rayzor6 wrote:> benstylus wrote:
>>
>>
> |>> The fact that this was well used during the pandemic and is now very difficult
>> to
> |>> find should not make anyone feel good about getting information without pure
> agenda
> |>> getting in the way.
>>
>> Or maybe it's the result of trying to clamp down on disinformation? Once something
>> turns out to be wrong you don't want to keep propagating it unless the agenda
> is
>> to promote wrong information...
>>
>>
>
> That is one way to look at it. I look at it as not helping the agenda anymore and
> can only be used on the other side: so get rid of it.
>
> Feeb, you act like once you put on a lab coat or a stethoscope : you are exempt from
> the need to carry on with agendas or the temptation to say the right things to get
> your work recognized. Science had PLENTY of opportunity here to demonstrate that
> it is, by and large, immune to such temptations. It did not bring that to the forefront.
>
>
> When the nonsense about masks (especially cloth masks) was being put out there, there
> was NO unified voice that said "Uh...actually...that isn't going to do a lot". The
> science and medicine communities were either silent, censored or compliant.
>
> When the Maddow show came out and said that above...which was a reflection of what
> was being said in many places...there wasn't a unified front of doctors and scientists
> saying otherwise. At the same time that the CDC *KNEW* this wasn't the case and
> it's documented they did now
>
> There was a desperate need for information to be had there for the public. But unless
> you went along with the govt narrative: you were censored and labeled as 'misinformation'.
> The science and medicine community along with the CDC could really have done the
> right thing here by even saying things like "we don't know" or giving details as
> they unfolded.
>
> But they didn't. They didn't because they got swept up in the very human desire
> to get the carrot or avoid the stick. And we had to find out AFTER the fact about
> how much BS was spun in this whole thing...ironically while being told for 2 years
> to 'follow the science' yet ignoring every basic scientific general principal along
> the way. It wasn't the pursuit of truth...it was an agenda that wasn't based in
> science at all and instead of becoming informed...the part of the public that questioned
> these inconsistencies were labeled and treated like evil people for not just going
> along with something that didn't make sense or was contradictory in nature.
>
> Statistics such as 'covid deaths' being misrepresented or at best: not expounded
> upon until after the fact by the CDC. There is a big difference between "X% of people
> had these types of morbidities and got covid and died" and "these people died of
> covid itself". But to lump them all as covid deaths with no explanation can definitely
> be look at as an instrument to instill fear rather than to inform. I don't consider
> that 'science'.
>
> These things resulted in one certainty: that the science and medicine community lost
> a LOT of trust by all these measures. I don't know if the coronavirus vaccine information
> you are generally citing is accurate or not. All I can tell you is that myself and
> many others have no faith in what they proclaim. That community can't stay silent
> and/or condone flat out untrue things...then say something that is true and have
> people believe them.
>
> Then there is the whole thing about myocarditis, stroke, heart attacks and this basic
> principle I mentioned above gets repeated again. The mere idea of questioning whether
> those matters are a direct result of the vaccine is considered completely unfounded.
> Again...not a real scientific way to approach a hypothesis. I understand this bias.
> If you took the vaccine, you don't want to think about the notion that you have
> to deal with this, so deny, deny, deny for your own sanity's sake. And my heart
> goes out to anyone who has this concern and I would LOVE for it to be completely
> false and NO ONE has any negative repercussions from it. But when society doesn't
> even want to spin the wheels on that idea and disprove it...to me, that is a good
> indicator that they don't want to find out the answer (possibly because they know
> what it is).
>
Aside from the fact I clearly stated that professionals can be unethical- most of the small sample size deniers like to cite mostly- You’re ignoring the fact that science did not say any of the drivel you’re espousing. Maddow does not equal science. Most “scientists” are completely oblivious to the whims of the media and politicians. Until they get bought. If you have any understanding of how science works at all- then you realize this is how science works. Collecting information takes years after a pandemic. Everything you’re copy / pasting here you are repeating from some politically motivated source. If you need to be right that’s fine, your mind is set on that. Just know that you are not above falling victim to misinformation. Your citing sources from published information does not make you an expert. If I could give you a stethoscope and a white lab coat and negate the Dunning–Kruger internet degree- I would.
If wearing a mask has hurt folks this much- it says more about their maturity and patience then it does about science.