“How to Save the World in 3 Easy Steps”

[Pen]

@wathe @SeaConquest @Fritz

tagging all 3 of you because I think you are involved in healthcare and I am

interested in your take on the video linked below   
 

its title is this thread title

 

@Plum tagging you for your dh in healthcare and because some parts particularly relate to long haul Covid, but I do not know if still applicable if mRNA or DNA shots were taken on top of long Covid

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/-_NNTVJzqtY/

 

It’s long and one guy has a hard time letting the other two speak. Nonetheless I think highly worthwhile. I put it to a higher speed in parts. The main moderator is a “liberal” btw if that matters to people being able to hear something different than their own cognitive biases with a slightly open mind. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Pen

[KSera]

I always check the source before clicking on something unknown like that. Here’s the media bias fact check for bitchute:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
 

“

• Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most).

Also:

‘According to the Southern Poverty Law Center “BitChute, is a low-rent YouTube clone that carries an array of hate-fueled material, including white nationalist podcasts, propaganda linked to a murderous neo-Nazi group and a parody song called “N—– Babies,” which chortles at the idea of slaughtering and then eating black infants.”’

Yeah. Not clicking. 

[Wheres Toto]

18 minutes ago, KSera said:

I always check the source before clicking on something unknown like that. Here’s the media bias fact check for bitchute:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
 

“

• Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most).

Also:

‘According to the Southern Poverty Law Center “BitChute, is a low-rent YouTube clone that carries an array of hate-fueled material, including white nationalist podcasts, propaganda linked to a murderous neo-Nazi group and a parody song called “N—– Babies,” which chortles at the idea of slaughtering and then eating black infants.”’

Yeah. Not clicking. 

I find it very disturbing that someone would share something from such a grotesque source.  

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I find it very disturbing that someone would share something from such a grotesque source.  

But it’s so important that we “hear something different than (our) own cognitive biases with a slightly open mind.” 
 

It’s like we have a one person conspiracy theory show on this board with a captive audience. Everyday there is a new episode. It’s not surprising at all that the sources are getting more and more extreme. 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I find it very disturbing that someone would share something from such a grotesque source.  

I do as well. Same person used anti-Semitic tropes in objecting to Covid vaccines though, so while sad and disgusting to see such a source shared here, not totally surprising 😞. 

[wathe]

Sorry Pen, I don' have either the time or the interest for videos.

[Frances]

I’m struggling to understand why this continues to be allowed. We’re not allowed to use the word QA*** in a post because it’s too political, but we are allowed to continually post conspiracy theories, disinformation, and random videos from very questionable sources. If it wasn’t for the fact that so much of this is part of mainstream culture now, I would say that it is a good way to stay informed about a fringe element. But sadly, a not insignificant chunk of our populace is drinking the same kool aid.

[Pam in CT]

re what is "allowed"

31 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m struggling to understand why this continues to be allowed. We’re not allowed to use the word QA*** in a post because it’s too political, but we are allowed to continually post conspiracy theories, disinformation, and random videos from very questionable sources. If it wasn’t for the fact that so much of this is part of mainstream culture now, I would say that it is a good way to stay informed about a fringe element. But sadly, a not insignificant chunk of our populace is drinking the same kool aid.

We're not "allowed" to use the word QAnon?  I missed that memo. As you say: to talk about QAnon is necessary, given the poison its adherents are injecting into our society.  Moderators: if that memo has indeed gone out, please let me know; I evidently missed that directive the first time out.

 

re who is spreading the poison:

49 minutes ago, Frances said:

But it’s so important that we “hear something different than (our) own cognitive biases with a slightly open mind.” 
 

It’s like we have a one person conspiracy theory show on this board with a captive audience. Everyday there is a new episode. It’s not surprising at all that the sources are getting more and more extreme. 

Re the poster putatively once known as Pen... if the person now posting as Pen is, indeed, the person who once posted under that same name... I am deeply sorry.

I prefer, however, to hope that the person once known by that name stepped away during the time so many others did, and the login info of that person is now being used by someone else, actively seeking either to stir the pot (lord knows we've had those before, in many different forms) or actively seeking to inject QAnon poison to a captive audience outside existing Q channels.  Without either the knowledge or consent of the person once known by that name.

Either is possible, and at least as likely as the other.

[KSera]

57 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m struggling to understand why this continues to be allowed. We’re not allowed to use the word QA*** in a post because it’s too political, but we are allowed to continually post conspiracy theories, disinformation, and random videos from very questionable sources. If it wasn’t for the fact that so much of this is part of mainstream culture now, I would say that it is a good way to stay informed about a fringe element. But sadly, a not insignificant chunk of our populace is drinking the same kool aid.

I’ve been cogitating since you posted this about what should be “allowed” here, since in general I’m not a fan of a lot of moderation in adult spaces. On the other hand, I also believe it’s totally up to whoever is hosting a space to decide how they want to run it, and I respect that and understand why we have moderation here. It probably does make for a more civil space. In this case though, it does seem like there would likely be some rule against spreading hate speech and/or harmful propaganda. The hate speech is the more cut and dried aspect, I suppose. Discussion of propaganda has been allowed throughout the pandemic, and  it’s hard to be able to discuss propaganda without also sharing it, so I see a bit more of a conundrum there.

[Martha in GA]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most).

