Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feelotraveller]

Nor did the CIA lose it over the 'emails' shenanigans (which admittedly smell pretty much every which way) but rather only when their 'Vault 7' suite of hacking tools were obtained by WikiLeaks - some of which were then made public.
[...]

Not to mention the consideration giving to outright assassination (of a Australian in the UK, no less...).  All this for truthfully disclosing bonafide documents.

so is it planned murder over the vault 7 tools or the other stuff

While I'm tempted to say 'just read the article' the prospect of murder was only canvassed by (some elements of) the administration after the release of documents describing some of the vault 7 tools.  (Of course the 'other stuff' had largely already happened.) Shrug.

While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies for years, these plans for an all-out war against him were sparked by WikiLeaks’ ongoing publication of extraordinarily sensitive CIA hacking tools, known collectively as “Vault 7,” which the agency ultimately concluded represented “the largest data loss in CIA history.”

President Trump’s newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape allegations he denied. Pompeo and other top agency leaders “were completely detached from reality because they were so embarrassed about Vault 7,” said a former Trump national security official. “They were seeing blood.”

[Gentlefish]

Here's something the MSM jumped on and had to retract, because they didn't actually bother to fact-check it:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/fact-check-oklahoma-ivermectin-story/index.html
That dastardly horse medicine! (Never mind that it won a Nobel prize in 2015 for use in humans.)

for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria

So, uh, looks like it won a Nobel Prize for... being an anti-parasitic medication.

It works by paralyzing parasites to death by binding electrolyte channels open, preventing them from firing/unfiring and moving. Note this affects cells and has nothing to do with viruses.
This is important because it's a goddamn pain in the ass to target parasites, usually. Especially if they're not living in the GI tract.

In large doses this will paralyze a human and kill them by stopping their hearts.
Sure there's no evidence saying it doesn't work (because that's not how evidence works) but there are no in-depth studies with significant results, and why would there be for an anti-parasitic drug being used to treat a viral infection?

There was that Lancet study debunking hydroxychloroquine the MSM was touting that had to be retracted because nobody had any idea where the data actually came from.

Hydroxychloroquine, much like ivermectin, is an anti-malarial and anti-parasitic/amoebic. It also works by targeting living cells.
It's different in that it increases lysosomal pH (makes the digestive parts of the cell less acidic), starving them if they rely on digesting other cells.
In large doses, it will cause hypokalemia (low potassium levels), disrupting your nervous system and causing cardiac arrest... leading to death.

It does, however, thanks to its pH-lowering effects, suppress the immune system to a degree. This may or may not help in rare cases of cytokine storms caused by a body's over-reaction to an infection (say, covid) which could be lethal.

It does not affect viruses in any direct manner.

We know how drugs work. These drugs are not miracles. Hell, Hydroxychloroquine is literally derived from quinine, the main ingredient in tonic water and has been in use for hundreds, if not a few thousand, years by humanity.

Feck off with this snake oil bullshit. It's really getting old.

[Rolan7]

It's like if "alternative news" pushed alcohol as a Covid virus treatment because of its antiseptic properties, leading to people hitting up the ABC store.  Then MSM reports "People are trying to treat Covid with liquor and that's bad.  There's no evidence that drinking alcohol is effective against Covid."

And "alternative news" responded: "We didn't *say* booze, we obviously meant rubbing alcohol!  The MSM is lying again for their shadow government overlords!  Keep consuming alcohol!"

"Alternative news" agencies aren't that stupid, they're very effectively lying to fuck us over.

Edit: Derp, I had to change that a little since (unlike Ivermectin) alcohol technically does kill Covid.  On surfaces.

[Kagus]

While I can sorta sympathize with the idea that calling Ivermectin exclusively "horse medicine", when it has indeed been used to good effect in humans, is perhaps a bit unfair. Perhaps most unfair to the drug itself, with getting stigmatized and potentially shied away from for its legitimate uses.

However, people running out to buy and take doses of Ivermectin specifically intended for horses—in order to treat a virus—are still idiots.


