Free Speech

The Biden Administration Is Pushing Social Media Platforms To Expand Their Definition of Intolerable COVID-19 'Misinformation'

Online censorship by proxy undermines the ordinary process for checking claims and counterclaims.

|

A New York Times story about the "rift" between Facebook and the Biden administration regarding COVID-19 "misinformation" illustrates the fuzziness of that category and the perils of suppressing it at the government's behest. While administration officials often claim they are just encouraging the social media platform to enforce its own rules, their idea of misinformation is not necessarily the same as Facebook's, and that cleavage shows that the government is imposing online censorship by proxy, pushing to expand the definition of intolerable speech.

"We've engaged with Facebook since the transition on this issue," White House spokesman Mike Gwin tells the Times, "and we've made clear to them when they haven't lived up to our, or their own, standards and have actively elevated content on their platforms that misleads the American people." Since the Biden administration has the power to make life difficult for social media companies by pursuing litigation, writing regulations, and supporting new legislation, Facebook et al. have a strong incentive to follow the government's "standards" rather than its own.

"Facebook told White House officials that it grappled with content that wasn't explicitly false, such as posts that cast doubt about vaccines but don't clearly violate the social network's rules on health misinformation," the Times says. "Facebook allows people to express their experiences with vaccines, such as pain or side effects after receiving a shot, as long as they don't explicitly endorse falsehoods."

D.J. Patil, the chief technology officer for Biden's transition team, had no patience with that distinction. "Seriously?" Patil texted "the Biden team" during one video call. "We have to get past the talking points. People are literally dying." That conviction culminated in Biden's July 16 charge that Facebook et al. are "killing people" by failing to police speech the way he thinks they should.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, in his July 15 advisory calling for a "whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" posed by "health misinformation," made it clear that the administration expects social media platforms to suppress statements that it deems "misleading," even when they might be true. "Claims can be highly misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet settled," he said.

If a Facebook user says we don't yet have data on the long-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, for example, that would be true but unhelpful and therefore probably would count as "misleading" in Murthy's book. Likewise if someone emphasizes that the vaccines have not yet been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Times story about "virus misinformation" further illustrates the point. According to Zignal Labs, which provided the data underlying the paper's report that "coronavirus misinformation has spiked online in recent weeks," that category includes claims that "vaccines don't work," that "they contain microchips," and that they "cause miscarriages." Fair enough. But Zignal Labs also counts as "misinformation" the argument that "people should rely on their 'natural immunity' instead of getting vaccinated," which may be bad advice but is not a statement of fact.

According to a report from Media Matters for America, the Times notes, "many of the most popular posts" in Facebook groups "dedicated to antivaccine discussion" did not involve "explicit falsehoods." One example: "an image of a Scooby Doo character [Fred Jones] unmasking a ghost" labeled "delta variant." Fred says, "Let's see what makes you scarier than all the other variants." When he removes the mask, he reveals "the logos of MSNBC and CNN, implying that the cable channels were overstating the severity of the Delta variant."

Such media criticism not only does not qualify as an "explicit falsehood"; it is arguably accurate, even according to the Biden administration. But according to the Times, it is still problematic:

Like the comments on many of the other pages, those beneath the Scooby Doo item did contain unfounded claims. They also included calls to violence.

"China is completely to blame," one comment said. "We're going to have to fight them eventually, so I advocate a preemptive nuclear strike."

The Times seems to be suggesting that some blowhard on Facebook is inciting violence by calling for war with China, which implies that his comments might not be constitutionally protected. The paper also is suggesting that expressions of opinion should be deleted, even when they are not demonstrably wrong, if they might encourage other people to make "unfounded claims." Yet all of this speech, including verifiably false claims about COVID-19, is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. While social media companies like Facebook are not constrained by the First Amendment and have a right to moderate posts however they want, the situation changes when those decisions are shaped by the federal government's demands.

Even when the "misinformation" net is not cast widely enough to encompass media criticism and foreign policy commentary, there are many opportunities for errant determinations of truth. An episode that Reason's Robby Soave recently described shows how even well-intentioned fact checkers can err, promoting misinformation in their zeal to identify it.

Politifact rated as "false" an Instagram post by someone who said "my immune system's effectiveness" against COVID-19 is "99.98%." But that statement is consistent with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's "current best estimate" of the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) for children and teenagers, and it is close to the estimate that the CDC offers for adults younger than 50. Even the estimated IFR for 50-to-64-year-olds implies that more than 99 percent of people in that age group who are infected by the COVID-19 virus will survive. The IFR estimate for people 65 or older is much higher, implying a survival rate of 91 percent.

The Instagram user ran off the rails when he compared the COVID-19 survival rate to the effectiveness rate for vaccines, which indicates the extent to which they reduce the risk of certain outcomes, such as infection, hospitalization, and death. But Politifact did not merely point out the fallacy of that inappropriate comparison; it declared that "the COVID-19 survival rate is not over 99%." According to the CDC's numbers, the statement Politifact deemed false appears to be true for all but the oldest age group.

When Politifact gets something wrong, critics have an opportunity to correct it. But when social media platforms suppress speech because of the government's behind-the-scenes "asks," it undermines the ordinary process for checking claims and counterclaims. It also drives people with mistaken beliefs further into an echo chamber where their statements are less likely to be challenged. The Times notes the proliferation of vaccine misinformation on alternative platforms such as Gab, Bitchute, and Telegram, which is a predictable result of the campaign to drive vaccine skeptics from mainstream services such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Biden administration officials may think they are saving lives by pushing social media platforms to banish users whose messages might deter vaccination. But those efforts only harden resistance to vaccines by reinforcing the suspicion that anti-vaxxers are telling a truth the government does not want us to know. The alternative—addressing the concerns of vaccine-leery Americans by citing the evidence that contradicts their fears—is definitely harder, and success is by no means guaranteed. But at least it offers an opportunity to persuade people, which is how arguments are supposed to be resolved in a free society.

NEXT: The Senate's Infrastructure Bill Redefines 'Broadband' To Manufacture a Connectivity Crisis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Biden Administration Is Pushing Social Media

    They’re private corporations. If they want their hair pulled and their ass slapped by the Biden administration, then section 230.

    1. Paul gets it.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three t0 eight a day and start getting paid inDSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

      2. Use several hours of your spare time to acquire extra $1000 on your paypal account each week…JHG Get more details on following site…Visit Here

      3. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes FEx me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now………………. VISIT HERE

    2. Did you miss this sentence?

      Since the Biden administration has the power to make life difficult for social media companies by pursuing litigation, writing regulations, and supporting new legislation, Facebook et al. have a strong incentive to follow the government’s “standards” rather than its own.

      We wouldn’t be having a discussion about private censorship by proxy, if government didn’t have so much control over commerce, and we had our free markets back.

      Personally I don’t believe the Democrats have only been doing this since Biden was elected. I’d bet they were doing it before the election thanks to the censored laptop story and the censored lab created pandemic story. We also know the MSM are propagandists because they’ve never revealed who their anonymous sources were that have been proven to be liars; thus revealing they’re spreading misinformation for the political class, rather than revealing the truth. If you don’t expose people using you to bear false witness, you’re in on it.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.AQw simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        GOOD LUCK………. VISIT HERE

    3. They’re a private company which happens to be under antitrust investigation by the very administration which is pressuring it to align its content with those the administration deems acceptable.
      The potential for corruption here is incredible. A quiet little phone call in which the company agrees to suppress ideas that bother the administration in return for reduced charges or lower fines?

    4. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.NFw This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by

      Just follow the given website……………… VISIT HERE

  2. This country born redneck is able to figure out the truth from the lies. Most people should also be able to figure it out without help from the government.

    1. ++

    2. “Most people should also be able to figure it out without help from the government.”

      That’s what scares the left

      1. I agree with rbike, and second that regarding people being smart enough to figure out to what extent they need to protect themselves and their businesses during a pandemic. We don’t need government locking us down, or making safety rules for us. Heck Biden hasn’t even gotten the government to force government employees or soldiers to get the vaccine yet, nor has he accomplished getting full FDA approval for the vaccines.

