The off topic thread 5.0

Remove this Banner Ad

He was public discredit by 1000-1 scientists and public health experts but this guy reckons he's not wrong. Also using the term "American left" shows his inherent bias. Especially when the American Left barely exists (especially in the Whitehouse)

He then cites a tweet which was about cardiac arrests. This journal may have been peer reviewed but that isnt the be all end all of something being factual. It's currently under review by the publisher as the conclusion is wildly outrageous.
You may not agree with the views of the heads of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and a large number of preeminent epidemiology and public health experts globally who are not currently working for or advising governments or related bodies. That is fine but why should these views be censored at the behest of the government?

Again you are arguing for censorship. People should be able to make their own minds up without the government feeding us a narrative they like and then forcing media companies to remove alternative viewpoints. It was also amusing to read about the government paying twitter to do so. Thankfully this has now changed.
 
You may not agree with the views of the heads of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and a large number of preeminent epidemiology and public health experts globally who are not currently working for or advising governments or related bodies. That is fine but why should these views be censored at the behest of the government?

Again you are arguing for censorship. People should be able to make their own minds up without the government feeding us a narrative they like and then forcing media companies to remove alternative viewpoints. It was also amusing to read about the government paying twitter to do so. Thankfully this has now changed.
There were only a few who agreed with him and I mean a few. The rest said his statements were completely ludicrous (and evidence suggests they were right and he is wrong).

I'm not arguing for general censorship but I argue for censorship against public health matters. If someone with a platform goes on there and says "HIV isn't dangerous, have unprotected sex with as many people as you want" are you going to allow that?

I also don't agree with a government paying someone to do so and nor do I agree with anyone censoring content that may make a government look stupid, but in matters of public health the cessation of disinformation is vital.
 
There were only a few who agreed with him and I mean a few. The rest said his statements were completely ludicrous (and evidence suggests they were right and he is wrong).

I'm not arguing for general censorship but I argue for censorship against public health matters. If someone with a platform goes on there and says "HIV isn't dangerous, have unprotected sex with as many people as you want" are you going to allow that?

I also don't agree with a government paying someone to do so and nor do I agree with anyone censoring content that may make a government look stupid, but in matters of public health the cessation of disinformation is vital.
You can look up the scientists who cosigned their statement online. It is more than a few.

A further 16 thousand scientists and 47 thousand medical practitioners agreed with them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You can look up the scientists who cosigned their statement online. It is more than a few.

A further 16 thousand scientists and 47 thousand medical practitioners agreed with them.
With so many scientists and GP's worldwide trying to decide who should adjudicate misinformation from facts.
This is a sweeping general statement not in any way meant to have skin in this debate.
 
People should be able to make their own minds up. Usually you can work it out by looking at who is benefiting.
You keep saying this as if Joe on the street has the same information and intelligence as a trained scientist. Are you suggesting their opinion and determination is as relevant?
 
Andrew Tate in prison because of a pizza in Romania. What a time to be alive. If only the authorities were so diligent they might arrest ONE person in Epsteins book.

Jesus christ, what's happened to you?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Andrew Tate in prison because of a pizza in Romania. What a time to be alive. If only the authorities were so diligent they might arrest ONE person in Epsteins book.
honestly if I got owned as hard as he did I'd hand myself in
 
Andrew Tate in prison because of a pizza in Romania. What a time to be alive. If only the authorities were so diligent they might arrest ONE person in Epsteins book.
He was arrested in April and this is a follow up of that investigation. The pizza let authorities know he was in Romania
 
He was arrested in April and this is a follow up of that investigation. The pizza let authorities know he was in Romania
Yeah I know. That's what I was getting at. I hope he rots in a gulag.
 
Jesus christ, what's happened to you?
What do you mean? I am highly amused by Andrew Tates downfall for human trafficking. I'd like to see others who have 'profited' from this also suffer the consequences of their actions.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top