PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Robert Malone



dneal
September 3rd, 2021, 06:47 AM
Trying yet again…

Dr. Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology. I posted a clip of his discussion with biologist Eric Weinstein about risks of protein spikes and other issues with the vaccine in the vaccine thread.

This new interview is about that, what emerging evidence is suggesting about variants and vaccines, and all the things we have done wrong with politicizing the issue. He of course made himself a target by giving an opinion that diverged from the approved narrative, and he discusses that too.

While there is food for thought throughout the interview, the politicization concerns me. Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz has been exiled to Newsmax. America’s preeminent legal scholar has been “memory-holed” by his fellow liberals for contradicting their narrative. Dr. Malone appears to be next, if the Epoch Times is one of the few places left for him to speak publicly.

LINK (https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccine-inventor-on-latest-covid-19-data-booster-shots-and-the-shattered-scientific-consensus_3979206.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-09-03&est=QxMjCEs7huvA%2FpJc4jyq9Q66nqjoQ6ot6hCYml6yU%2F ymMS3zJK7gr7mBu2vqsuQ%3D)

Empty_of_Clouds
September 3rd, 2021, 03:38 PM
ATLANTIC LINK (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/)


BTW, your statement that Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology is an example of misinformation. He's not, and is not considered to be the inventor.

"Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi, and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one" REF LINK (https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/the-development-of-mrna-vaccines-was-a-collaborative-effort-robert-malone-contributed-to-their-development-but-he-is-not-their-inventor/)

Chuck Naill
September 3rd, 2021, 03:50 PM
Those two are responsible for the mRNA messenger technology.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 3rd, 2021, 04:14 PM
I know. Further to the original post, anyone who willingly consorts with a creature like Steve Bannon is worthy of immediate high levels of suspicion.

dneal
September 3rd, 2021, 05:00 PM
ATLANTIC LINK (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/)


BTW, your statement that Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology is an example of misinformation. He's not, and is not considered to be the inventor.

"Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi, and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one" REF LINK (https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/the-development-of-mrna-vaccines-was-a-collaborative-effort-robert-malone-contributed-to-their-development-but-he-is-not-their-inventor/)


Those two are responsible for the mRNA messenger technology.

Did either of you watch the video? Just curious.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 3rd, 2021, 05:02 PM
Watched it, didn't engender any confidence in Malone.

dneal
September 3rd, 2021, 05:42 PM
ATLANTIC LINK (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/)


BTW, your statement that Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology is an example of misinformation. He's not, and is not considered to be the inventor.

"Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi, and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, of which Malone was but one" REF LINK (https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/the-development-of-mrna-vaccines-was-a-collaborative-effort-robert-malone-contributed-to-their-development-but-he-is-not-their-inventor/)


Watched it, didn't engender any confidence in Malone.

Really. He addressed your concerns about his credibility. You came up with an Atlantic article, and a weird fact-checky site with a medical focus. I haven't paid attention to fact-check sites in years, once the original (Snopes) got caught lying. I quit reading The Atlantic when they wrote this bullshit* (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/our-man-in-kandahar/308653/)

So you'll need more than that. Maybe patent paperwork? It's free at the U.S. patent office. He says he has one. I don't care enough to look it up. This paper (https://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6077) at the National Academy of Sciences has his name on it, with the two others mentioned in your "fact-check" link. Strangely, you didn't include that in your critique. A case of prosecutorial misconduct, so to speak tsk, tsk.

At any rate, it's his claim. Not mine. Am I responsible for simply transposing that into text? What about him am I now responsible for? (don't answer, I'm just pointing out how absurd your point is).

Lastly, strange how neither of you have any specific argument about the substance of his comments in the video. I don't think you really watched it, but I could be wrong. I did give a hint of the topic when I remarked on politicization. At any rate, your critiques are just "shoot the messenger" (a logical fallacy), "guilt by association" (another logical fallacy), and two "appeals to authority" (logical fallacies when you invoked The Atlantic and whatever that other site is). My opinion of you does not influence my critique, you can be as weird as you want, but if you're right I'll acknowledge it. If your argument is reasonable, I'll acknowledge it. But it isn't. You "don't have any confidence" in him. Is that a feeling? Psychic powers? Zen insight? It certainly isn't an argument (technically it is, as a one-line assertion; but there's nothing backing it up).

I got exactly what I expected from this thread, demonstrating that it's not me, it's you. You have failed to bring substance. You brought the snide remarks and references to Steve Bannon.

* The "Our Man in Kandahar" piece was published halfway through my tour in Kandahar. The author is a half-Asian who claims to look Hazara enough and speaks enough Dari to get around in Kandahar. Here's the problem. Kandahar is full of Pashtuns. They don't like Hazara generally. Also, Pashtuns in Kandahar do not speak Dari, as my Mazar e Sharif-born, Hazara, Dari speaking interpreter pointed out to me. Someone will ask, but we used Hakim in the headquarters where the seniors spoke and wrote both.

So the guy seems shady to me. I don't feel that he's credible (or whatever EoC said). Nothing he is saying makes any sense if you know the truth. But hey, maybe he did manage to not get killed while running around Kandahar supposedly interviewing Kandaharis, the vast majority of which unable to speak Dari.