        Ask any doctor “If we truly isolate from other humans for 2 weeks, won’t we eliminate the flu and cold viruses?”. They will say yes. Then ask why haven’t we done it, or is it that we can’t isolate, and the answer will be we can’t isolate because too many people depend on interacting with others to survive. In summary, lockdowns don’t work. Let people figure out how to protect themselves, and you know many will get expert advice and follow it. Let them also freely pick their experts.

  3. and that cleavage shows that the government is imposing online censorship by proxy, pushing to expand the definition of intolerable speech.

    Is Reason Libertarian Again?

    1. It was just an excuse to use “cleavage” next to “censorship” I bet.

      But, no, Reason isn’t libertarian anymore. Even a stopped clock finds a nut now and again.

    2. Reason is the slow retarded child of the libertarian movement apparently.

    3. +100000; It’s a breath of fresh air when one of their authors besides Stossell finally gets it…

      1. Dems have the govt now. Reason can go back to pretending again. Or their plan is indeed to sabotage any government by continuously supporting whoever is not in office, so there are too many power shifts in the govt to ever be effective on the long rung. But that doesn’t sound too plausible. So they’re probably just going back to monetizing on being the opposition without being nagged by the mean tweets.

  4. >>online censorship by proxy

    hey at least we’re in the right zip code now …

  5. I wish I had a DeLorean so I could go back in time to 1982 and tell my Democrat friends that a presidential administration would be demanding that the Media print only government-approved facts about a disease, then carefully record their reaction when I told them what party (and what candidate currently in office) was pushing it.

    1. They wouldn’t believe you.

      1. Of course not. I’d just get that invasion of the body-snatchers screech while shouting “Reeeeeaagaaaaaaannnnn”!

        1. Fauci was actually one of the primary purveyors of AIDS misinformation in the early 90s.

          1. He should be doing time.

        2. Scariest movie ever made.
          And we’re living it now

          1. The Blair Witch Project is the scariest movie ever made. I’m still horrified that I paid money to see it.

            1. I still haven’t seen it.

      2. Speaking of that, I’ve watched most of the HBO series The Deuce co-written by David Simon (The Wire) I believe. Not a bad series, some of it even very good, but there are a couple of VERY sanctimonious characters who gripe about Reagan and his anti-pornography commissions. He’s good about covering the Andrea Dworkins pushing for anti-pornography legislation, but as usual, it’s not couched as left-activists being a problem, it’s couched as Republicans being a problem, with left-activists “playing into their hands”.

        The segments aren’t terrible, but they feel shoehorned in, almost like David Simon wanted to relive the glory-days of journalism #resisting Reagan, so he bolted on the story element.

        1. It feels like revisionist history to me. At the time Reagan had many Democrats that approved of him.

          1. Only southern racist Democrats. The Northern racist democrats hated him.

    2. You could do that today and Democrats will still insist it’s the Republicans doing it.

      1. Totes BIPARTISAN

    3. Why get a Delorean when you can tell them today and get the exact same disbelief/denial?

  6. I hope this means Sullum and others at Reason have turned the corner on this issue.

    If we started talking about this in regards to Amazon and Facebook deplatforming Parler and Trump, would the whole narrative change?

    1. Ah, Ken – so naive.

    2. You mean, the Trump Administration in early January instructed Amazon and Facebook to deplatform Trump?

      1. Yeap. Youre still a fucking idiot.

      2. It Is Known that The Careerists In DC were all Pro Trump.

      3. Look at that sentence again autist.

      4. Lying Jeffy doesn’t think the deep state exists.

        1. Lying Jeffycytotoxic doesn’t think

          FTFY

          Stop playing pretend with this fucking retard like a tranny with a big bushy beard asking you to call him Sally. chemjeff is a sockpuppet account of cytotoxic.

          1. Cytotoxic was before my time here. Lying Jeffy is still an appropriate label, no?

  7. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1425175802115678210?s=19

    NEW – Dr. Fauci: “I’m sorry I know people must like to have their individual freedom… but I think that we’re in such a serious situation now, that under certain circumstances, mandates should be done.”
    [Video]

    1. Just obey, and it’ll be fine. Back to normal if 178% of the public is vaccinated, and then gets the booster every 7.5 weeks.

      1. 7.5 weeks between boosters?

        Hey, look at Mr. Optimistic over here!

    2. He is a monster.

    3. “Do as I say so we can be free”

      Fuck Fauci. He doesn’t give a damn about the truth, the collateral damage he’s causing, or anything else other than keeping his power.

      1. Two weeks to flatten the curve.

      2. He’s an errand boy for the Global Socialist Party

        1. I keep comparing him to Lysenko. He keeps proving me right.

          1. Lysenko would be embarrassed by him.

            1. But Goebbels is spinning in his grave with jealousy.

              1. Goebbels wouldn’t respect their skill, but I’m sure he wishes he had the reach and power they have

                1. Yeah, he had to be way more convincing. He didn’t have 2-3 generations indoctrinated in progressive schools.

                  1. Nor television and Big Tech programming

                    1. And surveillance was a much harder matter

          2. Lysenko was deluded and his conclusions were propped up and forcibly spread around by the Soviet government, admittedly with horrifying results.

            Fauci is closer to a Mengele or the monsters of Imperial Japan during and before WW2, just with a more administrative role.

  8. The alternative—addressing the concerns of vaccine-leery Americans by citing the evidence that contradicts their fears—is definitely harder, and success is by no means guaranteed. But at least it offers an opportunity to persuade people, which is how arguments are supposed to be resolved in a free society.

    How naive.

    Have you read some of the crap that people like Nardz post here about the vaccines? To them, getting a vaccine represents “submission to illegitimate authority”. It has nothing to do with health at all. It is a pure political statement to them. And given the tribalized nature of political discourse nowadays, they will never be persuaded by people outside of their tribe no matter how logical or factual the argument is. I would like to think that of the 40% or so of people not vaccinated, that only a small fraction of them are at Nardz-level idiocy on the subject, but I am not too optimistic about that either.

    1. Collectivistjeff, you fat, stupid bitch:
      Pressuring the population to take experimental gene therapy that neither prevents infection or spread of a virus that the vast majority of people are in no significant danger of isn’t something you can legitimately justify, no matter what imaginary argument you come up with for me or anyone else.

      1. *something you can NOT legitimately justify

        1. Hmm.
          “isn’t something you can legitimately justify”
          Ok, had it right the first time.
          Disregard the erroneous correction.

      2. The mRNA vaccine does not modify your genes.

        And if you don’t want the mRNA vaccine, you can get the J&J vaccine, which does not rely on mRNA.

        And getting vaccinated means that you are FAR less likely to wind up in the hospital or dead due to getting sick.

        And there is nothing wrong with *encouraging* – not mandating, but encouraging – people to engage in behavior that promotes health. Seat belts and helmets don’t prevent death 100% of the time, but they make death less likely in the event of a crash. Same deal here.

        1. “I’m not sticking you up at gunpoint, I’m just encouraging you to give me your money.”

        2. The mRNA vaccine does not modify your genes.

          Strawman argument, he never said it did. I assume you are referring to his comment on gene therapy. Let’s go to the doctors:

          “As mRNA is genetic material, mRNA vaccines can be looked at as a genetic-based therapy, but they are classified as vaccines and are not designed to alter your genes,” said Dr Adam Taylor, a virologist and research fellow at the Menzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University.

          So by strict definition he is wrong, but it isn’t completely wrong. Many scientists have conflated the two.

          And getting vaccinated means that you are FAR less likely to wind up in the hospital or dead due to getting sick.

          Same if you lose weight or you are under 55. Yet for kids the vaccine increases the likely onset of a heart condition from 1 in 100k to 1 in 4k. I know you incels don’t care bout that. But his risk posture means Covid isn’t a risk to him at any level really.

          And there is nothing wrong with *encouraging* – not mandating, but encouraging – people to engage in behavior that promotes health.