Also, random fun fact... Most tonic waters don't actually contain quinine these days. It's been replaced by an artificial flavor that, while mimicking the bitter taste, is less of a strain on the body (and less likely for people to be allergic to it, I believe).

There's a funny way to check if a tonic has real quinine in it too: Quinine will light up rather strongly under a blacklight. The flavoring agent does not.

[delphonso]

Ivermectin, in the context of the US, is horse medicine, as that is its primary usage. The US doesn't have a lot of issues with parasites. I would guess that in places like Guatamala where Ivermectin is a common drug, they are already aware of its actual uses (It may have been Paraguay who hopped on the faulty Ivermectin study, which is understandable for a country who with extremely low supply of vaccines and a high supply of a potentially effective drug). I doubt this foolishness would dissuade the people who normally benefit from ivermectin from taking it.

The US has, however, rocketed the price of what was a very cheap drug, and there are likely people suffering from the horrid effects of parasites because Ivermectin is now unaffordable, and will remain so until this fad is over. Probably some horses too.

All this is to say, even if the recommended doses of Ivermectin from FLCCC weren't poisonous, and it had no negative side effects, the Right is pushing this as an alternative to vaccines, a drug we know works. That's the primary issue, honestly.

Anyway, that topic is well-exhausted and doesn't even deserve debunking because of how blatantly it ignores evidence. Sorry for the further digression.

[MrRoboto75]

In other news, the failed state is going into government shutdown once again.

[Rolan7]

I'm pretty sure talking about actual US politics would be "censorship" of the very serious Ivermectin and "doubt the mainstream media" lobby.
(Very well funded lobby for such weak ideas.  Strange, that.)

I got kinda blindsided today by the shutdown because it's easier to laugh at and argue with the alt-media bullshit than it is to actually think.  Which just means it's working.  I found out about the shutdown when my mom called.  Notably, she expressed frustration that we voted in a Democrat administration, but that the Republicans are still calling the shots and shutting down the government yet again despite thoroughly losing the mandate of the people.

Frankly, it's because they play the game with no moral compunctions.  I have no sympathy left for Republican representatives, only their constituents and the vanishing handful who don't FALL IN LINE.  How can I keep sympathy in my heart for people who supported a despot because he wore an R, and support anti-vaccine cults in support of their personal careers?  Who know climate change is real and are okay with accelerating it?
How do they look at their grandchildren?  How do they work to strip their granddaughters of basic human rights?
Because they're true believers.  And there is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.


(also some of them probably just enjoy number-goes-up, but I don't believe most of them are complete sociopaths)

[McTraveller]

Are you folks so young, that you don't remember all the other shutdowns or near-shutdowns we've had over the past several decades?

Yes it's infantile politics, but I'm not yet convinced that this will be straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

[MrRoboto75]

Are you folks so young, that you don't remember all the other shutdowns or near-shutdowns we've had over the past several decades?

Decades?  Its damn near every year now.  Congress can't pass one budget without shitting the bed, probably literally considering the average age involved.

[dragdeler]

a

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I for one hope that the impending socio-political-economic crisis results in the dissolution of the US. It won't.... but god I wish it would.

[MrRoboto75]

I for one hope that the impending socio-political-economic crisis results in the dissolution of the US. It won't.... but god I wish it would.

Whatever fills that vacuum won't be any better

[Bumber]

Yep, as I thought, they weren't anywhere near defensible.

You went from "students will kick teachers and students out and threaten them" to "Students will shout down speakers", and by no means is just spamming a bunch of examples of this happening any sort of argument towards whether or not it should happen. Just that you don't like it and need to... yes... manufacture a crisis to play the victim.

It all ties into college (overwhelmingly "liberal") censorship of conservatives. I've shown that conservatives are censored.

I've got another example of a student spraying something (later revealed to be lavender oil and other chemicals) at a conservative speaker.

Okay, how about some actual numbers?

66% of students report some level of acceptance for speaker shout-downs — up 4 percentage points from last year; 23% consider it acceptable for people to use violence to stop certain speech — up 5 percentage points from last year

23% of students think it's okay to use violence to prevent speech.

