Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Alternative 'rona thread


Pureblood
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, TD_LFC said:

Banned/suspended for posting shite.

 

Tomato tomato.

Well the video is 38 minutes long and I only posted it 8 minutes ago, so you can't have watched it to come to that conclusion.

 

If you're going to call something "shite", at least appraise yourself of what it is first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pureblood said:

Maybe Dr Malone will be invited onto the BBC or ITV to give an alternative view?

No money in it, far more lucrative to get yourself in with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck and Rogan.

 

Getting Covid, long covid, and then not being cured by the vaccine has given him his own little super hero origin story amongst the anti vax community and he's riding that mother fucker as far as it'll take him.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the editors of the British Medical Journal challenging Facebook fact-checkers with an open letter to Zuckerberg.

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

 

Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

 

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.

 

In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.

 

The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1]

 

But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”

 

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]

We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

-- It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong

-- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”

-- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”

-- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article

-- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”

 

We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.

 

We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.

 

There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.

 

We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.

Best wishes,

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
The BMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Red said:

Its meant to reduce hospitalisations as a % of cases. You know this.

It was sold to people like you on the basis that it would reduce transmission.  That's why people like you bought into the whole "it's the best thing you can do to protect your loved ones" thing, which was a blatant lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pureblood said:

It was sold to people like you on the basis that it would reduce transmission.  That's why people like you bought into the whole "it's the best thing you can do to protect your loved ones" thing, which was a blatant lie. 

People like me? Oh yeah thick cunts, fair enough.

 

Actually it was sold by Whitty et all as to keeping the NHS from being overwhelmed. Always has been, that's why being jabbed...  "it's the best thing you can do to protect your loved ones"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

Actually it was sold by Whitty et all as to keeping the NHS from being overwhelmed. Always has been, that's why being jabbed...  "it's the best thing you can do to protect your loved ones"

The best thing you can do to protect vulnerable people is to stay away from them.  Let's suppose I've got a 98 year old grandmother with six comorbidities.  The best thing I could do is to stay well away from her and communicate remotely.  The worst thing I could do is let my guard down, go and visit her, give her Covid and kill her.

 

Behavioural aspects still have a big part to play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pureblood said:

The best thing you can do to protect vulnerable people is to stay away from them.  Let's suppose I've got a 98 year old grandmother with six comorbidities.  The best thing I could do is to stay well well away from her and communicate remotely.  The worst thing I could do is let my guard down, go and visit her, give her Covid and kill her.

 

Behavioural aspects still have a big part to play. 

We do agree on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pureblood said:

Alright, but it doesn't really chime with the "99% of ICUs are full of unvaccinated" rhetoric we constantly hear.  Going by the age distribution alone, most of the hospitalisations and deaths appear to be in the vaccinated. Would you agree? 

I would have to see the break-down. Almost every country where I have seen the break-down shows there is a significant over representation of the unvaccinated, plus anecdotal evidence. I guess in countries that have reached almost 100 percent of vaccination rate in certain categories, vaccinated would have to be the majority, if the unvaccinated belong chiefly to the less at risk younger categories.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

I would have to see the break-down. Almost every country where I have seen the break-down shows there is a significant over representation of the unvaccinated, plus anecdotal evidence.

How do you square that circle with the age distribution of the people being hospitalised and killed, though?   In my view, you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pureblood said:

How do you square that circle with the age distribution of the people being hospitalised and killed, though?   In my view, you can't.

Luckily, very luckily, your view has about the same impact as (insert your own metaphor for something that has zero impact at all, whilst taking into account a totally fucking real Eastern European beauty). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Luckily, very luckily, your view has about the same impact as (insert your own metaphor for something that has zero impact at all, whilst taking into account a totally fucking real Eastern European beauty). 

How would you explain it, mate?  Looking at the graph from the ONS website, the vast majority of deaths are in over 65s who by definition are virtually all triple vaccinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...