But it's his "secret torture chamber" bullshit. I lived at the police headquarters. The jail was there. We had an MP prison guard on the advisory team for that purpose. I've been to the Governor's Palace many times, usually 2-3 times a week. It was a couple of minutes down the street. I can give you the name and even Facebook page for the colonel that led the advisory team over there. I have been literally everywhere inside that compound, mainly because of clearing it after it was attacked (happy to tell the story and show pics of dead afghans).

There is no secret torture chamber in the Kandahar Governor's Palace. If there is, it's some Batcave level of hidden. Or, maybe The Atlantic writer got myth he didn't check out. Maybe he even stretched the truth a little. It was enough for me, and I quit reading The Atlantic.

Chuck Naill
September 3rd, 2021, 05:48 PM
Yes, I watched it.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 3rd, 2021, 06:51 PM
I made a note in passing. I have no interest in discussing this topic.

Chuck Naill
September 3rd, 2021, 07:51 PM
After researching the dude and his resignations, I will pass as well.

dneal
September 3rd, 2021, 08:11 PM
Good. Both of you have proved my point. Thanks for that and for passing on this thread (although we all know you guys didn't watch a 40 minute video at the Epoch Times).

Empty_of_Clouds
September 3rd, 2021, 08:52 PM
Having no interest in discussing a topic is neither a crime nor is it open to criticism. So, no point was proved except in your imagination. And yes, I watched the video in its entirety the first time around. Wasn't that interested then either.

What is clear from the last few weeks is that you are incapable of maintaining a civil discourse. Incapable. There is not a single discussion in which you have not resorted to language that is not conducive to moving the discussion along.

Chuck Naill
September 4th, 2021, 06:59 AM
When you posted this yesterday, I was skeptical of its relavance.

"The vaccines cause more harm than experts are letting on; Fauci is a liar and possibly a fascist; and the mainstream news media is either shamelessly complicit or too stupid to figure out what’s really going on."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

Sound familar? Others are stupid. Attack Fauci as a liar and fascist. Attack the media.

Dr. Malone did not invent the vaccine and admits as much. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/3aa2eefd

He has a reputation for spreading misinformation. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 07:27 AM
And you guys still prove my point. Well done Chuck.

Chuck Naill
September 4th, 2021, 04:08 PM
You’ve run aground and stubbed yourself….yet again. Try again😉

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 04:26 PM
I thought you were passing? Nope. Still proving my point.

Chuck Naill
September 4th, 2021, 05:34 PM
Please try using a cattle wormer.

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 05:39 PM
Please try using a cattle wormer.

You sure you're not a 12 year old on grandpa's computer?

Chuck Naill
September 4th, 2021, 05:47 PM
Please try using a cattle wormer.

You sure you're not a 12 year old on grandpa's computer?

I’m not married to an English major, praise God.

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 05:51 PM
Chuck, you're an idiot. You reinforce my point with every post. You can't help yourself. It's hilarious.

Post again.

Do it monkey, do it!

lol

--edit--

Oh, I almost forgot! You trying to bait me with my wife won't work, but it is just on more exhibit to who the king dick really is. You're reinforcing that point too!

The fact that you fratricided Tsherbs does give me a chuckle though. I'm really tempted to just refer to you as Chuckles.

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 05:59 PM
C'mon Chuck. I have a bet with my English major wife.

Chuck Naill
September 4th, 2021, 06:44 PM
C'mon Chuck. I have a bet with my English major wife.

If she’s real.

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 06:45 PM
I knew you couldn’t resist.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 4th, 2021, 06:48 PM
C'mon Chuck. I have a bet with my English major wife.

If she’s real.

Probably comes with a puncture repair kit. :)


Note: that is an insult (I will start marking my own if I spot them. This one was easy).

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 06:55 PM
C'mon Chuck. I have a bet with my English major wife.

If she’s real.

Probably comes with a puncture repair kit. :)


Note: that is an insult (I will start marking my own if I spot them. This one was easy).

Not a very good one. Like I said, it doesn’t inspire any particular emotion other than “meh…”

But, you did give us an example of your real nature. Weren’t you just trying to claim moral high ground? Are you intending to compete with Chuck on king dick honors? Aside from his bias and stupidity revealed in his Slovenian Trumper construct, he included parenting, daughters and now wives. You have some work to do.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 4th, 2021, 07:11 PM
No, I made no moral claim to the high ground. Another thing you just made up.


And lest we forget...

dneal wrote


Dude, I ain't looking at another thing from you in this thread.

If only that were true!

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 07:12 PM
You guys suck at passing on this thread. Misfits disrupting the forum.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 4th, 2021, 07:21 PM
dneal wrote


Dude, I ain't looking at another thing from you in this thread.

Then we get...

dneal wrote:

You guys suck at passing on this thread.

Pot meet kettle. :)

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 07:42 PM
Pot meet kettle.

I started the thread, you moron. You plagiarize, but get the usage wrong. Holy fuck.

You said your snide shit (as I expected) and said you were “passing”. I don’t want to call you a liar, but I’m starting to see a trend with that too. You’re disingenuous at best.

Oh hell, I just realized I must have interpreted your “passing” on this thread incorrectly. The rules you and Chuck make up do get confusing.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 4th, 2021, 08:01 PM
Oh hell, I just realized I must have interpreted your “passing” on this thread incorrectly.