Greene's tweet wasn't being censored for citing the data, it was Greene citing misleading numbers and being marked as misleading. "O, the tragedy of having a label next to your comment telling you you are wrong! Censorship!"/s

You can't like, respond to, or retweet her tweet. In other words, it's made hard to find unless you were specifically searching for it, and there can be no discussion of it (as pertains to Twitter.) That is effectively censorship.

I've got examples of people who were censored that actually cited data or their personal experience, which brings us to...

And you again spam a bunch of links of something other than what you were asserting. Are you spamming these articles because you want to distract how you were full of shit in the first place?

You fucking asked for them:

Not everybody gets to be broadcast on CSPAN. A bunch of people got censored by the liberal social media giants (at the insistence of a Democrat administration) for questioning the origins of COVID.

Cite the CDC's own database regarding adverse reactions to the vaccine? Censored.

Link an article about Hunter's spicy laptop before an election? Can't have that.

Videos by Hollywood actors and rappers about Trump being assassinated. Sure, that's fine.
The Orange Man himself? NO! He might praise the insurrectionists!!!

Shadow bans? Yes, please!

Forgot to mention campus censorship. They'll kick a student or teacher out for stating the wrong opinion. Even the students will threaten you. (Center-left, highly factual source. No bullshit.)

There's always the occasional dumb event that every conservative media group talks about at once, because they need every single instance they can point to to defend their insane beliefs. One group of college students acts poorly, and 4 years later it's used as evidence that there is a national (if not global) attempt to silence conservatives. Funny how there were no links for the other examples. Perhaps a little less defensible, hmmmm?

"A bunch of people got censored by the liberal social media giants (at the insistence of a Democrat administration) for questioning the origins of COVID."
(Supporting link: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-man-made-491053)

"Cite the CDC's own database regarding adverse reactions to the vaccine? Censored."
Greene didn't actually cite her source, so I gave an alternate example of a former NYT science reporter (Alex Berenson) who was banned from Twitter after citing Pfizer clinical data. Link includes a screenshot of an email from Twitter about suspending his account (which it is still) and the tweet that caused it, so the credibility of jonathanturley.org is irrelevant.
(Supporting link: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/31/twitter-suspends-science-writer-after-he-posts-results-of-pfizer-clinical-test/comment-page-1/)
Also gave a quote from WaPo (credible source) of a doctor saying similar to Berenson, which ran before Berenson's tweet, so it wasn't misinformation at all. Don't need to re-quote that article.

Next four links weren't asked for, but provide more instances of social media overreaching on what it calls "misinformation", which is the topic of my post in question. An instance of a renowned doctor being censored by Twitter. Censorship of personal experiences of severe side effects to vaccine, because "the vaccines are safe for most people". Won't re-post those.

Laptop and assassination addressed below. Shadow bans are a sneaky form of censorship known to exist, and didn't require elaboration.

I'm not going over how suspicious/wrong each of these are or why it's not some "gotcha" you have because the last time I tried pressing you on one point, you just refused to respond to that part. You know you are being dishonest.

The unreliable sources had screenshots. If I can waste (hours of) my own time finding sources, the least you could do is go over them.

Be more specific and I'll at least tell you why I didn't respond.

I doubt someone so obtuse as yourself is capable of deducing what I know.

And the real irony of this is that if republicans weren't such incessant science deniers who endanger people's lives every day, we wouldn't have this level of defenses against covid misinformation. A true story could very well have gotten caught up by bots or something, but the only ones to blame here are the ones who caused the need for such preventative measures in the first place.

You're working from a preconceived notion (Republicans are all science deniers) and using it to justify the censorship of actual truth, done by those who would tell you what the science must be. Ignoring any data you don't agree with definitely isn't scientific.

The Hunter Biden's Laptop story was, as expected, dodgy as fuck. You are literally upset that the republican party isn't allowed to spread these mindless rumors about their political opponents right before an election. This is a common tactic by republicans. Sling a bunch of mud at the wall to see what sticks, and blame your opponent for doing the same when they don't. And no, politico verifying two emails is not evidence that it wasn't a republican hit piece.

