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 →

[–]IkeConn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

What is it about the blue lefty shitstains that makes them think supressing the truth makes it go away?

[–]jamesK_3rd 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 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?