Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My word, Mystic, you do have me scratching my head about your perspective here...
Of course I rely on the media, or how am I supposed to follow what is happening outside of my immediate experience here at home? I rely on the media but not just the media. I have all my life done a fair amount of reading; history, philosophy, business, religion along with a good many other subjects. I've had a good amount of experience in business, education, dealing with people as well. All combined that helps me to judge what we are all called upon to judge when it comes to distinguishing what is truth and what is not. As objectively as I can. This too takes learning. Lots of training and learning.
More specifically (and again specifics do help when it comes to understanding these particulars), legitimate news sites don't get a pass with respect to assumed innocence when it comes to dispensing fake news. Of course not! If you follow the news, you also see exactly where, who and how people have been found to be doing so, and if we're lucky they "pay the price." AKA fired. Brian Williams immediately comes to mind, and of course there are more than a few others.
That you think any of these examples or challenges prevents critical thinking people from distilling the truth despite the challenges confounds me. Not to say the facts and truth are always easy to recognize immediately or sometimes ever, there are still those who do far better in these respects than others.
Those who do better don't throw up their arms in the face of the challenges as you and others here always seem to be doing. The truth matters, and in many very important cases it can be had. Those who don't want to accept this simple fact are almost always those who want to believe and promote opinion and beliefs that can't be justified or proven in the same way. People who want to allow space for misrepresenting the truth. Promoting falsehoods. You can't do that sort of thing when proper scrutiny with respect to the truth of these matters is properly applied.
Who does what in these regards? Who does better than others? Who is pushing for the truth and who is arguing otherwise?
Again a rather subjective matter that we are all called upon to judge as best we are able. A subjective matter, yes, just like figuring out what truth we can learn from the media, but the truth is always there one way or another. We are not all equal in terms of who can best know the truth. Of course not. Obviously some do better than others and obviously some will believe just about anything while others are tighter tethered to what can actually be proven as truth. What cannot, and all in between. AKA reality.
A prime example of the point I have been trying to make...is one of the most notable "Truth vs Lies" campaign in recent history...waged by Governments and The Media. And that is the worldwide pandemic, and what to do about it.
The public was told by The Governments, and reported by most media, to "Follow the Science" relative to the whole thing.
But the way we got "Lies" is by The Government and The Media favoring the so-called "Scientific Findings" of only certain specific scientists and researchers...and claiming the findings by any other, equally credentialed and qualified scientists and researchers that looked at the same things and came to different conclusions, to be "Deadly Misinformation". They were viewed as so "wrong", it was determined they must be censored and suppressed.
But what was presented as "Truth" and what was was deemed "Lies" was based upon political, financial, and personal agendas, and not a full & impartial assessment of all the available "science".
The same with negative or positive information about individuals or organizations...with some claiming the other have been "debunked", and what is considered "Truth" and what is considered "Lies" completely predicated upon the particular skew of the message that is desired by whoever is putting it forth.
And even once things shake out...some will still stick by their "message", no matter what.
Good example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-19-deaths-/
Let's see what is said about this new info by those that insisted it was a "Lie" for the past two years, and anybody that said otherwise was a horrible person that didn't care if they killed others.
It's simple -- I go with what's true and reject what's false. In most cases, it is abundantly clear which is which since the true side has supporting evidence and the false side does not. If you think "both sides" are just as valid, I cannot help you.
It is not that difficult to find out which stories are false. Especially when the story is accompanied with photographs you know are not of what the story states. An example was during the BLM protests photos from riots in Greece were used by some to paint thevprotests as violent or a non media person posted a photography showing how large and peaceful the truckers protest was in Ottawa. But knowing that it was cold in Ottawa last weekend and the CN Tower is in Toronto one can honestly question that posting.
From what I've seen, these other, "alternative" findings were made by medical doctors who were not equally credentialed and qualified scientists, and they could not be considered "researchers" at all, especially since their only "publications" were typically on youtube and twitter. Sometimes they don't even have the credentials of a medical doctor. In any case, a researcher conducts very well controlled tests, usually double-blind tests where even the researcher doesn't know who gets the placebo. No, Golden, youtube is not a surefire place to determine the truth vs. the lies, despite what the maker of the video tells you.
Why would you assume dumbstuff like that?
Well...other than because of the very things I noted?
I will give you an example: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/89204
These Dr's were completely shunned and had their information censored & banned...because it went against what the Government was pushing.
Now...as it turns out: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-19-deaths-/ ....they were correct all along.
That is what I'm talking about. Insisting lies are truth, and the MSM backing it...because it fits their preferred narrative that aligns with favored political/social agendas.
And then, because the lies are presented as truth so vociferously...you have most of the people insisting that it is the only valid information.
