulsory"(!) COVID jabs is in the 1000's of %.

Pharmas make money? Who'd have thought preventing early deaths and diseases, and limiting the impact of pandemics would be a thing.
You realise of course that most drugs don't make it to market (because they don't effing work and yes because the this is actually borne out in the interim analyses). Drug research isn't free, and sadly there aren't enough filthy rich philanthropists.

They do this with increasingly obvious direct control of media outlets where no one would dare to raise a dissenting or questioning voice because any who do will be vilified and ridiculed.
You know, like you are trying to do by misrepresenting my comments as above.

I'm annoyed that the "what if?" cry babies seem to get so much airtime, if that's what you mean.
But like I say, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this covid vaccine issue, and I feel suitably personally qualified on the subject to pursue the rather flimsy rationale that you're using. I think it's nonsense I'm afraid. If you were being interviewed on the TV about it they would just let your rubbishy accusation hang in the air like it had equal weight with those who actually knew what they were talking about - that's a bigger issue in modern media than all these accusations of censorship.

The only person suggesting ALL the data is you. You are arguing against a point I have not made.

Yes pharma need to make money but Pfizer are making a killing. Literally. By maintaining a monopoly on a drug developed by another company they bought up to secire the patent, restrict access to 3rd world countries in order to hold the world to ransom. Their actionsare despicable and the profit margin on this particular drug I have read is something like 4000%. Or was that insulin for diabetics?? I can't remember. Who cares, four thousand percent markup is indefensible...

But they do not merely defend it, they spend MILLIONS on "lobbying" various governments to make their jab compulsory. On top of that they spend millions advertising, lobbying, dictating propaganda in mainstream media to vilify anyone who would dare question the absolute necessity for this drug. To the extent that people get fired etc. Then there's the question of forcing it onto children...

As for your last "cry baby" rant, again you're just waving your hands at some wild interpretation you have made about what you think I am saying (a precis of the BMJ report I link to). So congratulations on your double whammy: a straw man argument from authority.