This is problematic -- only one side of the argument is considered correct and everything else is considered a conspiracy theory. So, when the lab leak theory became more likely, the "fact checkers" decided they would stop the fact checking about this particular "conspiracy theory." The premise of the video linked by Pen is that those who do not line up with the mainstream narrative are being suppressed. I don't think the views of the participants in the video are spreading propaganda or hate.

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

This is problematic -- only one side of the argument is considered correct and everything else is considered a conspiracy theory. So, when the lab leak theory became more likely, the "fact checkers" decided they would stop the fact checking about this particular "conspiracy theory." The premise of the video linked by Pen is that those who do not line up with the mainstream narrative are being suppressed. I don't think the views of the participants in the video are spreading propaganda or hate.

I won’t click to give advertising dollars to such a repugnant site. The mediabiasfactcheck site is quite fair. For instance, if you look up both Fox News and CNN, you will see they have almost the same ratings, except in equal and opposite directions from the center. Both are considered to have mixed factual reporting, though the CNN website is rated higher factually than the TV version of CNN. They evaluate sources critically across the spectrum.
 

I have no idea how the lab leak thing pertains to this particular website, so I’ll leave that (well, actually, except to say that there’s a false narrative that nobody wants to look into whether this virus came from a lab leak, which simply isn’t true. People keep saying no one wants to investigate where this came from, but continuing to say it doesn’t make it any less false. It’s pretty mainstream for scientists to be wanting to investigate the source of the virus, but what there particularly is no foundation for, is the idea that this was purposely engineered and let loose by China as some kind of bio weapon.)

[Corraleno]

14 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

This is problematic -- only one side of the argument is considered correct and everything else is considered a conspiracy theory. So, when the lab leak theory became more likely, the "fact checkers" decided they would stop the fact checking about this particular "conspiracy theory." The premise of the video linked by Pen is that those who do not line up with the mainstream narrative are being suppressed. I don't think the views of the participants in the video are spreading propaganda or hate.

Claiming that the opinions of nearly all mainstream scientists on one side, and the anti-vaxx opinions of a fringe group that are being amplified and promoted by foreign agents, are "equally valid" arguments is literally part of the propaganda process. So is repeatedly insisting that anyone who won't listen to the propaganda is just close-minded and politically biased. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Corraleno

[Penelope]

I know nothing about Bitchute, and I did not click on the link.

However, I recognize the title of the podcast I believe Pen is referencing, because I have listened to part of it. You can also find the audio on any place other than YouTube that hosts podcasts. YouTube has censored the episode. 
 

A recent article by Matt Taiibi about this with an interview. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein

There is nothing right wing, neo-Nazi or hateful about the podcast or the episode, as far as I can tell. It has controversial subject matter in that it discusses some information about the mRNA vaccines. I believe that the podcast was first censored by YouTube because they interviewed Dr. Kory, a critical care physician who is part of a larger critical care group that advocates for the use of Ivermectin in Covid, and YouTube apparently won’t allow anything on the platform about Ivermectin, which is rather ridiculous if you ask me, considering everything else that is allowed on YouTube. 
 

I do have some opinions about what I heard on this episode (it’s long and I only heard some), and they are not all positive or in agreement. 
I think there are ways it could have been presented in the OP to not raise hackles and to not link from that particular site, because it’s available other places. But sometimes it’s unfair to prejudge something based on what website it’s posted on. 
 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Penelope

[Martha in GA]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Claiming that the opinions of nearly all mainstream scientists on one side, and the anti-vaxx fringe group's opinions which are being amplified and promoted by foreign agents, are "equally valid" arguments is literally part of the propaganda process. So is repeatedly insisting that anyone who won't listen to the propaganda are just close-minded and politically biased. 

And that claim is what I am talking about -- I'm not sure "nearly all mainstream scientists" are on one side because I believe the views of many "mainstream scientists" are being suppressed. Why is there so much fear of having open discussions? Everything that doesn't line up the official narrative is considered propaganda rather than a talking point... I know you have strong opinions on this subject and you "know" you are right, so I'll bow out now.

[Martha in GA]

34 minutes ago, KSera said:

I have no idea how the lab leak thing pertains to this particular website, so I’ll leave that (well, actually, except to say that there’s a false narrative that nobody wants to look into whether this virus came from a lab leak, which simply isn’t true. People keep saying no one wants to investigate where this came from, but continuing to say it doesn’t make it any less false. 

The lab leak thing had nothing to do with the website. My point was that, in the beginning, Facebook "fact checked" any post that suggested the virus leaked out of the Wuhan lab, until the idea that it might have leaked from the lab gained traction and then Facebook said it would no longer "fact check" those kinds of posts. So, in the same way, they are "fact checking" many other posts because the posts don't agree with what the fact checkers want you to believe or what they believe is true, but it doesn't make everything contrary to the official narrative not true.  Hmm, that was a convoluted sentence. Sorry.

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

The lab leak thing had nothing to do with the website. My point was that, in the beginning, Facebook "fact checked" any post that suggested the virus leaked out of the Wuhan lab, until the idea that it might have leaked from the lab gained traction and then Facebook said it would no longer "fact check" those kinds of posts. So, in the same way, they are "fact checking" many other posts because the posts don't agree with what the fact checkers want you to believe or what they believe is true, but it doesn't make everything contrary to the official narrative not true.  Hmm, that was a convoluted sentence. Sorry.

