Democrats are pressuring companies to censor for them: a violation of the First Amendment

submitted by AXXA from rumble.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jamesK_3rd 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Well honestly, it's usually the red that allows people to get screwed over by big corporations. Turnabout is fair play I suppose

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They swapped on free speech too, that used to be a Democratic value.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Yep - and it's fair to ask a company to stop spreading misinformation and to stop politicizing medical science. It's not an order. And this misinformation has had very serious consequences for the country, and divisions in the country, and with no reliable medical evidence to support their claims.

[–]Foidblaster9000 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

How can medical science not be politicized? Do you understand how heavily business is involved in the medical industry? If business is involved at all, politicization is fast to follow. Medical science is dependent on bidders with the deepest pockets, making it not exactly reliable. Any refutation otherwise is poorly informed.

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

The medical science is not political because it is a field of science. You refer to the medical industry (in the US), which I would agree is indeed corrupt at the administrative levels. Medical care should be provided by the state, instead of for-profit businesses. Science can't be corrupt or political because it's a fact-based discipline. Of course the medical industry can manipulate data, which would be corrupt. But peer reviewed scientific research isn't focused on political aims (normally), because it's checked internationally by other scientists. This check and balance system checks and double-checks the scientific information, regardless of politics in any of those countries. And any connection with a heavily biased company can lead to scientific disagreement among those who can show that industry bias in the scientific research.

[–]Foidblaster9000 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

$1.4 billion in losses from fraud cases by licensed medical professionals in the US, and this was announced by the Department of Justice in September of 2021. Some real honest people there, I'd say.

Departments of the US Government acting in direct collusion to allow questionable business entities and their labs to create their own experimentation standards that other institutions must follow. Hmm. Odd that the FDA would make deals like that unless there were a particular reason for it, like money perhaps?

A peer review system that is rife with corruption itself? Certainly that wouldn't create problems with real evidence-based science, right? Having editors within peer-review journaling systems that haven’t been fully vetted for credibility just seems like the right kind of science, doesn't it? https://www.nature.com/articles/543481a

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

Yes - I agree - corruption in the medical industry, especially in the US (where it would otherwise be possible to have free healthcare).

Very interesting Nature article. Nature, however, holds up to scrutiny regarding the accuraty of its reports. And indeed the fake editor was discovered because of other scientists and a check and balance system that is natural in the peer reviewed journal process for science and medical science journals. This does not prohibit occasional examples of corrupt processes, especially because of networks of academics who engage in favoritism. But that favoritism is rarely associated with corporate corruption. When innacuracies are discovered in journals like JAMA and other medical science journals, retractions are required. This happens often. I know of a PhD thesis on the subject of retractions, published in the early 1990s. Another problem is corporate sponsorship of scientific research, though in those cases there is a clause requiring 'academic freedom', which means that the researchers cannot be required by the company to falsify any portion of the data. This does not mean that this never happens, but that this is the ethical system that's part of the contracts. TL DR: what is more trustworthy - international network of 100s of scientists who like to correct each other with scientific facts - or political propaganda about that scientific research, making false claims about mRNA vaccines that are unfounded and baseless and certainly not supported by the massive network of international pedantic scientists?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

misinformation

But it's not really misinformation. Like Joe Rogan said, if you said a few months ago cloth masks or the vaccine didn't prevent the transmission of covid that would have been labeled misinformation. If you said the lockdowns hurt rather than helped, that would have been called misinformation.

It's politically motivated censorship. They don't care about the truth, they care about people hearing their truth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I recall that his show has spread much more misinformation than this. Regarding your two examples:

1) The problematic word is "prevent". This posits a black/white analysis that would never be accute. No independent thing or practice will prevent the spraed of COVID. Even the combination of preventive approaches might not 'prevent' the spread of COVID to someone. Propagandists use this black/white language often, setting up straw man arguments that are easy to use in the misinformation campaigns. The other misleading aspect of Rogan's comment is that "a few months ago cloth masks or the vaccine [DID reduce the spread and] transmission of covid. So his comment is misinformation because it leads people to believe that cloth masks and the vaccine did not HELP prevent the transmisison of COVID. And of course - he's not appropriately addressing the medical science, research and examples. He and his guests are using right-wing talking points to push misinformation that will benefit the GOP by developing a voting base that votes because of their feelings rather than knowledge. They support misinformation because they enjoy it and want to think it's accurate, not because it's accurate, and they have access to the accurate information.

2) Lockdowns helped reduce the spread of COVID though there misinformation today that they did not reduce the spread of COVID.

3) The problem is that those who care about the truth are currently facing an assault of misinformation from those who are brainwashed by it. It's dividing the country. Virology isn't difficult to understand, nor are methods that help prevent the spread of viruses. Those who are manipulating this information for political gain should be challenged. What they are doing is reducing the quality of life for the 99%.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

"a few months ago cloth masks or the vaccine [DID reduce the spread and] transmission of covid

The cloth masks never worked, that was misinformation from the CDC. The vaccine was ineffective, before we could get the alpha vaccine completely out we're already on our second major variant. We can't outpace it, therefore it was always a failure.

Those who are manipulating this information for political gain should be challenged

Don't worry, we'll get rid as many democrats as we can in the midterms.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The cloth masks never worked, that was misinformation from the CDC.