Of course, that's what the mainstream media does -- they decide what they think is important. But some issues are chosen to be reported on by all sides of the MSM spectrum. Thing is, one side will report on the issue factually -- what was actually said or what actually happened -- but another side will spin the report in a very biased way. That's the kind of bias you're got to look out for... and hopefully reject.
I really don't have a clear answer just a gut feeling that may be unsatisfactory. Since I can remember, people have generally been swayed by popular talk, but populism can be fickle. Say one unpopular thing and now you are suspect to be for the other side. I don't know a word to express how I feel, which is sympathetic and at the same time passive. In my opinion, if somebody was able to put a spin on the words of another, word choice should have been more carefully selected by the party that is feeling crucified.
It's simple -- I go with what's true and reject what's false. In most cases, it is abundantly clear which is which since the true side has supporting evidence and the false side does not. If you think "both sides" are just as valid, I cannot help you.
I don't think anyone can help someone who sees both sides as valid or all sides just as valid. Amazing there are so many people who seem to think that way, and then we wonder how or why all these crazy conspiracy theories and beliefs take hold.
From what I've seen, these other, "alternative" findings were made by medical doctors who were not equally credentialed and qualified scientists, and they could not be considered "researchers" at all, especially since their only "publications" were typically on youtube and twitter. Sometimes they don't even have the credentials of a medical doctor. In any case, a researcher conducts very well controlled tests, usually double-blind tests where even the researcher doesn't know who gets the placebo. No, Golden, youtube is not a surefire place to determine the truth vs. the lies, despite what the maker of the video tells you.
I have a friend or two who have sent me these emails, reports and "findings" by people they claim to be doctors. In fact I just thought to look one of them up. I was sent a video of an interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I had never heard of him and rather than listen to the entire lengthy video, I thought first to find out what I could about him. The person who sent me the video hadn't even bothered to do that...
"In October 2020, the World Health Organization's Director General stated that pursuing herd immunity before vaccination would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", and "allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical."
Writing for Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski, Professor of Surgery at Wayne State University, stated that "One possible interpretation is that Drs. Gupta, Bhattacharya, and Kulldorff are politically very naïve or were "simply being useful idiots" for the American Institute for Economic Research, the organization promoting it, or whether they were actively being "motivated more by ideology than science", but said that the practical effect was that the declaration provided a narrative of scientific division useful for political purposes.
In an interview, Bhattacharya said he hoped the declaration would prompt a dialogue about the benefits and harms of public health interventions. In October 2020, Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Gupta met with then-U.S. President Donald Trump's health officials about the declaration.
In March 2021, Bhattacharya called the COVID-19 lockdowns the "biggest public health mistake we've ever made" and claimed that "The harm to people is catastrophic". In May 2021, Bhattacharya was called as an expert witness for ten applicants who filed a constitutional challenge against Manitoba's COVID-19 public health orders. The judge determined that the public health restrictions did not violate charter rights, noting that Bhattacharya's views were not supported by most scientific and medical experts.
In August 2021, Bhattacharya provided testimony in defense of Florida's ban on mask mandates. He publicly opposed COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates, although he called the vaccines successful. The judge ruled against the Florida ban and said that the state's medical experts "are in a distinct minority among doctors and scientists".
In a 2021 case in Tennessee, the judge described Bhattacharya's testimony as "troubling and problematic", noting that he had oversimplified conclusions of a study, casting doubt on his interpretation of other studies. The judge concluded, "the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."
There was another letter signed by a good many "medical professionals," and as I looked into who they were too, turns out they are really nothing of the sort. Still all that sort of crap getting spread around by way of the Internet, emails and "talking heads" gets into the heads of those who don't want to believe otherwise, and there you go. The crap all too often wins over the the truth of these matters. All of us pay a price as a result.
As my father began to fall into the depths of Alzheimer's he began to pass along to me all kinds of emails that were sent to him. Though made to look all official, I could tell they were bogus from the get go, but for him the information provided in the emails was worth passing along to others including me. Many times I explained to him the emails were utter falsehoods. Often easy to confirm with websites like Snopes. At least my father would admit embarrassment once he found out what he had sent was not what he thought it was. Some people can't even do that!
Some of this, to me is a case of why do I care? Do I care who Jeff Zucker is having a consensual relationship with? I wouldn't know Jeff Zucker if I bumped into him on the street. Chris Cuomo different story; I watched his program off and on. Sometimes I think we know too much about stuff that doesn't really matter to us.
And I'm beginning to wonder how some of this discussion is related to religion.