          Yet you refuse to put the cookies down.

          1. Thank Science they’re not designed to alter genes!
            I’m sure there will be no unintended consequences.

            And thank you for the clarification.

            1. They don’t alter genes but they seem to have higher incidents of effect im children for issues. The inventor said he did not recommend them for kids at all.

        3. And getting vaccinated means that you are FAR less likely to wind up in the hospital or dead due to getting sick.

          Remember 2 weeks ago when the vaccine was 95% effective at stopping the spread of COVID dead in its tracks and conferred bulletproof immunity on the same level as the MMR vaccine? Ahh, those heady days. Fast forward to now: “Even though the vast majority of people being infected with COVID, being hospitalized with COVID, and spreading COVID to others have been vaccinated twice, indicating that this, like every other coronavirus vaccine ever tested is an abysmal failure at preventing infection because the virus mutates too rapidly, you should get it anyway, because in the 1 in 10,000 chance that you get hospitalized with COVID there’s an unknown probability that your odds of survival might possibly be a little bit better. Also please ignore that study indicating that people with natural immunity due to COVID infection have longer-lasting and more-effective protection from COVID and its variants than vaccinated people.”
          What are you going to do now that it turns out your miracle cure doesn’t actually do fuck all? Maybe cut your daily caloric intake from 12,000 to 10,000?

        4. “Gene therapy” does not mean that something changes your genes.

        5. Jeff, I think the problem is that people see the absurd push and think “Something must be wrong”. Let’s be honest. We have a vaccine that is almost completely foolproof against serious side-effects. Getting exposed afterwards is essentially a booster.

          So, unless you are dealing with the seriously ill, people shouldn’t care if those around them are vaccinated. However, there are multiple instances of the unvaccinated being treated like lepers, and mask mandates of vaccinated people. This is a clear statement by those in charge that they have little faith in the vaccine.

          To paraphrase a movie: The tighter your grip, the more will slip through your fingers. The grip is very tight and tightening into a chokehold.

    2. So youre racist is what you’re saying? Because PoC is one of the primary unvaccinated groups.

      1. He’s a prog. You’re surprised he’s racist?

        1. What nonsense is Jesse saying about me now? Let’s take a look…

          …Oh right, making shit up. So, the usual Jesse.

          1. I would like to think that of the 40% or so of people not vaccinated, that only a small fraction of them are at Nardz-level idiocy on the subject, but I am not too optimistic about that either.

            That is your statement. The primary group not vaccinated is PoC.

            You’re either racist or you’re lying about who the unvaccinated groups are.

            1. It’s both. In this case, he’s being racist. In all cases, he’s a liar.

    3. The reason they’re anti vac is because they lost faith in the system long ago.

      You expect them to be persuaded by evidence from the same people that have lied to them, lied about them, and betrayed them for years.

      They simply don’t believe any of your evidence comes from honest sources. And given the last few years, you can’t blame them.

      1. I expect reasonable people to be persuaded, or at least persuadable, by factually correct and scientifically valid evidence, regardless of source.

        1. The problem is you aren’t actually reasonable. You easily fall for narratives and then push them. And then when given direct evidence contradicting your views, you ignore it.

        2. The factually correct and scientifically valid evidence is that I don’t need a vaccine for a virus that presents no danger to myself and which I’ve already had with no complications.
          Not everyone is a fatass.

        3. Reasonable people don’t say the virus couldn’t possibly have come from a research lab because if Fox says it, it must be wrong.

          But these are the kind of “factually correct and scientifically valid” narratives that have been pushed and reversed, over and over again.

          After trust is betrayed this much, you have to do more to demonstrate factual correctness and scientific validity then merely claiming it. And instead of doing that work, they double down and treat people like idiots and bigots for losing faith.

          Physician, heal thyself.

          1. Reasonable people don’t say the virus couldn’t possibly have come from a research lab because if Fox says it, it must be wrong.

            But that isn’t what happened. The claim that the virus had natural origins was the initial claim because (1) that’s what the Chinese said, and (2) a bunch of doctors said so, with a certain amount of evidence at the time to back up their claim. They might be wrong on that score, it’s true. And by the way, those same media institutions that supposedly are lying to people daily are also the ones who did come around and report that, yes, possibly, the virus might have escaped from a lab.

            The virus’s origin is still not known, and people can be forgiven for making educated guesses based on incomplete information and later turning out to be wrong.

            I mean, at this point it seems like you are using human fallibility as an excuse to justify paranoid distrust in institutions. Is no one in any institution allowed to be wrong, ever? Otherwise it is a cataclysmic loss of trust for which the proper remedy is to go running to the nearest demagogue who will just repeat their fears back to them?

            1. Wow.

              Ok, collectivistjeff, list that evidence of natural origin those doctors had at the time.

            2. If scientists make claims, and the media treats them as so certain that alternative theories and alternative scientists are censored and ridiculed, and then it turns out they’re wrong, then why don’t you understand when people don’t jump on whatever science bandwagon the media is pushing now?

              I’m glad they came around, but using fallibility as an excuse to treat institutions as fallible is completely justified.

              It would help if they weren’t so simultaneously certain and wrong so often.

            3. (2) a bunch of doctors said so,

              Doctors gathered by Eco Alliance who was working and sending NIH funds to Wuhan you retarded fuck.

            4. “(2) a bunch of doctors said so,”

              Science! And a bunch of doctors disagreed, at the exact same time. They were treated like charlatans by your paymasters.

            5. Oh shit, I stopped reading after your admission that drs saying so was good enough for you, and missed:

              “with a certain amount of evidence at the time to back up their claim.”

              Please provide this evidence!

            6. Bullshit.

              https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191

              The gist of the article? The science hasn’t changed, but since the Bad Orange Man is gone, they can now promote the lab leak theory.

      2. And here is what I don’t really understand. Okay I can accept that there are a lot of people who simply distrust the government when it comes to these vaccines and are scared of what’s in them. Fine. So instead of trying to figure out truth from fiction, they are going to listen to – some random idiot with a Youtube channel? Morons on Twitter? Their cranky Uncle Fester on Facebook? When did these “sources” become reasonable substitutes for scientifically valid data?

        1. When did the CDC’s bullshit become scientifically valid data?

          1. So all of the data linked to below, it is all lies? Fabricated? To what end?

            1. Two masks! It just makes common sense!

              1. You didn’t answer the question.

                Read this:

                https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6950e2.htm?s_cid=mm6950e2_w

                Is this whole document a fabrication? Entirely made up?

                1. The virus came from bat soup and you deserve to be in prison for suggesting otherwise.

                  1. You’re an idiot Jeff.
                    Bears repeating.

                    1. Sure. Because the “smart take” is that the virus is a hoax, the vaccines have microchips, and it was a global plot to take down Trump.

                    2. What other mild viruses that people have already acquired natural immunity to, by virtue of getting sick then recovering, require vaccination months later?
                      What does the Global Socialist Party Science tell you to say about that, collectivistjeff?

                    3. Hey look. Jeff resorted to strawman again when shown to be an idiot.

                    4. Global Socialist Party

                      I’m not familiar with the Global Socialist Party.

                    5. What do you think the Global Socialist Party did?

                      “Aha, here’s this brand new virus that we ordered from that Chinese lab. It’s not terribly dangerous but it is brand new and we can scare everyone into thinking it is this horrible horrible disease. Then when they are trembling in fear we can swoop in and seize power to perform our Great Reset which brings the entire world under the control of our cabal of Global Socialists! Mwahaha!”

                      Is that the basic gist of it?

                    6. Shocking. More strawman for the sophist

                    7. And here we see that collectivistjeff knows the question indicts his whole narrative, so he squeals “cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY” about the name I’ve given the people who gather in Davos, post their plans on the World Economic Forum website, and organize pandemic simulations in September 2019, 3 months before the initiation of our covid19 pandemic.

                    8. “Because the “smart take” is that the virus is a hoax,”

                      Lying Jeffy can’t help lying. Even when the lie doesn’t even really his talking point.