I don’t know much about how Facebook went about fact checking and don’t use Facebook anyway. I think it confuses this particular thread though to respond to a valid fact check website based on how Facebook might or might not have done it. If people don’t have any way to evaluate what is and isn’t a reliable source then, well, that’s pretty much how we get to where we are right now.

[Corraleno]

30 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

And that claim is what I am talking about -- I'm not sure "nearly all mainstream scientists" are on one side because I believe the views of many "mainstream scientists" are being suppressed. Why is there so much fear of having open discussions? Everything that doesn't line up the official narrative is considered propaganda rather than a talking point... I know you have strong opinions on this subject and you "know" you are right, so I'll bow out now.

Nearly all mainstream scientists do in fact agree that the current vaccines are highly effective, that people cannot “shed” a virus they do not have, that standing next to a vaccinated person cannot cause infertility, that there is zero evidence for antibody dependent enhancement with these vaccines, and that the claims of a Belgian veterinarian that vaccines will lead to far worse variants based on comparisons to a chicken herpes virus are total nonsense. 

The earth is not flat, the moon landing was not fake, the President of the United States has not been replaced by a body double who is a perfect replica except for his earlobes, and it is not censorship or close-minded political bias to refuse to indulge people who insist on promoting nonsense.

[Happy2BaMom]

1 hour ago, Martha in GA said:

This is problematic -- only one side of the argument is considered correct and everything else is considered a conspiracy theory. So, when the lab leak theory became more likely, the "fact checkers" decided they would stop the fact checking about this particular "conspiracy theory." The premise of the video linked by Pen is that those who do not line up with the mainstream narrative are being suppressed. I don't think the views of the participants in the video are spreading propaganda or hate.

How can someone make a claim that people are being suppressed when tens of thousands of their 'non-mainstream' (to be polite) videos, blog posts, SM messages, etc are viewed by millions of people Every. Single. Day. How is that suppression?

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The earth is not flat, the moon landing was not fake, the President of the United States has not been replaced by a body double who is a perfect replica except for his earlobes, and it is not censorship or close-minded political bias to refuse to indulge people who insist on promoting nonsense.

Reminds me of a graphic I saw this morning:

 

 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

 There is nothing right wing, neo-Nazi or hateful about the podcast or the episode, as far as I can tell. It has controversial subject matter in that it discusses some information about the mRNA vaccines. I believe that the podcast was first censored by YouTube because they interviewed Dr. Kory, a critical care physician who is part of a larger critical care group that advocates for the use of Ivermectin in Covid, and YouTube apparently won’t allow anything on the platform about Ivermectin, which is rather ridiculous if you ask me, considering everything else that is allowed on YouTube.  
 

Bolding by me: You will be glad to hear this isn't accurate; I just searched "Ivermectin in Covid" on YouTube and came up with pages upon pages of results. The titles of many of them clearly indicate that they are favorable. 

I've been scrolling and scrolling while writing this, and still have not come to the end of results. 

 

 

[Pen]

What is your issue with the “source”?

or is this knee jerk because I posted it? 
 

that’s ironically what the video itself says people do when they have nothing to argue on a content basis. Criticize the “source”. 
 

 Ladies, Bret Weinstein is a Portland, Oregon Liberal afaik, not some Qanon person. And Malone is a doctor and scientist.  (I don’t know much of anything about the third guy.) 

????????

There’s a bunch that’s related to potentially healing from long haul Covid part way through that I particularly thought @Plum might potentially find useful for her dh.  
 

Did you actually listen, or just jump on to your typical WTM anti-Pen posts bandwagon?  
 

 

[Pen]

“Dr. Malone. The inventor of mRNA vaccines and one of world's foremost experts on messenger mRNA therapeutics - having invented the field in 1988, Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene ... “

 

[Corraleno]

The linked video claims that vaccines have killed more than 25,000 people and disabled a million more, that the spike protein in the vaccines is "cytotoxic" and "very very dangerous," and that ivermectin is "100% effective" against covid but is being ignored for political and financial reasons.

The repeated claim that Brett Weinstein is a "liberal," as if the only reason people won't watch this crap is because they're biased liberals who won't watch anything from a different political perspective, shows a serious lack of understanding of the actual issue here: the things these people are claiming are factually untrue, and their political affiliations are totally irrelevant.

[Penelope]

5 hours ago, katilac said:

Bolding by me: You will be glad to hear this isn't accurate; I just searched "Ivermectin in Covid" on YouTube and came up with pages upon pages of results. The titles of many of them clearly indicate that they are favorable. 

I've been scrolling and scrolling while writing this, and still have not come to the end of results. 

 

 

Well, the video of Dr. Kory testifying to the Senate on Ivermectin in the fall was removed by YouTube, and that was all it was, no commentary, no conspiracy theory. Since you haven’t listened to all of those videos you brought up, we don’t know what they say. I don’t know why certain things are censored; maybe the censoring algorithms are arbitrary, or maybe they search for certain phrases or only investigate when others flag them. 

I just looked and his larger group of doctors has a YouTube channel during which they presumably discuss these things, so it’s not clear to me how they decide to censor. That seems to be the problem, actually. People are dealing with faceless tech deciding what is okay and what isn’t, and sometimes don’t know why their content is dinged. It isn’t like it is only random people on Internet forums like this one who are complaining. Many seem quite concerned about it. You don’t have to agree with something to believe it shouldn’t be censored. (None of this has much to do with the video Pen linked, it’s a side conversation about why some of the videos from that channel were not on YouTube). 
 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Penelope

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

What is your issue with the “source”?

or is this knee jerk because I posted it? 
 

that’s ironically what the video itself says people do when they have nothing to argue on a content basis. Criticize the “source”. 
 

