...older, by the damn minute, it seems.

Undertoad wrote:

I will add, Japan has okayed ivm for use by its docs.

Why we should trust Japan:



Important to note that this result is not due to ivm usage. And Omicron has only just arrived there, so we don't know about that. But still.
 

Japan also has an entirely different culture with respect to social interaction.  Things like polite social distance, hugging strangers, loud talking....

Undertoad wrote:

We both know nothing; since there isn't enough solid science for it yet.

  
What we know: you were proclaiming it as a solution when (as you now admit) no facts justified that conclusion.  But again, in the last 20 some years, you have repeatedly posted extremist lies rather that first learn facts.  Fox News targets the naive.

You admit you did not know.  But promoted it as a solution.  Please learn how reality works.  Please learn from your mistakes.

For example, well over 300 different vaccines were in development.  According to UT reasoning, many hundreds should have worked.  Reality: only three were sufficient.  Moderates (informed people) never make such bogus recommendations until facts exist.  Only an extremist would have recommended hundreds of vaccines - or Ivermectin.  For the same reason Jenny McCarthy proved vaccines caused autism.  And that Saddam had WMDs.

After so many WMD lies, a moderate learns that everything, promoted by Fox, is suspect - often a lie.  UT still has not learned from many mistakes.  Extremists must remain that entrenched.  Then need not apologize for being so easily manipulated.
 

Last edited by tw (2/11/2022 8:47 pm)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362Findings  In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.

‘There’s not a single randomised control trial which reliably says ivermectin saves lives,’ says Sheldrick.

But Fox News says it does save lives.  Therefore it must!

Explanation point because extremist news sources target emotions.  Facts only need a period.

get back to living

Some of us never stopped.

Undertoad wrote:

I'm not invested in any particular outcome, but very interested in the debate/
 

  That means facts.  Why then cite social media where no one must meet the criteria for honesty?  Where so many lies (ie vaccines cause autism, genetic foods are unhealthy, etc) are both created and survive.

Honest debate means facts (ie peer reviewed studies) are cited. Only cited was one study, conducted in the spring, mostly with people who were at greatest risk (more likely to die),  published originally in the summer, and (as of December) they had not even shared their data with peers.  Other studies contradicted that conclusion.

We should know something is honest because social media (ie where Trump went to constantly lie) is honest?
From The Economist:

It can take years for a single paper to get published in a well-regarded journal.  In that time, a paper might undergo several rounds of peer-review by academic volunteers, followed by corrections - and possibly rejections - before a new scientific result sees the light of day.  ...

To get around this, scientists can release a "preprint": a manuscript of a paper posted to a public server online before it has completed a formal review process.

  Which means it yet says nothing sufficiently honest unless other independent preprints are discovering same.  That is not happening with this magic anti-viral.

We only have social media and Fox News as itf that was proof?

Propaganda outfits, masking as news services, constantly hype on the exception to target (and profit from)  emotional (and therefore extremist) disciples.  It is a religion - not honesty.  One would think extremists had learned their mistakes from so many bogus 'vaccines cause autism' lie.  Or the miracle 'over the counter' drugs that cure the common cold.  Of magic nutrition supplements in GNC, et al that do not even contain what is listed on its label.  

No.  Just like Saddam's WMDs and McCarthy's "communists in the State Department and Army", extremist automatically believe only what their emotions (ie penis) tells them to believe.  Facts and numbers be damned.

So easy to order an extremist what to believe.  As my father said, they are trying to make us tell the truth.  That takes all the fun out of it.

If that long, subjective, and laborious social media citation stated something relevant, then that was quoted.

Does not matter that some bogus miracle cures might fail.  What matters is whether THAT miracle cure works.  Why should I have to explain basic logic?
 

Heheheheh!!![/littleyellowminionlaugh]

Undertoad wrote:

tap tap tap... pause... tap tap

  A fundamental  difference between a patriot and an extremist. Patriot learn facts.  Then need not post their emotions.  Or insults.

UT tells us that vaccines are more dangerous.  Because Fox News said so.  He is not the moderate that he was 30 years ago.  Back then, he did not say all other news services lie.  Today, he says everyone but Fox lies.
 

Undertoad wrote:

  The poor performance of the empowered during Covid was a wake-up call. This is the debate you would like to not have. The following positions have been the mainstream, promoted belief at different times during the last two years:

We have a successful program only obstructed by a dumb president who destroyed (intentionally) even what George Jr and Obama created.  And then obstructed solutions.  Obstructed also by extremists who worship Fox News and hearsay from social media – the decentralized sources of hearsay and wild speculation.

Only those who hate America, with a “Me, Me, Me” attitude, even   refused to be vaccinated so that others will get sick.  An uneducated and emotional person is, somehow, smarter than experts.  And demonstrates contempt for the Constitutional rights of all others.

Decentralized channels (ie social media) create lies so egregious that the least educated still believe ‘masks do not work’.

Medical professionals in an OR should not wear masks.  Since masks do nothing.  UT said so.  It must be true.
Why would anyone promote lies?  Routine when one says everyone else lies and only Fox News is honest.
We know that restrictions have saved lives.  Where restrictions were disregarded, more deaths occurred.   Even the Olympics proved restrictions work.  With only two people getting sick.

Only emotions (promoted by soundbites) says a herd mentality does not work.  Honest people, instead, learn from numbers by using their pre-frontal cortex.  Numbers, already posted, for Australia and Norway say UT drinks the Kool Aid.

One would think he learned from how Fox promoted lies about Saddam’s WMDs.  Instead he doubled down.  Still insisted those WMDs existed even after George Jr said otherwise.