                    9. We should make a drinking game for every time Lying Jeffy uses quotes to say something nobody is saying.

                      Well call it the Cathy Newman game.

                    10. The “funny” thing is:

                      “…this brand new virus… from that Chinese lab. It’s not terribly dangerous but it is brand new and we can scare everyone into thinking it is this horrible horrible disease. Then when they are trembling in fear we can swoop in and seize power”

                      This much is undeniably what has occurred.
                      As for the rest:
                      “to perform our Great Reset which brings the entire world under the control of our cabal of Global Socialists!”
                      They openly talk about this. Is it just coincidence that all these world leaders responded with the same unprecedented actions and use the same language? Have we all forgotten dozens of world leaders using the phrase “build back better” last fall? Has the World Economic Forum, and other globalist think tanks, not posted papers, memos, interviews, web pages, etc talking about their desire for The Great Reset? Where the hell do people think the name came from? Has there not been coordinated messaging from those same globalists along the lines of “you will own nothing and be happy”?
                      And are inflation, small business closures, real estate price rises and consolidation, increased government payments to the unemployed, lockdowns that cost jobs and destroy industries, massive profits for the biggest multinational corporations, rising fuel and food prices, tracking and surveillance, habituation to censorship,, etc not the exact conditions that The Great Reset needs, and even calls for?
                      Or did Alex Jones (or any “conspiracy theorist” – I just picked AJ as the poster child but don’t actually know what he’s said) make up a whole bunch of crazy stuff and just get incredibly lucky that it’s all coincidentally happening?

                      Funny that collectivistjeff’s strawman, meant as mockery, is the most plausible scenario he’s ever posted.

                    11. Oh too funny.

                      R Mac: “That’s a strawman! Nobody is saying that!”
                      Nardz: “Yeah that’s pretty much what I’m saying!”

                      You two need to coordinate your talking points.

                      As for the rest:

                      They openly talk about this. Is it just coincidence that all these world leaders responded with the same unprecedented actions and use the same language?

                      See that is the conspiratorial thinking, to think that because a group is discussing plans of how to respond to a certain event, that there must be some causal relationship between the plans and the event.

                      It is the same as the generally bullshit “who benefits” line of reasoning. Such as: “LBJ would benefit from having JFK assassinated, therefore, LBJ ordered the assassination!” It is the same type of nonsense here. There is no necessarily causal relationship here. Would certain individuals benefit from the economic realignment that occurs after this pandemic? Oh, sure. Does that mean those individuals CAUSED the pandemic and CAUSED the resulting economic realignment? NO.

                      But thank you once again for continuing to demonstrate what “being red pilled” really means. It means conspiratorial garbage, just as conspiratorial garbage has always meant. It is just the 21st century version of “The Trilateral Commission” or “The Bilderbergers” conspiracy garbage, except now it’s “The Davos Crowd”.

                    12. “See that is the conspiratorial thinking, to think that because a group is discussing plans of how to respond to a certain event, that there must be some causal relationship between the plans and the event.”

                      Except I didn’t say they caused it, you fat lying leftist simp, and you admit what I allege in the exact same sentence.
                      Indeed, you’ve admitted the entire premise of what I’ve said, then created a strawman of alleged causation.
                      It’s pathetic that you try to cover up for the beneficiaries and completely ignore the millions of people’s lives destroyed by those beneficiaries.
                      Does it hurt being so craven and unintelligent?
                      Rhetorical question – we can all see that you’re in tremendous pain.

                    13. Oh, so you DON’T think that the “Davos Crowd” caused the pandemic, caused the lockdowns, purposefully in order to create the conditions needed for a “Great Reset”? Oh, okay then. I take back everything that I said about you on this topic.

                      Instead, they are just one group of people among many who have some ideas about how to make life better (from their perspective) after this pandemic is over? OH NO! QUELLE HORREUR! Even authors at Reason have mused about ways to make life better after the pandemic (less strict FDA oversight over vaccines, greater school choice, etc.) Are they a cabal of conspirators now too?

                    14. It’s going to be hilarious when collectivistjeff dies because of the Davos crowd.
                      Let’s hope they make it painful.

                2. Wait. You linked to the interim report? God damn thats stupid. It doesn’t include vaccination of children. It doesn’t include long term effects. cdc had to later amend reports on heart inflammation for males under 30.

                  What the fuck? Are you seriously that ignorant?

                  1. cytotoxic is a lazy obese piece of shit. He’s still using last month’s talking points because he can’t even make his little sausage fingers types in “democraticunderground.com” to see what his latest script is supposed to be.

        2. I like how in all your sophistry you ignore the fact that if you aren’t obese and under the age of 60, your actual risk is that of driving to work every day. Yet I don’t see you mandating for 25mph speed limits.

          1. Yeah. I can easily go to official sources I trust (hospitals) and see exactly who is in the hospital ‘for covid’ — it’s exactly the same people you see in the hospital for everything.

        3. Yes, after their trust in the media and the government is betrayed and lost, even the weirdest information that could cause doubt, causes doubt. And censorship feeds paranoia: censorship is a tool of fascists and authoritarians.

          Hence, a scary story on YouTube will remind them not to trust the government or the media. And having it taken down will actually confirm their fear.

          1. So because they don’t trust existing institutions, they instead give their trust to people who “sound smart”, which are really demagogues who confirm their pre-existing biases.

            1. No, because they don’t trust existing institutions, they don’t trust existing institutions, and discovering demagogues on the internet who agree with them doesn’t make them start trusting the government.

              Why do you think they would trust the government just because they can’t find someone better?

              Would you trust a girlfriend that cheated on you just because you didn’t already have a faithful girlfriend?

              1. Not only that, but when the government and the media and betrays trust so often, it’s easy for someone in the internet to actually have a better track record of correctness and scientific validity.

                If I have one source caught in lies and betrayal, and another source who was actually correct on those issues, then it’s actually more reliable, no matter how internetty it is.

                1. Which source is more reliable than the CDC and Pfizer information when it comes to vaccines?

                  1. “Which girl is more reliable than your cheating girlfriend?”

                    Anyone that hasn’t lied and betrayed me already is possibly more reliable than anyone who’s already lied to me and betrayed me.

                    There are people out there who never said “masks don’t do anything! Wait, no, they should be mandatory!”

                    “No one should ever take a drug without FDA approval. Wait, nevermind!”

                    “Trump is being blackmailed by Russians with pee tapes! And committed crimes against the Hillary campaign! Nevermind!”

                    “Hunters laptop is a Russian plot! Nevermind!”

                    “Why don’t you do what we tell you? You’re stupid!”

                    No, you expect the people you’ve victimized to trust you. If anyones stupid, it’s you.

                    1. “Which girl is more reliable than your cheating girlfriend?”

                      I get what you are saying, but at what point does critical thinking come into play? Sure, you can’t trust your cheating girlfriend anymore, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that *every other woman* is more reliable than your cheating girlfriend. What you seem to be saying is that if your girlfriend cheats on you, then you are justified in believing that the hooker down the street who just slept with 20 guys is more trustworthy than your former girlfriend who cheated on you once or twice. If you don’t believe that the government is telling the truth, fine, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone else is more trustworthy! At some point, critical thinking and reasonable judgment should come into play.

                    2. Building a relationship built on trust takes time.

                      Sure, you don’t jump in bed with a hooker, but you don’t stay with the cheater, either. You start dating again.

                      Lots of people are dating right now.

                    3. This is a great opportunity for anyone who can be trusted to build a coalition.

                      If they can stop pointing fingers and calling people racists, bigots, and retards.

                    4. Sure, you don’t jump in bed with a hooker, but you don’t stay with the cheater, either. You start dating again.

                      Well it sure seems like a lot of people are jumping into bed with the rhetorical hooker. Why is it that there is so much bullshit out there about the vaccines? That they don’t work, they have microchips, their side-effects are vastly overstated, it’s “gene therapy” (it’s not, it does not modify your genes), it’s “experimental” (the technology has actually been around for over 15 years). That’s trusting in the rhetorical hooker in this case. Disbelieve the government’s claims, then go right on to Facebook and swallow whole whatever bullshit some random moron spews out about the vaccines. Or, in the case of the Nardz-level idiots, treat the vaccine as a political statement, which is just another level of idiocy.