Did you read my post to know what my issue is with the source? It’s the second post in the thread. I absolutely will not click on a link that I know goes to a website that monetizes white nationalism and hate speech. I don’t care who posts it, I’m not clicking and supporting it. 

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

I have a pretty open mind with this and am at least willing to listen. 

I’d be willing to read, but videos and podcasts don’t mesh with my life right now. I can read something much more quickly and can do it in fits and spurts, and with kids around. 

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

 Since you haven’t listened to all of those videos you brought up, we don’t know what they say.  

We of course do not know what each video says, but we certainly know they exist, which clearly disproves the statement that "YouTube apparently won’t allow anything on the platform about Ivermectin"

I personally don't have enough interest, but you and anyone else interested can certainly watch as many of the readily-available videos as you wish. As I indicated, it is quite clear from titles and descriptions that many of them are positive. 

My point was that it is very quick and easy to see that YouTube does indeed allow vast quantities of videos related to ivermectin, both positive and negative. 

 

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

Well, the video of Dr. Kory testifying to the Senate on Ivermectin in the fall was removed by YouTube 

It is available on at least three different channels. Again, very quick and easy to check. 

[katilac]

35 minutes ago, Plum said:

Thats a weird thing to nitpick. 

According to YT Medical Misinformation rules, you can’t  claim Ivermectin or HCQ is effective nor could you recommend it.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

I can’t make sense of YT rules. They removed a MedCram video or two because he discussed HCQ effectiveness found in a study. He had to appeal. There’s no rhyme or reason to it sometimes. 

I don't see how saying that it's clearly not true that they don't allow ivermectin to be mentioned is a nitpick, when you have mentioned censorship multiple times in this thread. It's not something I brought up. 

Edited because I apparently can't tell names apart if they start with the same letter. 

If someone says ivermectin is not even allowed to be mentioned on YouTube, I think that numerous videos with that as the main topic actually being available is important, not a nitpick. It means that statement is not true. 

I know absolutely nothing about YouTube rules and regulations, but I do know that I can usually find topics that people tell me aren't allowed very quickly. I'm sure there are definitely some specific topics and/or videos that they don't allow, as is their prerogative, but there's a pretty big internet out there beyond any one platform. It may be harder to be noticed, but no one is guaranteed attention in life, much less on the internet. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by katilac

[Frances]

11 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re what is "allowed"

We're not "allowed" to use the word QAnon?  I missed that memo. As you say: to talk about QAnon is necessary, given the poison its adherents are injecting into our society.  Moderators: if that memo has indeed gone out, please let me know; I evidently missed that directive the first time out.

When the same OP posted a video about s*x trafficking and claimed most of us would dismiss it and call it a conspiracy theory, but she had to do what was right and share her knowledge, I was the first to respond, likely because we are in the same time zone. I used the forbidden word in my reply and it was censored the next day with the comment that it was not allowed due to being political.

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Plum said:

Should have said “not @Penelope” I haven’t mentioned censorship at all in this thread. 

Oh, yes, my apologies! I did think you were Penelope responding to me. I will edit. 

[Ausmumof3]

51 minutes ago, Plum said:

Thats a weird thing to nitpick. 

According to YT Medical Misinformation rules, you can’t  claim Ivermectin or HCQ is effective nor could you recommend it.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

I can’t make sense of YT rules. They removed a MedCram video or two because he discussed HCQ effectiveness found in a study. He had to appeal. There’s no rhyme or reason to it sometimes. 

I think the issue is when the videos are being used to undermine public health measures.  Had people been saying - we think ivermectin/HCQ/pick your magic medicine work - you should try it if you get covid that would have been one thing.  But the vast majority of videos earlier on were more along the lines of “HCQ/ivermectin/magic medicine are 100pc effective so you can all stop listening to your public health authorities bin your masks and go to any crowded environment you like.  That and obviously videos that were encouraging people to take those things without proper medical help on dosage etc I guess could have been dangerous.

Its a while since I’ve followed any of it though.  The same sources seemed to cycle through the same range of misinformation and at a certain point it became kind of obvious that it wasn’t coming from a place of genuine concern.  The same style of Twitter bots spreading the videos each time makes me pretty suspicious about the whole thing.

edited to add that doesn’t mean there weren’t legit medical videos that got taken down in the mix.  For a while there the flood of disinformation was so much I think the people checking stuff were probably overwhelmed 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

Thats a weird thing to nitpick. 

According to YT Medical Misinformation rules, you can’t  claim Ivermectin or HCQ is effective nor could you recommend it.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

I can’t make sense of YT rules. They removed a MedCram video or two because he discussed HCQ effectiveness found in a study. He had to appeal. There’s no rhyme or reason to it sometimes. 

Have you read anything about the people who have the job of watching videos to decide what is going to be censored? It sounds absolutely horrific and soul sucking. I’m sure they also use some computer algorithms which of course are never perfect. Given the sheer volume of what they have to deal with it, I would be shocked at anything but imperfection.

[whitestavern]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

I’d be willing to read, but videos and podcasts don’t mesh with my life right now. I can read something much more quickly and can do it in fits and spurts, and with kids around. 

