Tulsi Gabbard on GETTR: I get the feeling some people are using Joe Rogan's COVID interview as a pretext to silence his voice because he's not woke. Zealots of wokeism try to censor voices who don't agree with theirs, because they fear the absurdity and weakness of their positions will be exposed.

submitted by AXXA from (gettr.com)

all 53 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Antarchomachus 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Maybe an unpopular opinion...but I've always kind of liked Tulsi (as much as I'm capable of liking pols anyway)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah me too. Must be the reasonableness.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (31 children)

I've also liked her. Her appeals in recent years to both sides of the aisle might backfire on her if she plans to run again for President. I doubt the majority of voters will like anyone's support of anti-vax misinformation (and it's more than one interview), or will understand the nuance of her important point, shared here by the AXXA. She may be interesting to watch during this process, for those of us who are more centrist than we are left or right, especially because of this potential for reaching across the aisle, and thus to address divisions in the US.

[–]AXXA[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard's point is that the only reason to censor dissenting voices is because your own argument is so weak that it can't withstand scrutiny. The way science works is competing hypotheses are openly discussed and tested against experimental data. If the experimental injection is as safe and effective as Big Pharma claims then why are they fighting so hard to prevent the release of their own experimental data? The only possible reason is because it matches all the other data we have that shows this experimental injection is ineffective and dangerous.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

4 billion administered doses is no longer experimental. Vaccines are developed on a continuous basis, to respond to new strains.

Science is not a monolith. Every potential problem is examined with the usual form of scientific scrutiny, and in this case, those issues for mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades. Referring to the scientific approach is to refer to international efforts by scientists to understand and develop the vaccine. (By contrast, a comment by one non-scientist, or also by just a handful of scientists, is not founded on anything like the same kind of scrutiny as the international scientific research.)

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

in this case, those issues for mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades

True. And the trials went so badly that they needed an overblown pandemic to actually approve mRNA for human use. Pfizer and Moderna are the first approved mRNA medicines ever.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get it. People are worried about new vaccines. But there are helpful sources about the history and uses of mRNA vaccines, just two of which are here:

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/top-10-rna-based-biopharmas

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I already found a lie

The first mRNA vaccines using these fatty envelopes were developed against the deadly Ebola virus, but since that virus is only found in a limited number of African countries, it had no commercial development in the U.S.

If that's true, why are there 3 approved non-mRNA ebola vaccines? One from J+J and one from Canada/Merck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine

look at this non-science shit

Thanks to decades of research and innovation, mRNA vaccine technology was ready.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And one reason the mRNA version was not viable for US commercial use was perhaps because of the two other non-mRNA vaccines available.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad we agree that this Johns Hopkins article is full of shit and not shooting straight.

[–]AXXA[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

4 billion administered doses is no longer experimental.

Number of doses doesn't change its experimental nature. It just raises the stakes and potential human toll. Doctor Robert Malone is the inventor of the mRNA injections. He says using mRNA injections to reprogram your body to be a spike protein factory has dangerous risks that outweigh any possible benefit for people that aren't elderly or obese. We should ship the obese to fat camps until they learn to stop stuffing their face. We should only be giving the experimental injections to the elderly so that we limit the number of mutations driven by the leaky non-sterilizing injection.

[–]Antarchomachus 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

What 'misinformation' are you speaking of. I am tired of seeing this word tossed around without any supporting evidence. While it is certainly possible that Tulsi may be 'misinformed' on some facts, I have seen this label applied to things that are not in fact misinformation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/8u7s/spotify_to_take_down_neil_youngs_music_after_his/wqkd

[–]Antarchomachus 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Okay, some of these are valid others are not.

If Joe Rogan said there microchips in the vaccine, that is stupid, and that is misinformation, sure.

The misinformation claim about ivermectin is preposterous. The study you refer to did not administer Ivermectin within 5 days of infection, and used 3x the standard dose. The FDA approved Paxlovid based on needing to be administered in the first 5 days, and these drugs are the same class of Protease Inhibitor. There are over 100 studies showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin when given in the proper dosage early in the course of the disease. Here are a just a few of them

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I would agree that Ivermectin is worth considering for treatments. The problem with discussions of it in the context of vaccine discussions is that there are anti-vax propagandists and their followers who promote it as the alternative to the vaccine. This is comparing treatment (during infection) with prevention (to help build antibodies before infection, and thereby become less of a danger to others). Thus what's best for a community is to help them develop antibodies without having to get COVID. Those who promote ivermectin are often promoting an option to avoid vaccines, thereby putting others in danger. And though you can get COVID after vaccination, you are less likely in that case to seriously suffer, and would have those minor symptoms for a brief period, and thereby would be less likely to spread the virus while infected.

[–]Antarchomachus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Agree with you socks. It looks like Rogan has said a few wrong things too, but I think SOME of these issues are more nuanced than the MSM is allowing, and dismissing all of it as misinformation is not really fair

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes - the responses to him seem to focus only on his approaches to COVID, rather than the bigger picture, and I have to admit I know less about his other interviews, but will see if there is more on them in due course. I listened to Rogan when he discussed sports, long ago, and I still think that this is his area, rather than voicing his opinions about why we should mistrust medical science.

[–]Antarchomachus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm in agreement with a lot of what you are saying. Joe Rogan would certainly not be my preferred oracle of truth.