                      This is a great opportunity for anyone who can be trusted to build a coalition.

                      If they can stop pointing fingers and calling people racists, bigots, and retards.

                      In this case, the “trusted people” are the demagogues who spew lies. It’s the hooker who tells you that yes, she really did have a great orgasm.

                    5. Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, the media you’re ingesting is sensationalized?

                      Exactly how many anti-vaxers believe in microchips in them?

                      You think perhaps sharing a democracy with people portrayed as cartoon characters might be counter-productive?

                      You’ll never understand how hard it is to cooperate with someone who knows they aren’t racist, but are called racist every day. I’d say it’s self-defeating.

                      But it does serve the politicians.

                    6. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-july-2021/

                      Unvaccinated adults, especially those who say they will “definitely not” get a vaccine, are much less worried about the coronavirus, the Delta variant, and have less confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines compared to those who are vaccinated. Three-fourths of unvaccinated adults, including nine in ten of those who say they will “definitely not” get the vaccine, say they are “not worried” about getting seriously sick from the virus, less than half say they are worried about the Delta variant worsening the pandemic, more than half (including 75% of “definitely not”) say getting vaccinated is a bigger risk to their health than getting infected with coronavirus, and a quarter (just one in ten of “definitely not”) say the vaccines are effective at keeping vaccinated people from dying from COVID-19 or getting seriously ill.

                      So, 90% of those who will “definitely not” get a vaccine do not believe that the vaccines are not effective at preventing serious illness or death. Why is that? That the vaccines are efficacious is not based on the government’s word alone. It’s based on studies, both Pfizer’s own studies as well as studies among the general population now. So don’t tell me that 90% don’t believe that they work merely because they disbelieve the government.

                    7. *do not believe that the vaccines are effective

                    8. You think perhaps sharing a democracy with people portrayed as cartoon characters might be counter-productive?

                      They’re not cartoon characters. But I’m also not going to indulge stupid decisions. If a person refuses to get a vaccine because the person believes “it doesn’t work” then I don’t see why I should coddle that person.

                    9. And here is one of the aforementioned studies:

                      https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

                      Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy study, 44,165 ≥16-year-old participants and 2,264 12-15-year-old participants were randomized to receive 2 doses, 21 days apart, of 30 µg BNT162b2 or placebo. Study endpoints reported here are vaccine efficacy (VE) against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and safety data, both up to 6 months post-vaccination.

                      Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0-93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%-100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% (95% CI 80.3−99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed.

                      Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728)

                      Again this isn’t about disbelieving the government. This study didn’t come from the government.

                    10. Probably because they’ve read a hundred headlines like “so-and-so was vaccinated and got COVID!”

                      You can thank the media for such nuanced perspective.

                    11. Is the only theory you’re comfortable with is they have to be senseless idiots?

                      And you expect them to care about what you think?

                    12. I didn’t call them “senseless idiots”. Don’t put words in my mouth.

                      I do think a lot of people have let their distrust of government lead them into the open arms of flattering demagogues, and/or they let personal anecdotes and experience override the other information that they are receiving. It is understandable in a way, when confronted with a lot of complex information, to go with what “seems sensible” or what they personally have information about. But at some point we all do need to realize that our own personal experience is not equivalent to broad reality.

                    13. Probably because they’ve read a hundred headlines like “so-and-so was vaccinated and got COVID!”

                      You can thank the media for such nuanced perspective.

                      Can I also blame the uncritical media consumer who lets anecdote override statistics?

                    14. As long as you don’t turn around and ridicule him for not immediately believing whatever narrative the media is pushing at the moment.

                    15. Hey look, Lying Jeffy using quotation marks dishonesty.

                    16. “No one should ever take a drug without FDA approval…. except this dangerous horse medicine.”

                      You believe whatever they cram in your ears at primetime.

                    17. Brian, if a vaccine is 96% effective, that means it won’t work for 4%.

                      Nobody is hiding this fact from you.

                    18. Here’s Tony pretending the media isn’t fear mongering. Interesting take.

              2. So at what point are these anti-vaxxers going to say “well, I can’t trust the government, but these demagogues who are just repeating my own fears back to me, they aren’t being honest with me either, so maybe I should try to discover for myself what the real situation is”?

                1. Probably when they think there’s a benefit to their life and their family’s life in that.

                  Do you really think that unvaccinated people who’ve gone through this highly contagious pandemic for almost two years are supposed to be scared shitless if they don’t inject themselves with an experimental drug?

                  I remember when it was cool to be anti-vax just because Trump was president. I’d think you could relate.

                  1. All drugs are experimental, if you think about it.

                    A brand new deadly virus let loose on the world is a pretty fucking big experiment too.

                    You’re not explaining any problem or asking for any solution to one. You’re just ranting.

                    1. “A brand new deadly virus”

                      Deadly to who again? This detail is important. Especially to those of us that already had it, with minor symptoms.

                      Then again, those of us that already had it with minor symptoms probably take more responsibility for our own health in the first place.

            2. Lol. You are nothing but an idiot who repeats narratives without inspection fatty. This thread is perfect proof.

              1. So much projection from collectivistjeff.

                CJ: “You need to think critically!
                So what if the authorities have been lying?
                Trust what the authorities say!”

                Unvaxed individual: “The data indicates that a person in my demographic and health condition is in no significant danger from covid, to 99.99% confidence, and I’ve already had it and recovered. And how could a person spread a virus they don’t have?”

                CJ: “You anti-vaxer conspiracy theorists put everyone in danger by breathing in public!”

                1. CJ: “You need to think critically!
                  So what if the authorities have been lying?
                  Trust what the authorities say!”

                  That is not what I’m saying. If you disbelieve the authorities, then fine, but don’t use that as an excuse to believe whatever flattery some demagogue heaps upon you.

                  Unvaxed individual: “The data indicates that a person in my demographic and health condition is in no significant danger from covid, to 99.99% confidence, and I’ve already had it and recovered. And how could a person spread a virus they don’t have?”

                  Would this line of reasoning be why 90% of those who definitely won’t get the vaccine do not believe the vaccine works?

                  1. They understand their risk profile you obese fuck. Not everyone is risking their own life for a 2nd helping of mac and cheese.

                  2. “but don’t use that as an excuse to believe whatever flattery some demagogue heaps upon you”

                    Where do you even get this bullshit, Lying Jeffy? What demagogue? What flattery?

                    Unless you can answer these questions, the next time you ask me why I call you a liar, here’s you example.

                    1. He heard it from some demagogues heaping flattery upon him, and believes whatever they say.

                      As an outside observer, it’s absolutely hilarious seeing him talk about himself so accurately, only to continue his psychological descent by attributing it to those who disagree with him.

                      And I think collectivistjeff would be genuinely surprised to learn that the hypothetical conversation between he and the unvaxed person will be judged by most observers to be a 100% accurate paraphrase/summary of his participation throughout this whole thread.

                    2. Here’s one, for example:

                      https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/tech/twitter-marjorie-taylor-greene/index.html

                      Greene tweeted on Monday that the Food and Drug Administration “should not approve the covid vaccines.” She also claimed the vaccines were “failing” and that they were ineffective at reducing the virus’s spread.

        4. There are actual scientists who are experts in relevant fields discussing many of the possible problems with the vaccines. It may or may not turn out to be valid, but it’s not just some crazy guy yelling at clouds.

      3. Here is the CDC information on the Pfizer vaccine.

        https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html

        Is it all lies? The whole thing? Even the studies? Is that what the anti-vaxxers really believe? If so, to what end?

        1. I like how you call people who understand their own risk an anti-vaxxer because you’re ignorant to actual risk analysis.

          You could save yourself a ton of risk by losing weight, yet you would rather enforce others to wear masks and get shots.

