Thank you for your well considered response. We have some points of agreement and disagreement. I agree with your analysis of the weaknesses of Desmet's theory of Mass Formation. I agree that we must evaluate anew each theory or recommendation from a scientist; their work does not stand above critique because they previously won an award…
Thank you for your well considered response. We have some points of agreement and disagreement. I agree with your analysis of the weaknesses of Desmet's theory of Mass Formation. I agree that we must evaluate anew each theory or recommendation from a scientist; their work does not stand above critique because they previously won an award or excelled in another treatment or area of research.
I also agree that citing sources, without more, is problematic; however, it is incumbent on the reader to review the sources to determine whether they support the evidence for which they are cited. During the Covid debacle I read many articles whose conclusions contradicted the evidence within the document. This was never more evident than in a video recorded by Tess Lawrie. https://www.bitchute.com/video/kV5dS0UeZn6K/. The video recorded a discussion between her and Andrew Hill regarding his conclusion in which he was calling for more trials of ivermectin, before use, despite the body of the Cochrane review that provided overwhelming evidence that ivermectin was necessary to stop deaths. He admitted pharma had a hand in his erroneous conclusion and that his conclusion was inaccurate. He asked for six weeks to correct his conclusion and together, he and Tess, calculated the number of people who would die, assuming an accurate conclusion would affect administration of ivermectin, during those six weeks. Lee Iacocca was CEO of Ford when the accountants calculated how many would die as a result of the faulty design of the Ford Pinto and Ford decided to move forward with sales because despite lawsuits the product would be profitable. The evidence of corruption, alone, disqualifies the CEO from being a reliable source for recommending vehicle purchase decisions.
Regarding our disagreements there remain several. Perhaps our primary disagreement concerns the quality and validity of theories posited by scientists and the amount of evidence required to reach a conclusion. Unanimous agreement is not required nor is it likely and it is unachievable until conflicts of interest are eliminated from research. The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine admitted that "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." The weight of the evidence of journal articles, therefore, must be heavily discounted until conflicts are cured.
Second, evidence will always remain incomplete, contested and circumstantial unless people involved in an event come forward with the truth. It is the reason we have jury trials - to reach a judgment based on imperfect information. As part of the process of evaluation facts and motives are examined. In the case of the question of murder or suicide, the defense will always employ experts to support their client. However, regardless the testimony of the expert, when you find a body that was shot in the head and the heart and chopped into little pieces, the expert's testimony, that the person committed suicide, must be disregarded even though the theory of death remains contested. Waiting around for consensus would be an injustice. So is the case with the lab leak. Based on the evidence and considering the motives and credibility of the witnesses including Fauci who denied gain of function research and who silenced the majority of dissenters from his narrative, there is sufficient evidence to conclude lab release or escape. And it is important that a conclusion, five or six years later, is finally reached for purposes of accountability and to help prevent future errors or defective policy decisions.
I attribute more agency and intent to the architects of information denial than you do in your statement: "Institutions can be biased, fact-checkers can err, and censorship exists." Yours is a benign characterization and in the case of censorship attributes passive action without agency. Censorship is always a deliberate act to silence contrary research opinions and critiques by those in power. While I agree that a censored person or work should not then, automatically, be accepted as legitimate or true, inquiry into the legitimacy of the censoree must include the question of motivation of the censor: "why was it censored."
When backed into a corner, Mark Zuckerborg claimed that fact checkers were just providing their "opinions." First, he mislead people with the title of "fact checker."
"Fact checker" implies a person examines and report on the facts - not their opinion about a statement. Based on the "opinion" of "fact checkers" legitimate research conclusions and highly credible individuals (Jay Bhattacharia) were censored and removed from discourse. Removal of legitimate opposing perspectives which, now, many admit were accurate, was not without lethal consequences.
"Institutions can be biased" is a marked understatement of the generally deplorable state of institutions in this country. We have an institutional crisis in medicine, politics, education and insurance. Institutions actively work for profits (at any cost in harms) and a globalist agenda to the detriment of the people.
Lastly, this is not a point of disagreement that has been raised, but I'm registering my rejection of the new bevy of words, created by the government, disparaging the validity of information that disagrees with its agenda. Those words, adopted my many, are: misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. That is the vocabulary of information censorship. They are intended to warn people away from speaking and to criminalize accurate information. They should be rejected in their entirety. Each time a censor or anyone else "accuses" someone of malinformation, they should be required, instead, to confirm the person is speaking the truth and then state the reason why the person should not be allowed to be honest. For example: "What you say about the mental and physical harms of masks is true but Dr. Fauci wants us to wear them so you should shut up." But we have lost transparency and "misinformation", "disinformation" and "malionformation" hide the truth and the motive behind the act of censorship. The truth is now a crime in the U.K. where speaking the truth results in immediate jail time while rapists go free.