Vaccines prevent illnesses in most who would otherwise be extremely sick or dead.  And reduces severity of illnesses in others.  That is also reality.  Vaccines work when one is not brainwashed.

Brainwashing says Ivermectin is a cure for Covid.  Demonstrates how many harm America by letting decentralized (irresponsible) sources and others (even Putin) brainwash them.

America’s greatest strength has always been in educated (thinking) citizens.  We require everyone to be educated.  To create as many patriotic Americans as possible.

No way to convince UT.  This is about how easily some are brainwashed.

We know that Fauci is subject to peer review.  His reputation is based on making conclusions by first learning facts,  And that he spent his entire life learning facts long before making a conclusion.  He has no political agenda.  Says why by citing science.  Sometimes when it is politically incorrect.  Sometimes when it is only the best guess that science can come up with while more research is ongoing..

Rogan get popular by inventing / saying anything that appeals only to the emotional.  Play / entertains people in a manner similar to what Howard Stern would do.   But Stern was not targeting a particular minority of political extremists

Rogan has no peer review  Can make up anything he wants to say without any consequences.  His entire life was never about providing facts.  Hs life is to only make money / be popular by appealing / entertaining emotions.  That clearly is not credible.

A reporter in mainstream  (centralized) media  is required to provide, to his editor or anchorman, supporting facts that justify his report.  Cronkite was buntal do this.  So brutal that he went to Vietnam and said that we should not be there.  (One reason why Johnson decided to quite the Presidency.)   Peter Jennings so viscously enforced this standard that yelling arguments in the ABC Newsroom were said to  be legendary.    And since so many responsible (mainstream) media  also do  that, then peer review also  exists.

Therefore when mainstream media gets it wrong, it is like an airplane crash.  A rare ad major disaster.  When Fox lies, it gets reported just like another car crash.  Something that happens every day.  Misinformation was that routine.

Reporters in Fox News are told what they will report.  Chirrs Wallace was an  outlier.  He would even start saying direct to Trump's face, "That is not true".  Sometimes would say that multiple times.

Ailes would literally issue instructions that morning what  his reporters would report.  All part of the decentralized information sources that need not obtain facts and information from the large cadre of sources. Only invent what is convenient or popular to  benefit a political agenda.  No different than so many tweets and YouTube videos.

In business, the Rogan would \be quickly unemployeed in a responsible organization.  A good boss comes from where the  work gets done.  Then knows (from details - supporting facts and numbers) that Rogan is lying.  (For the same reason why a responsible reporter must justify his story.)   Why do so many companies, run by business school graduates, do badly - fail?  Why are  GM cars so bad?  Top managemenet typically did not drive cars.  Naiive (irresponsible) bosses cannot see the difference between a Rogan and a Fauci.  When it is obvious if one comes from where the work gets done.

In a centralized (responsible) organizatin, many contribute to the integrity of a product.  In a decentralized operation, Rogan can invent any fiction he wants.  (Ie the State  Department is full of communists.)  Nobody need confirm or approve what he says.  Those who automatically believe what they are \told - do not demand supporting facts with perspectivie - then automatically believe a lie.

What is the difference between the Daily News and New York Times.  Times articles are long with many supporting facts and numbers.  Daily News only reports a soundbite.  Soundbites (even if accurate) are also treated as if a lie.  Because they do not say why with numbers.

Another example.
 

Last edited by tw (2/20/2022 10:07 pm)

Undertoad wrote:

I must say CF this is a complete 180 from a previous CF who developed a theory on vaccination contradictory to medical science and did her own research for decades

though i generally disagreed with that CF's conclusions, I would never prevent her from doing it, and shut myself up when she found objections to be troubling

plz CF square your thoughts, how did you come to this new figuring, it is interesting
 

I still believe what I believe. I've just separated myself from the idea that it's worth it (or perhaps even possible) to convince anyone. I can't and won't debate it. I've actually noted in the last year--to myself and with amusement--that you and I have at least to a certain degree switched positions on this. I don't think the old UT would have questioned the CDC nearly as much as the new UT does. And that's kind of my point: we argued, and nobody changed their minds, and at least one of us got so emotionally involved that it was detrimental to their well-being. And yet here we both are years later, with at least partially changed opinions, thanks to no direct effort on either's part.

It's okay to have a topic that you have delved deep into, and know a ton about. One of the functions of decentralized expertise is that we do have to have the expertise somewhere. Weirdly, I always think of classicman's textbook-level knowledge of mushrooms when I think about having a stable of people I trust on various topics: I don't have to know about mushrooms, because I know a guy I can always ask if it becomes relevant. And if mushroom knowledge suddenly became critical, I wouldn't do the research. I'd just ask classic what he thought. For what it's worth, your track record on COVID stuff seems pretty solid to me, and if I had to pick someone to ask, you'd be on the list. The big distinction is whether there's a need to ask--neither I nor anyone in my family has COVID, and when we did, it wasn't severe. So I have no need to discuss it, one way or the other, and I certainly have no need to get emotionally invested in what other people think about it.

So, yes, once upon a time I did my own research and became an expert on something, largely because I didn't have a choice--the track record of the experts available to me was unsatisfactory. I got unsustainably invested in trying to convince others for awhile, but eventually figured out it was unhealthy for me. I still know the facts I know, and will share them with folks who ask in a nonconfrontational way. Some do, and I've become "the mushroom guy" to a significant number of people. But I've also learned that most people are going to do what they were going to do anyway, even after that information has been presented. For the most part, for me, there's no point in discussing it.