      4. It’s not just that they’ve lied in the past, they’re lying now. The vaccines aren’t completely safe with no side effects, but they are insisting they are, because they can’t help themselves. It’s not enough to say there have been minimal side effects, with a very small amount of people having extremely adverse reactions. They have to lie and say all of that is “misinformation” even though many of us know people that have experienced it.

        1. The vaccines aren’t completely safe with no side effects, but they are insisting they are, because they can’t help themselves.

          No one in any position of authority has said that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects”. That is you making shit up. Show me anyone in any position of authority – not some random Twitter moron – who has said that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects”.

          What people have said, is that the vaccines are “safe and effective” as a general term, never 100% safe and 100% effective.

          So in this case their “lies” are actually bullshit that you have projected onto people you hate.

          1. Keep walking back your claims.

            Next you’ll say people aren’t free to judge their own risk posture of vaccines vs ckvid but have to listen to their betters who have open lied for 18 months.

          2. Every commercial radio and TV break here in Michigan for one. Repeated interviews with Fauci. Joe fucking Biden repeatedly.

            Are you really claiming that there’s no one from government claiming the vaccines aren’t safe? That people trying to discuss concerns on social media aren’t being silenced? Have you read your own sock puppet DOL’s posts here?

            Goddamn Lying Jeffy, you really are dishonest.

            1. Post the quote where Dr. Fauci or Joe Biden said that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects”. That is your claim.

              Yes they have said that the vaccines are safe, as a general term, not specifically a claim that they are 100.0000% safe. It is like saying “airline travel is safe”. That is true statistically and as a general statement, but it does not mean that airplanes never ever ever crash.

              You are the dishonest one here and you project it on to everyone else around you because that is what you do.

              1. I’ve watched them speak. Show me some video of Fauci discussing potential issues and who should be careful of the vaccine on one of his multiple per week TV interviews. It’s a nice dishonest piece of shit move where you add your own “quotes” in your demand for a cite btw.

                “Yes they have said that the vaccines are safe, as a general term, not specifically a claim that they are 100.0000% safe. It is like saying “airline travel is safe”.”

                WTF does “as a general term” mean when discussing everybody needing to get vaccinated, Mr. individualist? You italicized that statement, tell me who among your masters have said “As a general term” when discussing the safety of the vaccine? You realize the issue is EVERYBODY being forced to get the vaccine?

                1. It’s a nice dishonest piece of shit move where you add your own “quotes” in your demand for a cite btw.

                  Sure, so dishonest that I quote your own words back at you.

                  Just be a man and admit you lied.

              2. US President Joe Biden used a visit Friday to a Pfizer factory manufacturing coronavirus vaccines to reassure Americans that the shots are safe and hold the key to beating the pandemic.

                Biden, who has made getting Covid-19 under control his top task since taking office a month ago, addressed Americans skeptical about the medicines, which were produced at record speed in response to the global health crisis.

                “The vaccines are safe. Please, for yourself, your family, your community, this country, take the vaccine when it’s your turn and it’s available. That’s how we beat this pandemic,” he said against a backdrop of Pfizer’s gleaming manufacturing equipment at the Michigan facility.

                Biden said companies making the vaccines are “fastidious” and “it takes more time to do the check for safety than it does to make the vaccine. That’s how fastidious they are.”

                “If there’s one message to cut through to everyone in the country, it’s this: Vaccines are safe,” he added.

                https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210219-biden-reassures-americans-that-covid-vaccines-are-safe

                1. He didn’t say “completely safe with no side effects” which is the exact quote I need to admit I’m wrong.

                  — Lying Jeffy

              3. And by the way, Lying Jeffy, here’s the quote from my post that’s the first question, that you, surprisingly (not really) didn’t answer:

                “Are you really claiming that there’s no one from government claiming the vaccines aren’t safe?”

                You’re garbage Jeff. There’s only about 5 people here that don’t agree.

                1. The only 5 people who think I am garbage are you and your little mean girl clique.

                  1. Hahahahahahahahaha

                    Overt, of all people, has even gotten fed up with fatass collectivistjeff.

                    1. Disagreeing with me is not the same as thinking that I’m garbage.

                      That is the problem with you and your mean girl clique. It’s a short step from disagreement to vilification.

                    2. Lol

                      Keep telling yourself you’re the victim, collectivistjeff. Maybe it’ll improve your social credit score.

              4. And no response about the non-stop propaganda every radio and TV commercial. Probably only happening in Michigan, right Jeff?

                1. You’re moving the goalposts. You wrote:

                  It’s not just that they’ve lied in the past, they’re lying now. The vaccines aren’t completely safe with no side effects, but they are insisting they are, because they can’t help themselves.

                  No one in a position of authority has asserted that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects”. You cannot produce any quotation to that effect because you know it is false. And so now you want to move the goalposts to some argument of what the word “safe” really means. Admit that you lied, that no one in a position of authority has ever claimed that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects” and then we can have a discussion of what the word “safe” really means.

                  1. Collectivistjeff is astoundingly desperate that people stop questioning the experts, politicians, and big pharma.

                    1. Go ahead and question the experts. But if your criticism of experts consists of anecdotes, the rantings of some guy with a Youtube channel, and what your Uncle Fester told you over dinner, then I’m going to laugh at you and mock you, because you deserve it.

                      Once again, show me any quotation that any one in a position of authority has said that the vaccines are “completely safe with no side effects”.

                    2. It’s like he can’t read the words that are clear for all to see in numerous posts.
                      Bet when he sees someone say dinger, he hears a different, much more objectionable word.

    4. Hey cytotoxic, remember how you spent a year shitting your pants and spending 16 hours a day posting at Reason.com that anyone who failed to wear a mask deserved to be shot and killed?

      1. You want me to remember something that I didn’t do?

        1. Except I posted a dozen quotes of you doing it last year. Lol.

  9. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1425184734553034757?s=19

    SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: “If you haven’t been vaccinated regarding the COVID problem, you need to get vaccinated. I’ve been vaccinated and I got COVID anyway.” [Video]

    1. Yes that’s right. The vaccine is not a magic bullet that prevents infection. The vaccine greatly reduces the risk of serious illness. Had he not been vaccinated, he might have wound up in the hospital or dead instead, especially considering his age.

      1. You and your ilk are a virus more dangerous to the rest of us than covid.

        1. Yup and there’s the Nardz that we’ve all come to know and love.
          Your opposition to the vaccine has nothing to do with health and everything to do with making a political statement. It is how you are participating in the RESISTANCE.

          1. RESIST!
            IMPEACH!
            #NOTMYPRESIDENT

            1. Gee, it’s almost as if Nardz is the mirror image of the #RESIST morons for the past 4 years…

              1. LOL. You were at the forefront here of it. You, white mike, dol, chipper, etc.

      2. Chris Christie survived covid without a jab.

        1. Yes, and?
          Anecdotes prove that vaccines don’t work, or something?

          1. If Chris Christie can survive covid without a jab, the vast vast vast vast majority of Americans will too.

            1. Because that one anecdote disproves all of the studies. Got it. Moron.

              1. Are you saying that the vast vast vast vast majority of Americans will die of covid and aren’t vaccinated? Because I’m pretty sure literally all the data says that’s 100% true.

                1. I am saying that relying on anecdotes, and only one specific cherry-picked anecdote to boot, to decide on whether or not to take the vaccine, is stupid and moronic.

                  1. People have the right to be stupid and moronic. You should know that better than anyone.

                  2. 99.97% survival is an anecdote? 80% of deaths were obese with one other comorbidity is an anecdote? Death rate for under 55 being negligible is an anecdote?

                    1. Anything that keeps cytotoxic the obese fat fuck welded to his aptly-named La-Z-Boy instead of having to make the pretense of telling his mom he’s looking for work while living in her basement is “data”. Anything that nullifies his fear fetish is “anecdote”.

                    2. Is being obese a capital crime in your political worldview?

                    3. No, and obese people would probably be wise to get vaccinated.
                      But other people aren’t responsible for their obesity, nor should they be punished or limited because obesity has created vulnerabilities for some people.
                      A 25 year old athlete and an obese 50 year old have vastly different risks from covid, and the 25 year old athlete shouldn’t be required to live like the obese 50 year old.