The Taibbi article can be read, though you'll have to subscribe to read the entire thing. His column is well worth the cost IMO.

Edited June 20, 2021 by whitestavern

[Wheres Toto]

9 hours ago, KSera said:

Did you read my post to know what my issue is with the source? It’s the second post in the thread. I absolutely will not click on a link that I know goes to a website that monetizes white nationalism and hate speech. I don’t care who posts it, I’m not clicking and supporting it. 

Doesn't she have you on ignore?  Is copying someone's post and sharing it that way allowed?  I think that's the only way she'll see it. 

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Doesn't she have you on ignore?  Is copying someone's post and sharing it that way allowed?  I think that's the only way she'll see it. 

Not sure if it’s allowed or not. I would expect someone could copy and repost it as their own with no issue if I said I didn’t mind, and I don’t. What I shares were excerpts from another site, not my own words anyway. I thought from her post that she had viewed mine, since she talked about attacking the source, but maybe that was just because she could tell from replies that that was what my post was about. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

13 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The linked video claims that vaccines have killed more than 25,000 people and disabled a million more, that the spike protein in the vaccines is "cytotoxic" and "very very dangerous," and that ivermectin is "100% effective" against covid but is being ignored for political and financial reasons.

The repeated claim that Brett Weinstein is a "liberal," as if the only reason people won't watch this crap is because they're biased liberals who won't watch anything from a different political perspective, shows a serious lack of understanding of the actual issue here: the things these people are claiming are factually untrue, and their political affiliations are totally irrelevant.

Using your post as a jumping off point because I know that we agree.

So what are the 3 easy steps?  (The hubris in that title alone makes me not want to click on anything related to it.)

1.  Ignore vaccines?  (How has that worked out in areas of the world where the vaccination rate is very low but Covid is running rampant?) 

2.  Use Ivermectin (because that has been so effective in Brazil and India. . . oh wait. . . )

3.  Not sure what the 3rd would be.  Get Covid and pray that you don't get long-Covid and if you do, then they have the cure for that too? 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Using your post as a jumping off point because I know that we agree.

So what are the 3 easy steps?  (The hubris in that title alone makes me not want to click on anything related to it.)

1.  Ignore vaccines?  (How has that worked out in areas of the world where the vaccination rate is very low but Covid is running rampant?) 

2.  Use Ivermectin (because that has been so effective in Brazil and India. . . oh wait. . . )

3.  Not sure what the 3rd would be.  Get Covid and pray that you don't get long-Covid and if you do, then they have the cure for that too? 

 

You got 2 out of 3.

1. Give everyone ivermectin (as well as other repurposed drugs) that can definitely cure covid

2. Get Elon Musk to "buy out the interests of the obstructionists who are making billions and... killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people" [with vaccines]

3. Ramp up the campaign to get ivermectin and other drugs "to the people who need them so we can drive covid to extinction."

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Using your post as a jumping off point because I know that we agree.

So what are the 3 easy steps?  (The hubris in that title alone makes me not want to click on anything related to it.)

1.  Ignore vaccines?  (How has that worked out in areas of the world where the vaccination rate is very low but Covid is running rampant?) 

2.  Use Ivermectin (because that has been so effective in Brazil and India. . . oh wait. . . )

3.  Not sure what the 3rd would be.  Get Covid and pray that you don't get long-Covid and if you do, then they have the cure for that too? 

I looked to see if I could find a transcript to skim through, but can't find one. I did find more info about the content (from people on both sides), and there are enough untruths and bad info to make it sound definitely not worth trying to find time to actually watch their video. Anyone who starts from a place where they take the self-reported VAERS data, then claim all those deaths are DUE to the vaccine, and then multiply it times 5 because they say it's a vast underreporting is just not being at all intellectually honest. If someone doesn't understand why there was a big jump up in VAERS data after a massive vaccination campaign that gave hundreds of millions of doses over several months, thus several thousand people over 75 died in the months following their vaccine (duh), they either don't have the science or thinking skills to be participating in the discussion, or they are bad faith actors. Pick one.

[Fritz]

Pen, thanks for posting this and Plum thanks so much for the apple podcast link. I am still listening to this. I will just say this to those that are so quick to be dismissive you probably ought to think about giving this a listen.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Fritz

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Doesn't she have you on ignore?  Is copying someone's post and sharing it that way allowed?  I think that's the only way she'll see it. 

Sure. Once someone posts something, it can be quoted at will. 

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

You got 2 out of 3.

1. Give everyone ivermectin (as well as other repurposed drugs) that can definitely cure covid

2. Get Elon Musk to "buy out the interests of the obstructionists who are making billions and... killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people" [with vaccines]

3. Ramp up the campaign to get ivermectin and other drugs "to the people who need them so we can drive covid to extinction."

Isn't that . . . 2 things? Give everyone ivermectin, and also give everyone ivermectin? 

Is "Elon Musk Saves the World!" really the other 50% of the plan? 

[Corraleno]

I looked up Robert Malone's publication list; his current publications have nothing to do with vaccines, they are all pushing the use of famitodine (Pepcid) to treat covid, and his CV says his current research is focused on "drug development." He claims to be the "inventor of mRNA vaccines," but if you look at the Wikipedia article on RNA and mRNA vaccines, he is not mentioned at all but is listed in a footnote as one of three co-authors of a paper published in 1989 that first mentioned the injection of RNA encapsulated in a nanoparticle. As far as I can tell he has not had anything whatsoever to do with the development of the current vaccines.