Indeed you did, you totally misread my previous statement.

post #9 clearly stated (with regard to Dr Malone and the video) 'I made a note in passing. I have no interest in discussing this topic.' For those interested in learning, the phrase 'in passing' means briefly of casually.




I started the thread, you moron. Ah, there we go. Starting off with an insult!


You said your snide shit (as I expected) and said you were “passing”. Another insult!


I don’t want to call you a liar, but I’m starting to see a trend with that too. A lie of your own AND an insult! Always good to see a combo.


You’re disingenuous at best. And another insult.



On the other hand.


dneal wrote:


You guys suck at passing on this thread.

Kettle meet pot. There, paraphrased for you.

dneal
September 4th, 2021, 08:43 PM
Again you dipshit, I don’t deny insulting you. I’m standing on the same ground I started on. You and chuck are the ones sinking in the morass.

Are you ever going to pass on this thread?

—edit—

Why in the world are you stuck on the pot and kettle thing? You’re still using it wrong.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 4th, 2021, 08:46 PM
Again you dipshit, I don’t deny insulting you.

An insult and some truth. A new combo. Well done.



dneal wrote:


You guys suck at passing on this thread.


But... lest we forget...

dneal also wrote


Dude, I ain't looking at another thing from you in this thread.

dneal
September 5th, 2021, 04:55 AM
You keep plagiarizing. Spend some of that creative effort you use weaseling out of your failed arguments to formulate a good argument or insult - particularly the latter. I suppose you keep using mine because it's effective against you. The opposite isn't the case.

The funniest thing, indicative of your cluelessness; is that you think the "I ain't looking..." bit works here too. Read your quote. Are we in the thread referenced? You do know how dumb that makes you look since the context of the quote doesn't apply here? Right? Don't answer, because you demonstrate that you don't.

Since you have such a fondness for pedantry, let's just revisit some facts.

- Again, we aren't in the thread the quote you cite references.
- The quote you seem to enjoy references the post that proceeded it, which was your posting of yet another link in lieu of argument.
- Apparently I forgot that you, like Chuck, are not clear on the notion of context. "Thing" was too ambiguous it seems. Fair enough. Clarifying "thing" meant "link" is not sufficient, because like a child with a new toy (they stole from someone else), you're determined to play with it whether it is appropriate to the situation or not. An annoying toy monkey with clanging cymbals. "Ching, ching, ching..."
- You are IN the thread you said you were going to pass on. Again, context escapes you.

This thread clearly demonstrates you and Chuck are not capable of rational conversation on political topics. This thread clearly demonstrates that you and Chuck are a little unhinged, just needing the right poke to lose your minds. This thread clearly demonstrates that neither of you is able to leave your emotional baggage at the door. This thread started out with a clear initial establishment of context.

You went to character assassination, with a fucking Atlantic article he literally dismantles in the video. It's the one of the first things they talk about. You ignored and deflected from my showing you the very paper where he is the lead author. You (and Chuck apparently) believe The Atlantic and a couple of "fact check" sites over the Academy of Sciences. Anyone can google and post shit that supports their point of view. Hell, I made a whole thread mocking you turds on that.

Maybe you both really are this clueless.

--edit--

I hate typing this, because now you won't do it (hell, who am I kidding; you guys are definitely stupid enough to do it - even if I point it out first). You're going to start some pedantic argument on the word "thing".

Chuck Naill
September 5th, 2021, 07:59 AM
I feel a responsibility to fact check regardless of who it may insult or call into question.

Malone made a decision to align himself with Brannon. He made the decision to disparage Fauci or be a part of that conversation.

We don’t get respect because of something we did 30 years ago.

dneal
September 5th, 2021, 09:13 AM
You'll see much more of this theme from me now, because escalation has proved fruitless.

The problem I have with this post is this portion:


Malone made a decision to align himself with Brannon. He made the decision to disparage Fauci or be a part of that conversation.

I understand the notion on the instinctual and emotional level. There's nothing wrong with an odd or "gut" feeling. But that should be reason to investigate, not conclude. Bannon to me is a brilliant lunatic. A lot of the things he says are very insightful. A lot of the things that he says are very inciteful. I just take each for what it's worth. Fauci has earned some disparaging, if we're honest. He is a career bureaucrat with a medical specialty. He is certainly is a voice of expertise. His mistake was one of the bureaucrat: he flip-flopped, and the reason for the flip-flop became public and documented. Masks were initially discouraged because they wanted to keep them available for hospitals. That was a mistake, particularly in this political climate. I see and can even sympathize with the reasoning. There was risk in that, it manifested, and now he has to deal with the fallout and blow to credibility. We can go on, and talk about Tom Fitton's FOIA judgements and releases, the "eye-doctor" and the "garden gnome" having their weekly spats, or whatever. But when we do that everything important gets lost in the noise.

There are really smart people here. We don't have to be epidemiologists to share information we find useful to our own decision making processes. Look at the "Post your contententious virus posts here..." thread. Some tried to derail it, but there is page after page of great discussion. We can disagree on choices without disparaging them. Like Ethernautrix said, this is how we have nice things.

Chuck Naill
September 5th, 2021, 09:27 AM
If you like Brannon, dislike Fauci, and don’t wear a mask, where these original thoughts ? Or, were you influenced? I don’t expect an honest reply.

There is no reason to try to make Fauci appear as an idiot. He is what he is. Like it or not.