That's a lot of bluster from you without a refutation of the story. Both sides do hit pieces before an election. The question is if they are true. The NY Post provided the materials from the beginning. It's the "debunk" from social media and the MSM that was mindless.

The e-mail with the quote "10 held by H for the big guy?" was central to the story, as the "big guy" is alleged to be Joe Biden. (H is Hunter. The person is tied to Hunter, specifically. Bobulinski (who was involved in the deal) confirmed it's Joe, and there are text messages (yet to be confirmed by MSM) that paint that picture.)

I'm sure once the text messages are confirmed you'll still deny it.

And the 2 assassination implications (third one isn't one) are only about people NOT being censored. There were also people who said Obama should have been assassinated. Again, we have an argument detached from your original point.

"Videos by Hollywood actors and rappers about Trump being assassinated. Sure, that's fine. The Orange Man himself? NO! He might praise the insurrectionists!!!"

Trump was censored, and for less than implying assassinations (which is apparently acceptable.)

It's just more evidence of a concerted effort by the Hillary campaign to start an investigation against Trump regardless of what they knew to be false.

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems like gibberish.

Hillary's campaign funded the dossier, and one of her lawyers brought its contents to the FBI, while knowingly lying about its veracity and pretending not to represent anyone (i.e., the Hillary campaign.)

And those links don't demonstrate the Dossier is false. It doesn't even rock the boat too much. But that's just another white lie to throw on the pile. The Steele dossier has only been corroborated thus far, and if the pee tapes turned out to be a rumor spread by hotel staff, then so what? To say that that makes the dossier false is just malicious. And for the facts behind it, do you read your own sources? It literally says that "We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order. ".

"12 of Steele's conspiracy charges versus the Mueller report."
The 3-year-long Mueller investigation failed to substantiate those claims in the dossier that led to the FISA order. There was no corroboration of the dossier in the FISA, so the application itself was improper! The Durham investigation is centered around that application, and how it was stamped "Verified" without the FBI having actually done so (which is a crime.)

The dossier isn't false because of just the pee tapes (which the "credible" media bought in to.) The dossier is false for lack of true statements.

This question has been brought up over and over across all sorts of news sites. The Steele dossier has only ever been corroborated, not debunked.

[citation needed]

It's not corroborated because "all sorts of news sites" bring it up. Cite an actual corroboration.

Considering that you constantly manage to zero in to these scant few sentences in articles from dozens of sources ranging from obscure right-wing tabloids to MSM, but have the audacity to ask if this well established fact is a fact, tells me only one thing. You know you are wrong but think that if you just keep asking questions and acting cynical and avoid looking for the answers, you will somehow "win" the argument without having to face actual evidence.

It looks more like you're being delusional. "My facts are facts because they're well established facts! Your sources are wrong because they don't align with my facts! No, I don't need to prove my facts, because they're established facts!" Good luck with that.

[dragdeler]

a

[Bumber]

I must note that VAERS reports are akin to raw intelligence; anyone can file a report, and as noted in the article, "VAERS does not verify the accuracy or veracity of reports, nor does it require a causal attribution." Also, since the system only gets reports on adverse events, it's easy to fall prey to survivorship bias if you don't have proper context; maybe we need a Non-Event Reporting System for all those millions of Americans who had no/minor side effects from the vaccine.

There's a correlation, however. I heard somewhere there were more reports for COVID vaccine reactions than for all other vaccines in the previous X years. (Having difficulty finding the source on that. Doesn't really matter because there are better examples of censorship of cited information.)

jonathanturley.org

ಠ_ಠ

SenRonJohnson

ಠ_ಠ

Both sources provided screenshots of the censorship in question.

I refer you to LegalEagle's short: Section 230 Repeal: What Would Happen?

It's a law that shields them from liability of user content, which is not afforded to regular (e.g., news) publishers. This makes them a semi-public platform, as they are in a similar category to telephone companies who aren't responsible for the content of calls.

Repealing 230 isn't a method to allow more free speech. It's the threat of mutually assured destruction of everyone's free speech, leading to a collapse of those platforms' revenue.