Thank you for your well considered response. We have some points of agreement and disagreement. I agree with your analysis of the weaknesses of Desmet's theory of Mass Formation. I agree that we must evaluate anew each theory or recommendation from a scientist; their work does not stand above critique because they previously won an award or excelled in another treatment or area of research.
I also agree that citing sources, without more, is problematic; however, it is incumbent on the reader to review the sources to determine whether they support the evidence for which they are cited. During the Covid debacle I read many articles whose conclusions contradicted the evidence within the document. This was never more evident than in a video recorded by Tess Lawrie. https://www.bitchute.com/video/kV5dS0UeZn6K/. The video recorded a discussion between her and Andrew Hill regarding his conclusion in which he was calling for more trials of ivermectin, before use, despite the body of the Cochrane review that provided overwhelming evidence that ivermectin was necessary to stop deaths. He admitted pharma had a hand in his erroneous conclusion and that his conclusion was inaccurate. He asked for six weeks to correct his conclusion and together, he and Tess, calculated the number of people who would die, assuming an accurate conclusion would affect administration of ivermectin, during those six weeks. Lee Iacocca was CEO of Ford when the accountants calculated how many would die as a result of the faulty design of the Ford Pinto and Ford decided to move forward with sales because despite lawsuits the product would be profitable. The evidence of corruption, alone, disqualifies the CEO from being a reliable source for recommending vehicle purchase decisions.
Regarding our disagreements there remain several. Perhaps our primary disagreement concerns the quality and validity of theories posited by scientists and the amount of evidence required to reach a conclusion. Unanimous agreement is not required nor is it likely and it is unachievable until conflicts of interest are eliminated from research. The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine admitted that "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." The weight of the evidence of journal articles, therefore, must be heavily discounted until conflicts are cured.
Second, evidence will always remain incomplete, contested and circumstantial unless people involved in an event come forward with the truth. It is the reason we have jury trials - to reach a judgment based on imperfect information. As part of the process of evaluation facts and motives are examined. In the case of the question of murder or suicide, the defense will always employ experts to support their client. However, regardless the testimony of the expert, when you find a body that was shot in the head and the heart and chopped into little pieces, the expert's testimony, that the person committed suicide, must be disregarded even though the theory of death remains contested. Waiting around for consensus would be an injustice. So is the case with the lab leak. Based on the evidence and considering the motives and credibility of the witnesses including Fauci who denied gain of function research and who silenced the majority of dissenters from his narrative, there is sufficient evidence to conclude lab release or escape. And it is important that a conclusion, five or six years later, is finally reached for purposes of accountability and to help prevent future errors or defective policy decisions.
I attribute more agency and intent to the architects of information denial than you do in your statement: "Institutions can be biased, fact-checkers can err, and censorship exists." Yours is a benign characterization and in the case of censorship attributes passive action without agency. Censorship is always a deliberate act to silence contrary research opinions and critiques by those in power. While I agree that a censored person or work should not then, automatically, be accepted as legitimate or true, inquiry into the legitimacy of the censoree must include the question of motivation of the censor: "why was it censored."
When backed into a corner, Mark Zuckerborg claimed that fact checkers were just providing their "opinions." First, he mislead people with the title of "fact checker."
"Fact checker" implies a person examines and report on the facts - not their opinion about a statement. Based on the "opinion" of "fact checkers" legitimate research conclusions and highly credible individuals (Jay Bhattacharia) were censored and removed from discourse. Removal of legitimate opposing perspectives which, now, many admit were accurate, was not without lethal consequences.
"Institutions can be biased" is a marked understatement of the generally deplorable state of institutions in this country. We have an institutional crisis in medicine, politics, education and insurance. Institutions actively work for profits (at any cost in harms) and a globalist agenda to the detriment of the people.
Lastly, this is not a point of disagreement that has been raised, but I'm registering my rejection of the new bevy of words, created by the government, disparaging the validity of information that disagrees with its agenda. Those words, adopted my many, are: misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. That is the vocabulary of information censorship. They are intended to warn people away from speaking and to criminalize accurate information. They should be rejected in their entirety. Each time a censor or anyone else "accuses" someone of malinformation, they should be required, instead, to confirm the person is speaking the truth and then state the reason why the person should not be allowed to be honest. For example: "What you say about the mental and physical harms of masks is true but Dr. Fauci wants us to wear them so you should shut up." But we have lost transparency and "misinformation", "disinformation" and "malionformation" hide the truth and the motive behind the act of censorship. The truth is now a crime in the U.K. where speaking the truth results in immediate jail time while rapists go free.