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Fritz said:

Pen, thanks for posting this and Plum thanks so much for the apple podcast link. I am still listening to this. I will just say this to those that are so quick to be dismissive you probably ought to think about giving this a listen. If I had a healthy child <less than 20 years old that I needed to make the decision whether to vaccinate or not, I would not choose to vaccinate. I'll leave it there.

And that’s a valid decision, but I wouldn’t be making it based on an interview of people spouting that much misinformation and misuse of data. I’d be looking for something much more reliable. 

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

Isn't that . . . 2 things? Give everyone ivermectin, and also give everyone ivermectin? 

 

I thought the same thing.

Maybe saving the world in three steps sounds better than doing it in two steps? Or maybe somebody's just not good at critical thinking and/or editing.

 

[Fritz]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

And that’s a valid decision, but I wouldn’t be making it based on an interview of people spouting that much misinformation and misuse of data. I’d be looking for something much more reliable. 

Not based on this interview. This interview only confirms my decision. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Fritz

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, katilac said:

Sure. Once someone posts something, it can be quoted at will. 

Isn't that . . . 2 things? Give everyone ivermectin, and also give everyone ivermectin? 

Is "Elon Musk Saves the World!" really the other 50% of the plan? 

Well Steve Kirsch has a 1-step solution, which is that Elon Musk simply tweets a link to their podcast and urges everyone to listen to it and pass it along. He also thinks all employees of Facebook and other social media companies should quit, so those companies would no longer be able to censor the "truth" that ivermectin cures covid and vaccines are killing tens of thousands of people.

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, katilac said:

We of course do not know what each video says, but we certainly know they exist, which clearly disproves the statement that "YouTube apparently won’t allow anything on the platform about Ivermectin"

I personally don't have enough interest, but you and anyone else interested can certainly watch as many of the readily-available videos as you wish. As I indicated, it is quite clear from titles and descriptions that many of them are positive. 

My point was that it is very quick and easy to see that YouTube does indeed allow vast quantities of videos related to ivermectin, both positive and negative. 

 

It is available on at least three different channels. Again, very quick and easy to check. 

I conceded that they aren’t censoring every mention of it, which makes any removals seem arbitrary.  Just because you can find the Senate testimony doesn’t mean it wasn’t arbitrary censorship to remove in the first place. 
 

What do YouTube employees know about medicine or science? Probably very little. I am okay with them not allowing certain things: maybe they shouldn’t allow anyone who isn’t a professional to mention any medication. I don’t think pharmaceutical companies should have ever been allowed to do direct-to-consumer advertising. There are people on YouTube promoting all kinds of quackery and woo; maybe that could be dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed. It seems very inconsistent.
This discussion really is so much bigger and deeper than this, because it involves all the tech platforms and the question of what is their purpose and what they are allowed to regulate. There are plenty of episodes of Twitter and Facebook putting warnings on links to published scientific work and professional opinions. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Penelope

[Frances]

22 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I conceded that they aren’t censoring every mention of it, which makes any removals seem arbitrary.  Just because you can find the Senate testimony doesn’t mean it wasn’t arbitrary censorship to remove in the first place. 
 

What do YouTube employees know about medicine or science? Probably very little. I am okay with them not allowing certain things: maybe they shouldn’t allow anyone who isn’t a professional to mention any medication. I don’t think pharmaceutical companies should have ever been allowed to do direct-to-consumer advertising. There are people on YouTube promoting all kinds of quackery and woo; maybe that could be dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed. It seems very inconsistent.
This discussion really is so much bigger and deeper than this, because it involves all the tech platforms and the question of what is their purpose and what they are allowed to regulate. There are plenty of episodes of Twitter and Facebook putting warnings on links to published scientific work and professional opinions. 

I think we’ve had that discussion on this board before, but it might be worth revisiting in light of the pandemic if you want to start a new thread.

[Penelope]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I looked up Robert Malone's publication list; his current publications have nothing to do with vaccines, they are all pushing the use of famitodine (Pepcid) to treat covid, and his CV says his current research is focused on "drug development." He claims to be the "inventor of mRNA vaccines," but if you look at the Wikipedia article on RNA and mRNA vaccines, he is not mentioned at all but is listed in a footnote as one of three co-authors of a paper published in 1989 that first mentioned the injection of RNA encapsulated in a nanoparticle. As far as I can tell he has not had anything whatsoever to do with the development of the current vaccines.

And this is what I wondered about when I looked at who he was. His main concern on social media seems to be that a Dr. Kariko is claiming that she invented mRNA vaccines and is being hailed as some kind of science underdog, when in fact she did not. He claims to have done some of the very early work and has his name on some patents. 
 

I don’t know if Wikipedia is a trustworthy source here.
He has a number of publications and citations of rna and DNA research on his Google scholar page. Website https://www.rwmalonemd.com/mrna-vaccine-inventor
He may well have been one of the early contributors to this science. Or he might be looking for attention. There certainly is a precedence in history, even more recent history, for scientific controversies over who deserves credit and for what. I don’t know what to make of his claim. An investigative reporter or fact checker should be able to figure it out fairly easily if it ever comes to the attention of someone like that.