To correct your point, it was the N-95 that was suggested that be reserved for hospitals .

dneal
September 5th, 2021, 09:29 AM
I tried. You didn't correct my point, you just specified it. If that level of specificity is important to you, then thanks for adding that to the discussion.

Do you want nice things?

Chuck Naill
September 5th, 2021, 10:19 AM
Not interested in nice, but posting Bannon and Malone had to be obvious.

dneal
September 5th, 2021, 10:22 AM
Not interested in nice

That's unfortunate, but duly noted. Perhaps you will change your mind.

Chuck Naill
September 5th, 2021, 11:26 AM
Perhaps you will learn something that will save you and those you could potentially infect, like children.

dneal
September 5th, 2021, 11:33 AM
That isn't how we can have nice things.

Chuck Naill
September 5th, 2021, 12:02 PM
Okay

TFarnon
September 11th, 2021, 01:45 AM
It's time for me to point out, yet again, that the mRNA technology used to make the vaccine and get it into cells has been around for a long time. Way back around 1999, I was making mRNA transcripts very similar to the ones in the vaccines with kits then sold by Ambion (now part of GIBCO, which was then merged into the huge Thermo Fisher complex, IIRC). Once I had my mRNA, I would get it into cells using a product then made by GIBCO called Lipofectamine. That is essentially the same stuff used in the vaccines. Of course, it being research at a university, I don't doubt I got both mRNA and Lipofectamine on exposed skin, perhaps even broken skin. Any ill effects? Nope. I didn't expect there would be. What is new to this technology are some refinements to make the mRNA transcripts more stable and less prone to degradation before they reach their target cells, and the use of these technologies to produce a vaccine. That's all. I know those aren't inconsiderable, because all of this takes time, effort, and a lot of failed reactions. But these are things I am entirely comfortable with. I've held them in my hands.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 04:21 AM
The National Academy of Sciences.

https://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6077

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection
R W Malone, P L Felgner, and I M Verma

We have developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin). Transfection of 10 ng to 5 micrograms of Photinus pyralis luciferase mRNA synthesized in vitro into NIH 3T3 mouse cells yields a linear response of luciferase activity. The procedure can be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human, rat, mouse, Xenopus, and Drosophila cells. Using the RNA/lipofectin transfection procedure, we have analyzed the role of capping and beta-globin 5' and 3' untranslated sequences on the translation efficiency of luciferase RNA synthesized in vitro. Following transfection of NIH 3T3 cells, capped mRNAs with beta-globin untranslated sequences produced at least 1000-fold more luciferase protein than mRNAs lacking these elements.

Robert Malone, the lead in conjunction with Felgner and Verma; developed RNA transfection using lipids. That's what all the COVID mRNA vaccines use. The other technique is using a modified adenovirus.

There it is, but the unsupported statements and accusations will continue. Worse, it is just a way to ignore one more actual scientist because they do not follow the approved narrative. I'm still waiting for the variation of "x lied, people died"; and who will be first to use it in this COVID context.

--edit--

p.s.: Look at the date of the article. It appears to predate your '99 anecdote by about 10 years.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 04:44 AM
It is Dr. Katalin Karikó and her collaborator Dr. Drew Weissman who are more commonly credited with laying the groundwork for mRNA vaccines.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies." mRNA vaccines are a new sort of vaccine; the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were the first.

On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.

According to Stat News, "for decades, scientists have dreamed about the seemingly endless possibilities of custom-made messenger RNA or mRNA." According to the New York Times, "For her entire career, Dr. Kariko has focused on messenger RNA, or mRNA — the genetic script that carries DNA instructions to each cell’s protein-making machinery. She was convinced mRNA could be used to instruct cells to make their own medicines, including vaccines."

While Malone's research may have been important, scientific breakthroughs don't always boast a sole "inventor." Instead, they come about through the work of many.

UPDATE: Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform." He also presented us with copies of nine patents – none of which showed that he invented the mRNA vaccines. The judgment for the claim has not changed.

Source: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/3aa2eefd


Make of it what you will. Right now people need to be focused on containing and eliminating this virus, not scientific dick swinging contests. Just my opinion, natch.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 04:48 AM
Sorry. I do not accept "fact-checks" as superior evidence to an actual medical article on the National Academy of Sciences website.

Look at the bio of the writer of your "fact-check"

Alice Franklin

Alice is a writer based in Oxford who recently graduated from the MA Creative Writing Prose at UEA. She has a penchant for learning about languages, loves grammar, and is a fan of explaining complex things in a simple way.



Alice does not appear to be a doctor nor a scientist. Creative Writing, indeed.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 05:11 AM
And you don't accept systematic reviews as superior evidence to a single medical article. Gotcha.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 05:13 AM
You didn't post a systemic review. You posted a creative writer's opinion. Gotcha.

Is this the discussion you desire? This isn't how we have nice things.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 05:33 AM
I was referring to a similar situation in another thread that related to your point here about acceptable levels of evidence. An intelligent person keeping up with the conversations here would remember this, and yet you decided to be obtuse about it anyway.

No, this isn't how we have nice things, and so far the key factor has been tenor of your posts. When you stay on topic, and offer factual and well-considered argument it is great, but there is always with you this potential to devolve to personal attacks or sheer head in the sand dismissiveness. Case in point - do you think you understand more about the science of mRNA than TFarnon? Are you trained formally to a high degree in biomedical science? If you are then just say so, but don't dismiss those who are so educated if you are not. It's tiresome, man. There could be some really chewy discussions here except for you derailing them.