                    4. The oddity here is Tony once actually did argue for forcing obese people into diets.

                      But no Tony. The obese are free to lose weight. They are not free to force me to mitigate their risks for them.

                    5. I blame Ronald “ketchup is a vegetable” Reagan for the obesity epidemic. These things happen when you substitute industry interests for scientific knowledge.

                      We deal with deadly global pandemics by vaccinating everybody. We’ve known about this method for centuries. George Washington had his soldiers vaccinated from Smallpox. You not being vaccinated, even if you never die, makes you an incubator for the virus and for its continued evolution.

                      The only person here who wants to impose death and morbidity on other people is you, and you want to do it so you can maintain a political allegiance to pure stupidity. I pay good money for your education. Stop stealing from me.

                    6. “I blame Ronald “ketchup is a vegetable” Reagan for the obesity epidemic”

                      Lol, of course you do.

              2. No, but the fact that the vast majority of people (even fatties) survived it before there was a vaccine is pretty good evidence.

        2. He had a distinct weight advantage over the virus.

          1. sat right on it.

          2. Jeff tells Christie to hold his cake.

      3. The vaccine greatly reduces the risk of serious illness.

        But only until November.

      4. the vaccine doesn’t do a motherfucking thing except help control the herd. moooooooo

        1. So all of the studies were lies and fabrications?
          Pfizer et al. are on a plot for global domination with a fake vaccine?

          1. doesn’t make you not sick if you’re sick.
            doesn’t make you not get sick if you’re not sick.
            does???

            1. Does keep you out of the hospital (by far) if you get sick.

              1. there exists zero way to measure this.

                  1. every person who has the covids today and who isn’t testing for it or going to a hospital about it is fucking up your metric by like seventeen miles

                  2. Half of all infected are asymptomatic. Kind of skews the efficiacy estimates. Which is also listed as:

                    To be approved, vaccines are required to have a high efficacy rate of 50% or above.

                    From your link.

                    So natural body resistance is considered to have efficacy. Lol.

              2. Yes, when you only count people who go to the hospital instead of just test positive it’s amazing what you can show.

                1. Jeff doesn’t understand conditional probability just like he doesn’t understand 2 + 2 is not 5.

          2. Considering the virus is so readily survivable and their clinical trials included very few elderly or at risk patients…its possible most of the peoples natural immune systems did more than the vaccine and well never know. After all, T and b cells are very important immune factors against covid, and they aren’t stimulated by the mrna vaccines.

            1. its possible most of the peoples natural immune systems did more than the vaccine and well never know.

              No, this is testable. In their trials, the control group with their natural immune systems fared worse than the vaccine group, that is where the 90+% efficacy number comes from.

              Or is that data fraudulent?

              1. Lol. Did you actually research the data? The death rate was minimal in both groups. They used younger participants dummy.

              2. Well initial studies say they bind more broadly than natural antibodies but w/o sizable control groups….

                People should get vaccinated if they haven’t had covid to date..if they have it really is up to their additional risk factors…you are dealing with a virus that eventually will mutate to a harmless form…might be outbreaks till then but most likely will burn through the population quickly like the “cold that is going around.” Focus on vaccinating those that have not had covid and move on (and drop the masks..its just “check boxing” like taking temps when you go into a doc office from the cold….not effective).

          3. Which studies are you citing exactly? Because above you linked the initial interim study that has already been amended woth longer term study of effects.

          4. Surely a company with an oligopolistic market position that’s already collected 40 billion dollars in profit (not revenue, profit) on a vaccine that is being made mandatory despite lacking FDA approval and which won’t complete its safety data studies until 2023 would have no incentive whatsoever to downplay the risks and overstate the benefits of its drug.

            1. So Pfizer is defrauding the world with their vaccine in the pursuit of profit. Is that your take? And you know this how? Because you carefully examined their research and formed logical and sound judgments? Or because you’re thinking like a leftist and placing Pfizer in the role of BIG EVIL SCARY CORPORASHUN?

            2. Do you realize how much shit Pfizer would be in if they were to actually engage in that level of fraud? They would lose that $40 billion in a heartbeat, and much much more.

              1. I know. The government totally looks from fraud when they are openly pushing the vaccine in collusion with the companies are you that fucking retarded?

                1. And exempted them from being sued.

                  1. This isn’t important to the discussion.

                    —Lying Jeffy

      5. If you aren’t obese and under 55 you were never at great risk of serious illness fatty.

      6. Lmfao. That’s not the bullshit you were spewing 2 weeks ago, cytotoxic. Of course it’s fun to play the counterfactual game. “Just imagine what would have happened if he hadn’t been carrying around that lucky rabbit’s foot!”

        1. Here’s some more information about breakthrough infections.

          https://whyy.org/articles/what-is-breakthrough-covid-infection-how-can-i-avoid-it/

          As of July 30, 469,873 Delaware residents had been fully vaccinated. Of those, there have been 567 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 — or about 0.1% of vaccinated individuals. Twenty-two of the reported breakthrough cases resulted in hospitalizations, and eight people died, though a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Social Services said that does not mean COVID-19 was the cause of death.

          In New Jersey, more than 4.9 million residents had been fully vaccinated by July 19. Among those individuals, there have been 6,381 breakthrough infections — or 0.13%. Only about half of those people experienced symptoms. Only 0.004% of them required hospitalization, and 50 people, or 0.001%, have died, according to the New Jersey Department of Health.

          So, breakthrough infections remain rare.

          1. God. You can’t keep up with your own chosen sources narratives.

            https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/vaccinated-people-might-spread-covid-19-at-the-same-rate-as-unvaccinated-says-leaked-us-data/ar-AAMKrOf

            Do you get why nobody is trusting the CDC anymore you fat fuck? They are playing all sides except the one of individual choice.

            It is amazing how ignorant you remain constantly.

            1. The individualist remains undeterred in his defense of the government bureaucracy.

          2. So what defines rare? Is having a non vaccinated covid IFR of all age groups of .02% rare and less than for younger folks? I’m not sure besides emotion why we argue rare using percentages on breakthroughs but .02% is not rare on IFR and we use numbers?

            1. Lemmings have no problem talking out of both sides of their mouth.
              Age and underlying comorbidities are cause to dismiss concern over deaths among the vaccinated, but previous to vaccinations and among the unvaccinated totally irrelevant and no cause to prevent panic…

              https://twitter.com/YossiGestetner/status/1424891887710781441?s=19

              The AP is downplaying 100 deaths in in MA among fully vaccinated by noting that the average age was 82.5 and “the patients reported having underlying conditions.”

              Um, most Coronavirus deaths are among the old and/or among those with underlying conditions. [Link]

  10. Off topic, . . .

    The Democrats $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill includes a pathway to citizenship for ten million illegal immigrants.

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/566964-budget-reconciliation-package-includes-pathway-to-citizenship

    Trump supporters are sure to think of this as stuffing the ballot box with ten million votes; regardless of how you feel about that, how can an immigration provision be legal in a budget reconciliation bill?

    The reason a reconciliation bill requires a simple majority rather than the 60 votes necessary to clear a filibuster is because it’s limited to taxes and spending. Setting the rules for naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress separate from its power to tax and spend. There’s no way a bill that sets the rules of naturalization should clear the Senate with 50 votes + the Vice President–at least not until the Democrats ice the filibuster.

    1. Well, Ken, your own link has the answer to your question:

      Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget resolution package instructs lawmakers to chart a pathway to citizenship for millions of people while investing in border security.

      The bill text unveiled Monday includes some $107 billion for the Senate Judiciary Committee to spend on each, giving lawmakers a soft deadline of Sept. 15.

      So the reconciliation bill doesn’t actually grant citizenship to anyone. It instructs the Judiciary Committee to draft a bill that would do that.