-ETA- this 2021 article in a medical journal describing the development of mRNA vaccines does have Malone’s paper as the first reference.https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMcibr2009737?articleTools=true

 

Quote

In the early 1990s, direct injection of nucleic acids (RNA or DNA) into the muscles of mice led to in vivo expression of proteins encoded by the injected nucleic acid.1 This finding, together with studies showing the elicitation of immune re- sponses and protection against infection by means of the delivery of DNA that encodes pathogen proteins into the skin or muscle of mice, seeded the field of vaccinology such that only the coding sequence of a gene encoding a protein of a pathogen is necessary to create a vaccine. 

So it seems he and his coauthors are acknowledged, but he is bitter because he doesn’t get credit in the popular press. Him claiming to be THE inventor of mRNA vaccines is a stretch as it ignores his co-authors and all the other research since. —(end edit)
 

It does make me wonder about his motives for speaking about the vaccines. He is, though, also critical of the adenovirus-vectored vaccines. He seems to think that spike is a problem. 

The one thing that I have heard from him and others is something I would like to hear someone (an immunologist, for example) who knows about these things address: the distribution studies. I don’t know why they say they had to make a special request to get it; the European group discusses it in their licensing report. But how small of an amount of mRNA/lipids is it that goes into the retina and ovaries? What are the implications, and why should or shouldn’t it be further studied? (In contrast, the Ad vectored vaccines have animal data showing they stay primarily in the area of injection). I feel like that is the kind of thing that would raise questions and should be responded to honestly and not censored. I feel that censorship probably drives the perception of some that someone is trying to hide something. In many cases, I don’t believe that that is the proper way to promote facts; transparency and explanations are better. It’s a different world now that Pandora’s box is open and everyone has access to so much, while still understanding so little. If only censored, people may well wonder and “go there” like the guy in the podcast with claims about resulting infertility, even among the sweeping statements and questionable claims.

 

@Pen, this is a good article that talks about the spike concerns. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/15/the-novavax-vaccine-data-and-spike-proteins-in-general

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Penelope

[Halftime Hope]

This has become an echo chamber of ad hominem attacks. I wish people would step back and listen to themselves. When did we lose the ability to think, and realize that there is a world of nuance between polar positions? 

The reason this video is on BitChute (duh), is because of the censorship on YT.  Should we run screaming from Downton Abbey episodes and Dimash concerts just because they've been uploaded to BitChute? Clearly neither of those items are unacceptable garbage. Conversely, how about we all quit using YT and Twitter because of the vomit-inducing trash that appears there? And I'll raise you recent Lancet and JAMA content. Mature adults should be capable of understanding this nuance.

The list of scientists and medical professionals that are being censored by YT and Facebook because their view is not in the mainstream is long and illustrious. You simply cannot get more well-researched and well-documented, careful presentations than anything that Dr. Seheult (Medcram) and Dr. Syed Mobeen post, yet quite a few of their videos have been deleted and/or de-monetized. The same with Whiteboard Doctor, EmCrit (because they had the audacity to say, early on, that high-pressure in mechanical ventilation, according to established hospital protocol, wasn't working well in their patients), and there are many others.  We have several doctors locally whose FB accounts have been deleted because they've done in-patient treatment and posted about it, including naming the meds they were using. But because those meds have been blacklisted -- there simply is no other word for it -- Facebook has censored them.  Facebook is actively censoring reports of vaccine injuries, too.  One of my friends who has suffered with unresolved 24/7 headaches after her Moderna shots had her FB account locked by FB. 

About there not being "25,000 deaths and a million vaccine injuries": I don't get out a whole lot, and have a fairly small circle of friends and acquaintances. I personally know 9-10 COVID-vaccine-injured people, all of them over 60 and all of them initially very, very happy to get the shots...until they suddenly had these new health problems, post-vaccine, to contend with. (I'm around far less young adults, and most of them have little desire to get vaccinated.) I'm just one person, and I've read long-ago that studies have shown that VAERS is just the tip of the iceberg, hugely under-reporting cases of vaccine reactions and injuries. The other signal-monitoring system is VSAFE, but unlike the data from the ZOE app, VSAFE seems to be a black box. No one is making that data available to the public or reporting on it regularly that I'm aware of -- I could be wrong. 

I think the reason Dr. Weinstein emphasizes that he is coming from a liberal standpoint is because conservatives and right-wingers have been so demonized as science-deniers that, essentially, he's saying, "Hey, I'm not some right-wing science-denier, I'm a scientist with a liberal mindset who has grave concerns; I can read the literature, and I understand what it is saying." Dr. Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist who has actually done fieldwork with bats, so he has some fairly reasonable professional bonafides to provide context for him.  He can speak as an insider when he describes whether things are following accepted scientific norms vs. when there are "anomalies," that is, clear examples of shortcuts, oversights, manipulation of studies to reach predetermined outcomes, malfeasance, and outright gaslighting. (Here's looking at you, Peter Daschak.) 

Dr Robert Malone's website might be interesting reading:  https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us   If you were to actually watch the video Pen linked, I think you'll find Dr Malone to be professional, credible, calm, and very well-connected within the FDA and NIH and well-informed. 