Edit: there are a couple of backhanded compliments in there if you care to look. What is exasperating is that these discussions could be really cool!

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 05:53 AM
Trolls can often be run off through escalation. It worked for most, but a few of you are dedicated and appear to delight in it. I changed tack and offered an olive branch, because I would indeed rather have meaningful conversation. You seem insistent in "proving" that it's a ruse, by continuing the same escalatory behavior. You're proving something, just not what you think. Anyway... That's not how we have nice things.

You might reflect on your part in derailing conversation. Maybe a first step to having nice things?

--edit--

You might revisit This Thread (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/31087-Post-your-Contentious-Virus-Posts-Here) for an example of reasonable discussion (who a few attempted to disrupt). When did contentiousness begin in that thread? Who instigated? Who is conspicuously absent? Perhaps there is a correlation.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 06:03 AM
I'm not a troll, I really don't enjoy having 'discussions' like this and tend to consider myself conflict averse at heart, but I will not stand by and let another member behave in an aggressive manner when nothing calls for it. Nobody should get a free pass, as you guys like to say.

Watched events unfolding under your 'olive branch'. Did you notice that I did not interrupt it? I was watching because I had hope, slim though it may have been to be honest.

I have reflected on my part in any derailments, but you are far more culpable than I am in that respect. Cold comfort for me really as I don't want to derail anything.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 06:06 AM
See my edit to the post that precedes your last one.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 06:18 AM
You made me go and scan a 9-page thread!

Not sure what your point is as I have one entry in that thread (post #126 out of 178 other posts) where I simply endorse what TFarnon had posted. There was insulting and contentious behaviour in that thread. Some of it was yours, none of it was mine. So, again, what was your point? Because the correlation could be read as 'every thread you participate in degenerates into unpleasantness'. You certainly don't require any help from me.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 06:25 AM
My point? Some of us are able to converse like adults. Some aren't. If I am such an ass, why am I so selective in who I'm an ass to in that thread? Do you see a correlation? Do you note that you did not participate? Do you think there's a correlation with that?

Seriously, some self-reflection on your part is in order. I own my part in it. You deny yours.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 06:41 AM
Funny. There are tons of threads where I've been a model citizen. Some where you weren't present, perhaps there's a correlation there too! We can likely both pick threads that advance or hinder our respective arguments about our behaviour. There is, in my opinion, no mileage to be had there.


Some of us are able to converse like adults.

You probably don't think this is insulting, but when I read it I note that you are putting yourself in that group and excluding me. Think about the tone of it. Now think about how to react if I voice my objection to being so characterised.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 07:28 AM
You posted a "fact-check", from some random internet site, written by an admitted "Creative Writer"; in rebuttal to a scientific paper hosted on PNAS (among other places).

Do you believe Alice over the very paper that shows Dr. Malone and his two associates did indeed invent/discover/create using lipids as a method of delivering mRNA? If so, how in the world do you think that contributes to an "adult conversation"? I'd like to hear the argument, but your history indicates you will avoid this too. You began by posting an Atlantic article, which is the same problem - it is a substitute for an argument.

Did you notice that Alice creates a straw man with the assertion that Dr. Malone "invented mRNA vaccines", and then attacks that? If you didn't, that might explain your trouble with identifying them.

All of that is a rhetorical "shoot the messenger" device, allowing those predisposed to dismiss anything associated with Dr. Malone. It's not different than using a "horse laugh" to dismiss ivermectin. No data, no facts; just rhetoric. Conversation is not possible like this. Internet arguments are. You're free to choose.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 04:30 PM
To use language with which you apparently are comfortable, 'you need to up your reading comprehension'.

For clarity I will extract the part from the disputed (by you) fact check article that specifically addresses the bleating about strawmen: I've emphasised the important bits to give you a clue.


Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform."


You're almost welcome.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 04:46 PM
Pedantry, but if it makes you happy? Ok...

Now can we talk on substance?

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 05:02 PM
Dismissiveness, but it makes you happy? Ok...

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 05:20 PM
I'm good. Now let's talk something of more substance?

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 05:26 PM
Define substance.

I am not being snarky, it's a serious question. Particularly as I take the view that the goalposts get moved around quite a bit for convenience here.

dneal
September 11th, 2021, 05:58 PM
No, good! Let's just change the topic a little here, since the other three pages are just trash-talk.

Here's what I think:

Everything about this is political. It's not just political, it's dangerous. We can have a discussion on that alone, but that's kind of what the 3 minute video of Heather Heyer and Eric Weinstein are talking about. It's a bunch of morons meddling around with the scientific process for whatever gain. Viewers or "clicks", notoriety, politics, etc... there's a million of them (figuratively). I'm included in that too, as are you (no offense); but that's what we laymen are supposed to do. Mumble amongst each other and try to figure it out on a level we understand.

This is how absurd we have come as a society, summed up in a meme. The humor is in the truth, and it's a really funny meme. It makes me sad for society when we can't even agree on what is true. We cannot have media that says their side is sunshine and the other is rain. The Australian version of Sky, or whatever market Rupert Murdoch(?) is trying to take over is obscenely partisan and near dangerously inciteful. The left has theirs too.