All masks help. None of the masks "work", becuase they are designed to help, not to 'work' if for example someone caughs the virus directly into your face. It's not misinformation because there are numerous studies that have shown how much cloth masks (and social distancing) have helped reduce transmission, especially for strains before the opticron strains. Today we need better masks (KN95), but we managed OK with cloth masks in 2020 and 2021. That's all I wore.

The vaccine was ineffective

No -the vaccines have been effective in the reduction of the spread of COVID.

Everything I note is very easy to locate with a simple search. My comments refer to the understanding of most people. The impossibility of anti-vax people to admit they are wrong is a very serious problem, dating back over a century. It's one reason the GOP are using it in the misinformation campaigns, as there are few people who will vote for these greedy career politicians. Think about the reason that the anti-vax demographic is in the tiny minority, and are mainly the tools of right-wing groups, especialy in the US (and France, Germany, the UK, Italy &c). Most peope appreciate the history, methods and science of vaccines because this is not difficult to understand and they've helped billions of people. I'm merely noting on Saidit common information. Are anti-vaxxers smarter than everyone else, and smarter than the scientists? (nope)

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

I keep telling you we need to look at the flu shot model rather than the vaccine model. Grouping people against the coronavirus vaccine that's ineffective is hardly the same as being against the ones that work, although given that autism wasn't a thing before mass vaccinations, that is concerning even though there's no proven link.

Are anti-vaxxers people against the covid shot smarter than everyone else, and smarter than the scientists? (nope)

Certainly not, but I am.

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

Oh man - now into the weeds of the other anti-vax claims we go. Flu shots have helped people not to get the flu, but you don't have to take my word for it. The history of the study of autism extends mainly ot 1908, when the word was coined by Eugen Bleuler, who used it to describe a schizophrenic patient. Studies thereafter are unrelated to vaccines, and there have been no appropriate studies that have linked vaccine doses to autism. And consider that billions of people have had those doses, but only 1% of the people in the world have some recorded potential autism. (The number would be much higher than this if vaccines caused autism - and this is just using one type of logic argument, of the various arguments one can use.) Vaccine hesitancy is an understandable, natural development during COVID, but what is the hardest thing you (as in, all of us) will ever do? (change a habit)

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

You brought up anti-vaxxers, and something is causing the incidence of autism to increase. It's higher in the US, 1 in 34 among boys (2.97 percent) and 1 in 145 among girls (0.69 percent).

And consider that billions of people have had those doses, but only 1% of the people in the world have some recorded potential autism.

I don't know why you find that relevant. Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare reaction to the J&J shot as well as common every day acetaminophen. Not every shot or pill caused it, but some did. Our bodies are complex systems, different people react differently to things.

This pushback against covid skepticism makes me wonder how impartial or serious the studies have actually been.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All masks help. None of the masks "work", becuase they are designed to help, not to 'work' if for example someone caughs the virus directly into your face. It's not misinformation because there are numerous studies that have shown how much cloth masks (and social distancing) have helped reduce transmission, especially for strains before the opticron strains.

Why did some of the states without mask mandates or lockdowns do better than the ones with it then? We should have seen a correlation if the measures were successful.

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

They didn't do better. They under-reported cases and deaths.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No way those hospitals chose to loose out of federal monies. At my wife's hospital, the positive test count included every test done on a patient, so one patient with covid represented multiple positive tests.

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

An interesting problem that would skew statistics, I agree.

In many countries and states, COVID patients haven't been to hospitals or have had tests, for various financial, personal, and logistic reasons.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

All masks help. None of the masks "work", becuase they are designed to help, not to 'work' if for example someone caughs the virus directly into your face

We can actually get scientific here. Single layer cotton masks are estimated to stop 3% of viruses. And N95 stops... want to guess? That's right, it stops 95% of viruses.

3% vs 95% is nearly black and white. You conflate and dodge a very sane and important point from Rogan and Musky and CDC themselves.

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

Yes, now cloth masks are less efficient against omicron and its varants. Before omicron, most of us had cloth masks and cheap N95 masks, many of which were more than one layer. I recall the early reports that the cloth mask and social distancing reduced transmission by as much as 60%, but cannot find that informaiton at the moment. Of course a big part of this benefit is the social distancing. There have been very good scientific studies on this, one of which is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7277485/

Cloth can block droplets and aerosols, and layers add efficiency. Filtration efficiency for single layers of different types of cotton cloth in a bioaerosol (0.2 µm) experiment was between 43% and 94%, compared with 98% to 99% for fabric from disposable medical masks (2). In a summary of similar observations, single layers of scarfs, sweatshirts, T-shirts, and towels were associated with filtration efficiency of 10% to 40% in experiments using NaCl aerosol (0.075 µm) (3). For tea towel fabric, studied with aerosol-sized particles, filtration efficiency in experiments using a bacterial marker was 83% with 1 layer and 97% with 2 layers, compared with 96% for a medical mask (4). In experiments using virus, 1 layer of tea towel had 72% efficiency and 1 layer of T-shirt fabric 51%, compared with 90% for a medical mask (4). A 2020 study confirms that some fabrics block clinically useful percentages of transmission, even for aerosols and even in single layers; multiple layers improve efficiency (5).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Okay fine, a cloth mask can stop 51% of viruses, but N95 stops 95%. It seems like we should have been pushing N95 hard this whole time.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I would agree with those who want to question these percentages for those who do not wear glasses - because COVID particles that land in an eye can infect a person. There is also the benefit of social distancing. If one puts the N95 mask over the eyes, this should help with 95% prevention, but not injuries sustained while walking into things. Not sure....