I have a friend or two who have sent me these emails, reports and "findings" by people they claim to be doctors. In fact I just thought to look one of them up. I was sent a video of an interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I had never heard of him and rather than listen to the entire lengthy video, I thought first to find out what I could about him. The person who sent me the video hadn't even bothered to do that...
"In October 2020, the World Health Organization's Director General stated that pursuing herd immunity before vaccination would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", and "allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical."
Writing for Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski, Professor of Surgery at Wayne State University, stated that "One possible interpretation is that Drs. Gupta, Bhattacharya, and Kulldorff are politically very naïve or were "simply being useful idiots" for the American Institute for Economic Research, the organization promoting it, or whether they were actively being "motivated more by ideology than science", but said that the practical effect was that the declaration provided a narrative of scientific division useful for political purposes.
In an interview, Bhattacharya said he hoped the declaration would prompt a dialogue about the benefits and harms of public health interventions. In October 2020, Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Gupta met with then-U.S. President Donald Trump's health officials about the declaration.
In March 2021, Bhattacharya called the COVID-19 lockdowns the "biggest public health mistake we've ever made" and claimed that "The harm to people is catastrophic". In May 2021, Bhattacharya was called as an expert witness for ten applicants who filed a constitutional challenge against Manitoba's COVID-19 public health orders. The judge determined that the public health restrictions did not violate charter rights, noting that Bhattacharya's views were not supported by most scientific and medical experts.
In August 2021, Bhattacharya provided testimony in defense of Florida's ban on mask mandates. He publicly opposed COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates, although he called the vaccines successful. The judge ruled against the Florida ban and said that the state's medical experts "are in a distinct minority among doctors and scientists".
In a 2021 case in Tennessee, the judge described Bhattacharya's testimony as "troubling and problematic", noting that he had oversimplified conclusions of a study, casting doubt on his interpretation of other studies. The judge concluded, "the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."
There was another letter signed by a good many "medical professionals," and as I looked into who they were too, turns out they are really nothing of the sort. Still all that sort of crap getting spread around by way of the Internet, emails and "talking heads" gets into the heads of those who don't want to believe otherwise, and there you go. The crap all too often wins over the the truth of these matters. All of us pay a price as a result.
As my father began to fall into the depths of Alzheimer's he began to pass along to me all kinds of emails that were sent to him. Though made to look all official, I could tell they were bogus from the get go, but for him the information provided in the emails was worth passing along to others including me. Many times I explained to him the emails were utter falsehoods. Often easy to confirm with websites like Snopes. At least my father would admit embarrassment once he found out what he had sent was not what he thought it was. Some people can't even do that!
See? There ya go. Trying to prop up what we know are lies over truth, to support your chosen agenda.
Trying to spin it and twist it like much of the media does so you don't have to admit they put forth lies...while demanding that truth was deemed lies.
I mean...at the very least they could have said, "Medicine is a "art", not a hard science...experts can look at the same thing and come to a differing diagnosis, prognosis, or determination". But they wouldn't...because that wouldn't aid the quest for money, power, and control.
We know what was valid, and what wasn't...some knew all along: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/89204
By the way...You have now become the Poster Child of your Cement Theory.
Wow. So these doctors proposed letting most everyone except the elderly just become infected with Covid19 so as to reach herd immunity. No wonder they were shunned! I didn't notice how many additional deaths would result from this strategy, did you? And what was the response to such a question, "Oh sorry, some will just have to die"? Great plan, Golden!
That meta-analysis, conducted by economists, concluded
"[Shelter in place orders] were ineffective, only reducing Covid-19 mortality by 2.9% on average."
Only? 893,000 people have died in the U.S. 2.9% of that figure is 25,897. So 25,897 more people would have died without the shelter in place orders. Those 25,897 dead people would surely question how "ineffective" that strategy was!
When do we shut down a good portion of the businesses, nationwide & order people into lockdown, to avoid that level of risk?
Smoking kills 480,000 per year, every year (40,000 per year by 2nd hand smoke, mostly children)...but they don't shut down the tobacco companies or the businesses that sell cigarettes to mitigate that risk of sickness & death.
300,000 per year die from obesity related problems...but they don't demand all the fast-food businesses be shut down.
We are still allowed to bungee jump, free-climb 500 foot cliffs, surf big waves, ski, race cars, and do all kind of things that cause sickness, harm, and death. They are not proscribed by the government.
Could we "prevent harm & save lives" if we shut everything down and proscribed any risky activity? Probably...but we don't.
And this is an example of what I am taking about: Is this true or false? --- >>Tobacco products should be banned, because they have almost no benefit & cause incredible sickness & death.<<
I say it's true...and I have the "data" and "science" to back it up. But should that be the only consideration? Is it actually subjective, all things considered? What's "true" and what's a "lie"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