That's sincere, and enough for now. I would appreciate your thoughts.

-meme deleted. pic WAY too big-

It said:

So hold on a second... They have Fact Checkers that know all the facts?
Why not set up a channel on TV and just give us the facts?
We can call it "The News"

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 07:01 PM
Look, I totally agree on the damage and ongoing danger that is the result of politicizing situations like this. It really grinds my gears.

When it comes to health matters my opinions have as a foundation years of being trained as a trauma specialist, even more years in biomedical science, and now a further decade+ in health research. On top of the education side of this are the observations of human behaviour. Now, this is not an appeal to authority. The last thing I am going to do is claim to be an expert. If anything I consider myself a generalist. However, I want people to understand what influences have shaped my thoughts.

With that in mind I came to the conclusion (and it may be changeable, as science requires) that there are definitely situations where people are never properly informed*, and would do far better to simply accept the collective advice of experts and do as required. It goes without saying that I grew up with a paternalistic healthcare system, so I am a bit swayed by that too.

I have no problem with people questioning things, but I do have a problem when that questioning doesn't stem from any evident attempt at critical thinking. We end up with, what if this, what it that, ad infinitum.

So this ties in with what is going on now, where we have government expert agencies doing their jobs and creating a response to the pandemic with the tools and data they have (accepting that this may change at any time), and their time and efforts are being wasted, in the main, by people who little to no understanding of the situation but are prepared to cite an independent source or a questionable group/movement.

There has always been a degree of distrust of governments, but in recent times there has been systematic attempt to further erode that trust.


The video with Malone presents a specific problem for those who are fashioning a public health response to the pandemic. While he is technically correct regarding when to vaccinate a population for maximum effect, it is somewhat irrelevant because the pandemic is here, now. Unless, and this would be dangerous reading between lines interpretation, he wants to suggest that we remove all mitigation methods, let the chips and bodies fall where they may, and once it's all over we start vaccinating the future offspring of the survivors. [The survivors now being immune due to being survivors, as it were]

I would be interested in hearing of other viable approaches to globally dealing with this pandemic, but that such ideas are not forthcoming from govt. agencies suggests that options are already limited. An uncharitable view would be that public health people are fixated on one strategy, but my experience says this is unlikely to be the truth.




*by not properly informed I mean not understanding the information as presented, as opposed to simply not having the information, though the effect is often the same.

Empty_of_Clouds
September 11th, 2021, 10:54 PM
I appreciate that this is only a news report but it does touch on a lot of points raised in this thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/inescapable-overlap-pandemic-politics/

Chuck Naill
September 12th, 2021, 05:56 AM
After more than one topic, I am convinced one member wants to believe something and will camp there regardless of whether other information exists. And, if it exists, has no interest in learning information that would either change his mind or at least moderate his thinking.

So, whether the topic is epidemiology or "critical race theory" the result is the same. This is what occuring in Florida more than DeSanta's lack of leadership. So, EOC, just like Floridians will refuse to at least mask or more usefully vaccinate, they would rather risk sickness, death, or financial ruin due to hospitalization than even consider to think differently. However, those same people would be outraged if denied a spot in the ICU, just as the member here has dramatically demonstrated.

While I do appreciate your efforts EOC, I suspect you will eventually tire. There are some for which knowledge and wisdom is wasted.

And then you have Laura Reihbold, Republican senator from Alaska, being banned from an airline for refusing to wear a mask.

dneal
September 12th, 2021, 07:48 AM
Chuck - you're assigning motive. Can't we do better?

@EOC - I'm going to start with a slight digression, and reiterate / clarify some points I've made in other posts/threads.

Narratives. The U.S. DOD had two categories of information operations: Psychological, and Public Affairs. The first is directed at influencing enemy troops. The most famous examples were used against us - Tokyo Rose, for example - and we use leaflets, broadcasts, etc... There are cultural anthropologists assigned to each theater that help develop effective messaging. The second is Public Affairs. They provide information to the American Public about the DOD. This is the "press release" bunch that publicizes things the DOD does.

There is a third one though. Neither of the first two target local populations, an important piece to counter-insurgency. So now we have Information Operations - basically propaganda designed to influence a different and specific population. I was fascinated by it, and almost changed branches. I worked with the IO school for the last three years before I retired, as part of developing a concept for large scale combat operations and incorporating all sorts of new techniques and technologies. Forget counterinsurgencies, and think about the U.S. v Russia or China (Russia isn't nearly the threat it's made out to be, btw... China is).

By the way, it is illegal to conduct PsyOps or InfoOps on the American public. It is illegal for Public Affairs to mislead.

Anyway, Information Operations. One commercial that was developed and broadcast in Iraq was an older Iraqi being snatched off the street and taken to a dark room where he was beaten. Before each blow, the interrogator would ask "Sunni or Shia". The man would not answer and would be struck. Maybe after the 3rd blow, the man looks up with a bloody and swollen face, and answers the "Sunni or Shia" question with: "Iraqi..." It was very effective, and would invoke tears from viewers.

At some point during the American political insanity we've watched for the last 20 years, I started looking at everything through a lens of "narratives". IO guys think primarily in those terms. "What is the enemy's narrative?" "What is our counter-narrative?" "What is our narrative?", all in the context of the local population. Do you see a narrative in Sky Australia? I don't know what the other "side" might be in that part of the world... but do you see their narrative too?