Steve Kirsch (which one of these is not like the others) is a silicon valley serial entrprenuer/philanthropist, with a lot of background in providing philanthropic funding for public health and research. Because of his personal experience with a repurposed drug keeping his rare cancer at bay, he chose to fund studies of repurposed drugs for COVID treatment, most notably the studies of fluvoxamine at WashU.  https://healthymind.wustl.edu/  (Remember, when this all began, having an effective COVID vaccine within a year was (publicly) considered a pipe-dream, so for him to fund studies to save lives with repurposed drugs--cheap, with known safety profiles--was a no-brainer.) The problem with Steve Kirsch being so emotional is that this is the first time he's been on the receiving end of cancelation and gaslighting, and it's really mind-blowing to go from being one of the "good guys" to a "pariah" when, what you conclude rationally, based on the science and data you are reading, isn't what everyone else thinks, based on what they are being spoon-fed in popular media.

As far as their other claims, specifically that the spike protein is cytotoxic and dangerous. Time will tell. I'm not sure I understand the implications of the biodistribution study of the lipid nanoparticles the way they do, but then I don't have the advanced contextual framework that Dr. Malone and Dr. Weinstein do: my biochem background is both old and without an advanced degree. I can clearly understand when they are pulling together data points: "1) the LNPs or NP-fragments accumulate in a variety of organs, including in the adrenals, the ovaries, the liver, and in bone marrow; 2) biodistribution studies in humans are a normal part of vaccine development, and those studies were skipped; 3) spontaneous abortion rates in animal studies were at 16%; the cut-off for stopping the trials was 25%; 4) reports of weird menstrual anomalies.  These data points in aggregate result in asking themselves, "Are we seeing related signals here? Now that we have more data points, would it not be advised to proceed with caution instead of continuing an all-out push to vaccinate young people who will benefit less and may be harmed more? What are the long-term health consequences? Oh, wait: no one knows." 

What I know that I know that I know is that I have seen failure after failure on the part of healthcare and public health policy makers. I have seen absolute lying and gaslighting. I've seen time and time again when something is labeled a conspiracy theory; until it's not. I've seen people with reasonable theories and working hypotheses--which actually work in real life--attacked, canceled and labeled with a variety of derogatory names.  I personally know people, including very unwell elderly people, who had COVID in November and December of 2019, proven by anti-body tests later, and yes, in case you ask, the antibody tests were done pre-vaccination. They were treated by their doctors as outpatients in the office, and they got well, because they were treated with steroids, antibiotics, and supportive vitamins. Then when Italy and NYC happened, and the illness got politicized and "administrativized" by health agencies who acted like there was no way to treat it, there were months of "sorry, we have no way to treat it" which led to the death of confidence in the priorities of mainstream medicine. Clearly, saving lives in the midst of a pandemic is not the first priority for alphabet agencies and for many patient-facing medical groups. As an example: to this day, my family practice group will not see or treat anyone with an upper respiratory illness...any respiratory illness. They won't even treat by telemed. Needless to say, I have severed my relationship with the office and my former doctor...what a chickenxxxx way to care for patients.

There are other doctors who are treating the illness, early and late, with patients with both co-morbidities and low sats, and they are having far better success rates than the official stated percentages of hospitalized and deaths.  One doctor local to me -- he is not in the news -- keeps a scoreboard: 1 death and three hospitalizations out of nearly 1,500 COVID patients treated -- but yet, there is "no known treatment."  I have his office on "speed dial."

Coralleno, you mentioned that ivermectin is not 100% effective. You're right, not 100%, but it is very highly effective, as are fluvoxamine, cyprohexadine, high dose Vit C, high dose melatonin, and budesonide. 

The Recovery trial which used 6mg/kg of dexamethazone is really sad, because high dose, titrated, prolonged steroid treatment is the norm for treating organizing pneumonia. "In Covid-19 patients, the high mortality can be explained by the rapid development of Organized Pneumonia secondary to SARS-CoV2, since its appearance even in the first week of infection has been documented in autopsies. This pathology generally requires treatment with high doses of corticosteroids, cited by some as "pulse" doses and longer duration. Therefore, the dose suggested by RECOVERY could be insufficient for a high percentage of patients [24]." This quote is perhaps the best summary I've seen written in a journal article https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252057, although I've heard the same sentiment from a number of clinicians and pulmonologists who wonder how many people have died due to insufficient dosing of corticosteroids. 

For those who've made it thus far through this rather "catch-all" post, one more thing:  if you want something that will blow your mind, look up the work of Dr. Farid Jalali.  His working theory on COVID completely explains why fluvoxamine is effective.  Ivermectin works on a number of other mechanisms, blocking multiple receptors, acting as an anti-inflammatory, and blocking several steps in the cytokine pathway, but fluvoxamine as an S1 agonist preventing serotonin injury is a novel theory that brings a number of puzzle pieces together.  Here's a short version of the theory, as discussed in the context of a multi-center clinical trial for cyprohexadine:  https://trialsitenews.com/cyproheptadine-and-covid-19-a-discussion-with-dr-farid-jalali/  The long presentation on serotonin is here; it's a pretty deep dive.  If you prefer reading, Dr. Jalali's paper is referenced in the notes below/within this YT post:  

 

Best wishes to us all, both in our health, and in keeping open hearts toward each other and truth-seeking minds. 

 

Edited to correct a generic medication name. Thanks, katilac!

 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Halftime Hope

[katilac]

38 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

 His working theory on COVID completely explains why fluvoxamine (Prozac) is effective. 

It's not Prozac; Prozac is fluoxetine. 

Fluvoxamine is sold in the US only as a generic drug currently; it used to be sold as Luvox.