To me the important points are about Dr. Robert Malone. This guy has the original patents for the RNA transfection method used for these MRNA vaccines and is a credible expert in immunology. He was booted from Twitter and other platforms essentially for having a different opinion than Fauci, and I applaud Rogan using his platform to fight the censorship of a credible expert.

Thats what this is about to me. There are very very well respected experts in the field that disagree with various aspects of the Covid policy (Dr Battarchaya, from Stanford, Kulldorf from Harvard, etc) and are being censored. This is not how science works, experts don't always agree.

To me this is about Rogan using his platform in a way that encourages scientific dialogue, although he certainly hasn't been perfect. You could also say Joe BIden spread misinformation when he said "If you take this vaccine you won't get Covid", as the experts already knew these vaccines were not sterilizing by this point. So I don't think it's fair to hold Rogan to a standard of perfection either.

Anyways appreciate that are willing to have a reasonable discussion, I am always happy to do so

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would also add this: CNN and the CDC has spread at least as many untruths as Joe Rogan (including that Ivermectin is 'dangerous horse medicine'), and nobody is talking about censoring them. If the damn authorities would stop blowing smoke up everyones ass, we would not need the ex host of 'Fear Factor' to get involved, which is rather unfortunate Ill admit

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I would agree that Ivermectin is worth considering for treatments.

I'm proud of you man. Brave and bold.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The first trials began last November:

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/nation%E2%80%99s-first-ivermectin-clinical-trial-now-50-percent-enrolled

And there are other options for treatment that are being studied as we speak. I don't know much about the results. Hopefully the discussions about treatments can remain disconected from discussions about the importance of vaccination, as the former reduces one's need for the latter, and most importantly, reduces transmission (doesn't stop transmission). (Thanks for the kind words, and hopefully this response is not considered annoying, as I know you don't like the vaccine.)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Yawn, the vaxes don't work, the stats are clear. If everyone will catch omicron, then everyone needs medical knowledge about treatment beyond mismatched vax anti-bodies*. Which the MSM and Fauci have never offered. Which hospitals have generally not offered.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Stats show that the vaccines have helped people build antibodies, which lead to a reduction of the spread, until the next strain - omicron. This too will have a bell curve in the stats.

[–]BossBrick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

there is not anti vax propaganda

[–]chottohen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is all true.

[–]Entropick 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

ZING, Tulsi laying it down hard!

[–]Ehhhhhh 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Rogan promotion from a gun grabber trying to gain points and relevance..

[–]Antarchomachus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Not sure gun grabber is a fair characterization. While I disagree with her stance on so-called 'assault rifles', she is pro second amendment, which is more than can be said for most Democrats

[–]Ehhhhhh 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Someone supporting gun control is not pro second amendment.

[–]Antarchomachus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

While I personally don't believe there should be restrictions on types of firearms, it is certainly possible to want some restrictions, and still believe in the general right to bear arms. There is a clear difference between Gabbard's stance and say, not wanting to allow citizens to own weapons at all. It is absurd to say there isn't any nuance to this at all.

[–]Ehhhhhh 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Her stance is not pro second. It is not even a valid fence-sitter position.

[–]Antarchomachus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Anyone who believes the general American public should be able to 'keep and bare arms', which Tulsi clearly does, is technically somewhere on the pro-second spectrum. You are just strawmanning people you disagree with into extreme positions. I could say that me having a nuclear warhead is me exercising my right to bear arms, and anyone who disagrees is anti second amendment, which is clearly a bad faith argument. This is not the way to have nuanced discussion.

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thats bs. You are the one pushing it to extremes with nuclear warhead.

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The ridiculousness of that argument is the point, because it is equivalent to your argument.

You are saying any restrictions at all make you anti 2nd (E.g. drawing the line at assault rifles)

I'm saying thats clearly not the case, because I can think of an obviously 'reasonable' restriction (e.g. drawing the line at Nuclear warheads.)

Just because you disagree with what restrictions are 'reasonable' doesn't make that person Anti-2nd amendment. This is an absolute logical fallacy

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Even the term assault rifle is ridiculous. Anyone who supports that crap is NOT pro 2a.

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agree it is a ridiculous word, and also agree it is not reasonable to ban them.

But it still isn't saying people cant own and bare arms, which is what 2a actually says. It would be easier to label everyone anti-2a who wants unreasonable restrictions I admit, but this isn't technically very accurate.

We agree here on guns, but you really aren't representing the people who disagree with us in good faith. The conversation to have with these people is where the line should be. We win by showing that their proposed restrictions are arbitrary and stupid - not that no restrictions should exist.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, AR-15 is the second amendment. It is the people's defense weapon.

[–]BravoVictor 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And yet she's posting on Gettr, a site controlled by wokists who will silence her when she's more trouble than she's worth.

[–]AXXA[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She made the same post on Twitter if you believe that's better.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1488456541686534144

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You think getting attacked means that she is legit?

Thats very short-sighted and easy to manipulate. Thats exactly why they have people "attacking" spotify/Rogan. Excellent publicity.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The finest of all the current and former CFR members.

[–]AXXA[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which other former members are you comparing her to?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not aware of any other member who are/were moderately anti-war and pro 2A. They are all neocons like Newt Gingrich. And worse.

[–]fatman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

show me your pussy and i will stop censoring joe rogan