When people only see one of the narratives, they are usually under the influence of the other. It's obvious by speech. "Obama is a Communist" is clearly a right-leaning person who has listened to the American conservative narrative. "Trump is a...(choose your favorite)" is really no different. Several people here literally could not discuss Trump policies absent "Trump" and narratives (usually involving motive, but more on that in a minute...). In more conservative leaning boards, it's the same narrative crap but a different person. Biden. Harris. Pelosi. etc... On the liberal boards it's an assortment of conservative politicians. As an aside, for those that complain about the liberal bent of this board; it's nothing. There are boards with political forums so rabid (left or right), it's pointless to participate. This place is very tame in comparison, which is why I've always wanted better discussion here (but we've beaten that horse...)

The narratives have invaded almost every aspect of our lives, and everyone is trying to use them. Politicians, media, marketers, Russian Troll-farms, etc... It's not new so much as the techniques have been refined. There is no shortage of opportunity to influence populations through traditional and social media, and people are obviously capitalizing on it. There's a lot at stake - the U.S. Presidency itself being one of many things. We have reached a point of insanity. Douglas Murray's "The Madness of Crowds" is insightful. Listen to the interview John Anderson conducted with him a year or two ago. I'll post a link if you like.

So now we come full circle to COVID. American society was told their side's particular narrative, and we've been shouting it at each other for a year and a half. It was used to attack Trump politically. The current POTUS and VP questioned the vaccine publicly, for political purposes (and now there are many "fact-checks" to control the damage...). That's not unexpected from politicians, and "we" (pick a political side) have always wanted "old people to starve" or are quite happy with "bankrupting future generations". But that was before narratives became so widespread and toxic. Any inconsistency creates doubt and fuels the other narrative. Fauci's changing mask standards? His poorly considered statements like "we'll probably be wearing masks for another year..."? The reasons are lost in the shouting. Frankly, he should resign and let someone else be the face to the public for the greater good; but his replacement would be subject to the same treatment. One mis-step and the new person's credibility would be ruined.

We watch politicians lecture what we "should" do, and then see them act differently. Again, pick your party but the hypocrisy exhibited by both sides undermines their credibility. It erodes public trust. Curiously, each echo-chamber only distrusts the other side. They nearly completely trust their own. Polls show this party-centric view pretty regularly, on most political topics.

That mistrust is as bad as I've ever seen it. We (society) are now "fact-checking" doctors. We are now attempting to censor credible experts holding opposing opinions. It doesn't matter which side they come from, although each side's arsenal and preferred weapons vary. Our media is infested with politicos. Bush Jr's press secretary is a regular on FOX. Bill Clinton's narrative developer (George Stephanopoulos) is on ABC and interviews Presidents. He even moderated a Republican Presidential debate. There are a lot more. I don't have a problem with those kind of people as the "talking heads" on political "debate" shows. We already know their bias toward their political party. I do have a problem with them being near-"anchors", or considered "journalists". There is too much reason to be skeptical about their objectivity. But I'm getting off point (again, sorry...). Point is that it has been going on for 20+ years and it has eroded trust to the point that each side has retreated to their camp with this new topic - COVID.

CNN's insistence on the term "Horse wormer" or whatever version they're using is a perfect example of narrative, and it's effectiveness. The "horse laugh" is about as dismissive of a rhetorical retort as there is. Irrational, but highly persuasive. Look how often it is used just here. Now crank that up to Twitter or Facebook (or international news channel) levels of distribution. It's a wonder the conversation here has been as civil as is, comparatively speaking. But look at the result of "horse wormer" and the politicization. Ivermectin is a near "wonder drug" - even characterized in professional articles as such. Not only is it anti-parasitic and anti-microbial, it appears to have anti-viral properties too, and has been used to treat Dengue, Zika, Chikungunya, etc... It has a decades long safety record. Maybe it will have some effectiveness against COVID, maybe not, but we should let doctors try, just like they did with other maladies. We have no experience treating COVID with ivermectin or any of the other "forbidden" drugs, so there's really only preliminary data (and that's the problem I have with Cochrane, not the methodology). We simply do not know one way or another at this point, given the limited evidence. But in the middle of a pandemic, narratives have led us to not try and shout "trust the science" at the same time. I've never seen anything like it.

dneal
September 12th, 2021, 09:30 AM
I stumbled across this today. Not a bad read.

Publication: Tablet Magazine
Article Type: Opinion
Author and Credentials: John P.A. Ioannidis is Professor of Medicine and Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, as well as Professor (by courtesy) of Biomedical Science and Statistics, at Stanford University. His complete COVID-19-related publications can be found here (https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis?tab=research-and-scholarship).
Title and link: How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science

Excerpt


IIn the past I had often fervently wished that one day everyone would be passionate and excited about scientific research. I should have been more careful about what I had wished for. The crisis caused by the lethal COVID-19 pandemic and by the responses to the crisis have made billions of people worldwide acutely interested and overexcited about science. Decisions pronounced in the name of science have become arbitrators of life, death, and fundamental freedoms. Everything that mattered was affected by science, by scientists interpreting science, and by those who impose measures based on their interpretations of science in the context of political warfare.

One problem with this new mass engagement with science is that most people, including most people in the West, had never been seriously exposed to the fundamental norms of the scientific method. The Mertonian norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism have unfortunately never been mainstream in education, media, or even in science museums and TV documentaries on scientific topics.

Before the pandemic, the sharing of data, protocols, and discoveries for free was limited, compromising the communalism on which the scientific method is based. It was already widely tolerated that science was not universal, but the realm of an ever-more hierarchical elite, a minority of experts. Gargantuan financial and other interests and conflicts thrived in the neighborhood of science—and the norm of disinterestedness was left forlorn.

As for organized skepticism, it did not sell very well within academic sanctuaries. Even the best peer-reviewed journals often presented results with bias and spin. Broader public and media dissemination of scientific discoveries was largely focused on what could be exaggerated about the research, rather than the rigor of its methods and the inherent uncertainty of the results.

Nevertheless, despite the cynical realization that the methodological norms of science had been neglected (or perhaps because of this realization), voices struggling for more communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism had been multiplying among scientific circles prior to the pandemic. Reformers were often seen as holding some sort of a moral higher ground, despite being outnumbered in occupancy of powerful positions. Reproducibility crises in many scientific fields, ranging from biomedicine to psychology, caused soul-searching and efforts to enhance transparency, including the sharing of raw data, protocols, and code. Inequalities within the academy were increasingly recognized with calls to remedy them. Many were receptive to pleas for reform.

Opinion-based experts (while still dominant in influential committees, professional societies, major conferences, funding bodies, and other power nodes of the system) were often challenged by evidence-based criticism. There were efforts to make conflicts of interest more transparent and to minimize their impact, even if most science leaders remained conflicted, especially in medicine. A thriving community of scientists focused on rigorous methods, understanding biases, and minimizing their impact. The field of metaresearch, i.e., research on research, had become widely respected. One might therefore have hoped that the pandemic crisis could have fostered change. Indeed, change did happen—but perhaps mostly for the worst.

Lack of communalism during the pandemic fueled scandals and conspiracy theories, which were then treated as fact in the name of science by much of the popular press and on social media. The retraction of a highly visible hydroxychloroquine paper from the The Lancet was a startling example: A lack of sharing and openness allowed a top medical journal to publish an article in which 671 hospitals allegedly contributed data that did not exist, and no one noticed this outright fabrication before publication. The New England Journal of Medicine, another top medical journal, managed to publish a similar paper; many scientists continue to heavily cite it long after its retraction.

The hottest public scientific debate of the moment—whether the COVID-19 virus was the product of natural evolution or a laboratory accident—could have been settled easily with a minimal demonstration of communalism (“communism,” actually, in the original Merton vocabulary) from China: Opening the lab books of the Wuhan Institute of Virology would have alleviated concerns immediately. Without such openness about which experiments were done, lab leak theories remain tantalizingly credible.

Personally, I don’t want to consider the lab leak theory—a major blow to scientific investigation—as the dominant explanation yet. However, if full public data-sharing cannot happen even for a question relevant to the deaths of millions and the suffering of billions, what hope is there for scientific transparency and a sharing culture? Whatever the origins of the virus, the refusal to abide by formerly accepted norms has done its own enormous damage.

TSherbs
September 13th, 2021, 05:35 PM
I appreciate that this is only a news report but it does touch on a lot of points raised in this thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/10/inescapable-overlap-pandemic-politics/

Thanks for this. Written well, and an interesting read.

My state has actually developed the highest rate of positive cases per capita in New England (still low, on the national scale), and we voted for Biden. But of course, there is a large GOP contingent in my state and a good bit of income and educational disparity that also correlates with party-affiliation and vaccination rates. Maine is a complicated state that bears even closer scrutiny in order to understand.

dneal
September 13th, 2021, 06:44 PM
Brace yourself, because the world may stop spinning, but...

... I agree with TSherbs. ;)

The only real issue I have with the piece is that it assigns motive at the end, and the overgeneralization. Hell, Republicans can't even agree on Trump or that agenda; and are firmly divided in two camps (although the pro camp is much larger than the anti). Anyway, to categorize them all is disingenuous and foments more of the disgust each side has for the other. There was no need for that and politics really has no place.

Note I'm an equal opportunity discriminator. That Ben Shapiro kid and his page just got the axe. It's unfortunate, because I find him to be very sharp, quick minded and quick witted. Most of his arguments are well thought out, and his debate skills are excellent. But it has become nothing but "you won't believe what happens next...", "libs get owned" and that bullshit. So he got the axe with a bunch of others left and right. If you're to the left of CNN, you're a crazy person. If you're to the right of Fox, you're a crazy person (figuratively, in both cases); because I'm not wasting my time listening to noise. Newsmax is replacing Fox it seems though. I get the narratives from there (CNN, Fox and Newsmax), and look for actual news and information in other places.

I do enjoy Eric Weinstein and Heather Heyer's commentary on the going's on of the day, and watch their 10 minute daily clip of I suppose yesterday's show while I row in the morning. Their credentials are without question, they do a good job of pointing out when they are treading out of their expertise, they have many friends with a variety of expertise they can call on, they're what we now call "classical liberals"; although the crazy people on the left will spin the wheel of ad hominem and start shouting. They're calm and objective. They are what scientists/professors are supposed to be. If you disagree, I would be curious to know why.