      1. What would $107 billion buy for border security? Some sort of wall?

        1. It’s well established that walls don’t work. They’ll build a fence.

          1. Walls don’t work… except for in Israel, where they create a humanitarian crisis.

            But other than that, walls don’t do anything.

            1. Unless they’re made of cloth and worn over your mouth and nostrils…

              1. A wall of confederate general statues.

              2. Or placed around Pelosi’s palace as a defense against insurrectionists. Defended by not Democrats Dee and Jeffy.

                1. Yes R Mac, walls are for self-defense. The issue is whether you’re using them for that or using them as an expensive racist dick substitute for votes.

                  1. Thanks for admitting they work defending Pelosi’s palace against insurrectionists. I don’t think this proves the point you thought it would.

            2. Name one 2,000-mile wall that “worked.”

              1. China’s raising its hand

                1. I don’t understand why libertarians are arguing in favor of giant useless public works projects.

              2. The 1.4 million illegal immigrants being let in this year kind of show the walls work when you dont just leave the gate open as Biden is doing.

                1. You want to build that wall so high it keeps airplanes out?

                  It’s like you people have made it a political virtue to be as painfully simple-minded as you can possibly be.

    2. Reconciliation bill?
      What’s it reconciling, fantasy and reality? Because that will never pass then.

      1. It will pass without a single Republican vote and no filibuster.

        Budget reconciliation bills only require a simple majority vote, and the Democrats plan to pass the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill with all 50 democrats votes plus the Vice President as a tie-breaker.

  11. If you can be banned for stuff that is 100% true and sourced from the original documents, it’s not about ‘misinformation’, it’s about creating the Ministry of Truth.

    1. Information is misinformation.

    2. The federal government and Google are positioning themselves as the lawful arbiter of “Truth.”

  12. The problem with social media is that it doesn’t limit fame to 15 minutes.

  13. The government can do whatever the fuck they want, as long as the free shit continues to flow. It’s the American Way.

  14. My wife spends some time on Reedit (primarily for recipes and the such), but she has noticed that some platforms delete “anti-vaxxers,” apparently by monitoring their use of specific words.

    So now vaccinating is called “dancing,” one who is vaccinated is called a “dancer,” etc., etc.

    So, yeah, their opinions are still there. Good luck getting rid of that. (not supporting the anti-vaxxers, but I do support their right to speak freely)

  15. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1425232119261974534?s=19

    JUST IN – YouTube takes down a second video from U.S. Senator Rand Paul and suspends him from posting for a week over alleged #COVID19 misinformation.

    1. cytotoxic the obese fat fuck will be around imminently to tell you why a senator with a medical degree is misinformation but Pfizer’s PR department is the unvarnished gospel truth.

      1. I hate to go there but you have to understand who manages content for the social media giants…these are not engineers or even marketing types but by and large are democratic/liberal/Ivy league/NYC “liberal art” grads who by family or friends or connections get into these censorship jobs to push their agenda….it started a long time ago when hedge funds provided capital to the social media companies and directed their friends/relatives to get high paying gigs at Twitter, FB, Google and so on…think of the typical NYC raised elite Ivy League asshole and there you go…sorry not many Catholics, Protestants, Irish, Italian, and so on in these roles…look at the folks in these positions…and you see their agenda..hasn’t changed much since their socialist grandparents took over CCNY…

        1. I agree with your assessment, but I’d also argue that US government actors have very recently taken much more than an “advisory” role to the traditional moderating elements at Facebook, Twitter, Google, whatever. Much like the “advisory” role the US government played in the early years of the Vietnam War.

          These media giants have immense control over public opinion, and it’s no coincidence that they’re in real-time lockstep alignment with whatever bullshit the government puts out about Covid. It’s a real blessing that guys like Rand Paul are still in the legislature, but they’re few and far in between. Most of the other shit-heels are in for perpetual re-election and the perks of office, and they better keep on the good side of the media giants for that to happen.

          There’s definitely something in it for these anti-speech corporations at the end of all this, and hopefully it’s not just the elimination of their competition. Time will tell, and I wish some real journalist would just follow the money, name names, and get some fuckers thrown in prison.

  16. Apparently “ivermectin” is a verboten word

  17. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1425138121428045833?s=19

    JUST IN – CCP to crack down on “unhealthy” Karaoke songs. China’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism announced it would form “expert teams” to compile a list of illegal songs, according to communist state media.

    1. Fuck yes! Underground karaoke featuring banned music!

      1. Ourlaw country, wooooooo!

  18. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1425139413911281669?s=19

    For all the people terrified of losing their job for standing up for their rights and principles… how many of your principles are you willing to give up to keep that ‘job’?
    What line has to be crossed where you’ll say ‘NO’?
    If you can’t answer this, you’re in trouble.

    Are you willing to lie?
    Steal?
    Cheat?
    Betray a friend?
    Betray family?
    Hurt yourself?
    Hurt another person?

    These are serious questions.

  19. https://twitter.com/ChrisCillizza/status/1424875710615851009?s=19

    I find I am struggling more in coping with the anxiety caused by the Delta variant than I was during the pre-vaccine days.

    I have no idea why since I am vaccinated.

    Of course, anxiety isn’t based on reason and rationality.

    1. Wow, worth reading the responses.
      Yikes

      1. There have been averaging fewer than 500 COVID deaths in the U.S. per day for over three months. It’s been around 300 for the past two months.

        1. But these blue anon Karens are terrified for their 2 year olds because of the unvaxed!

      2. We are so fucked.

  20. Google run by bolsheviks just blocked Rand Paul not citing any specific “false” science but just…well they wanted to…

    The NYT, Corporate Media and Social Media are just like the old Bolsheviks and should be called as such…they are attacking our Bill of Rights and are a threat to our liberty and republic and time Reason called them out..no matter their background or tribe…mfers

    1. Gogglers are pretentious assholes.

    2. He didn’t even state any facts other than the obvious: that they can’t jail us all. It was a call for resistance, a pure opinion piece, not an informational video.

  21. Not all censorship is bad, and not all censorship violates the first amendment. Get your heads out of your asses.

    Start by telling us how to solve the problem of COVID misinformation in the internet age without any censorship.

    1. Not all censorship violates the First Amendment, but yes, all censorship is bad.

      1. What about gag orders?

        1. Ask your dom.

          1. I am a claustrophobic Sagittarius. How about you wear the restraints?

            1. I think chumby is a bit out of your league

    2. Step 1: don’t blow your credibility by lying to everyone

      Oh, wait: you didn’t do step 1. It’s not really on every else for losing faith in you now.

      1. I would appreciate some content to your replies.

        1. Tony:

          The only thing you have to fear is your lies not being believed, not your truths. Truth gets out.

          1. So there you go, Tony. You answered your own question. You don’t need censorship unless you fear your lies not being believed. The truth gets out.

            Really, if the only way your institutions can compete in the marketplace of ideas is by censoring the competition, then I guess it’s not truth. According to you.

            1. I said nothing about the virtue of “censoring the competition.” Specifically I was referring to censoring lies. We only need to get the lifeboat to the island, not protect it from leaking forever.

            2. Look, you’re not disagreeing with me because you’ve thought this through rationally. You’re disagreeing with me because you have a physiological response to the word “censorship” and a certain egocentric predisposition to self-righteous absolutism.

              This is of course stupid, because you do support certain censorship, like national security secrets, not teaching children Critical Race Theory, and probably dozens of other things. It’s the parents who don’t censor their children at certain times who we think are doing something wrong.

              A vast propaganda machine spreading lies that get hundreds of thousands of people killed is a thing that might warrant attention by the public it is harming. Furthermore, actually free people get to decide whether it does for themselves.

              1. Tony
                July.7.2021 at 1:57 pm

                It would be a mistake to take my posts too seriously, as I have no deeply held beliefs.

              2. Censorship is freedom!

                1. That very specifically depends on what you’re censoring.

                  1. Lmao, really Tony?

    3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Freedom of speech).

      I don’t expect you do understand a word of this, but it must be repeated here: (forgive the formatting)

      But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
      It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

      First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means
      of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the
      worse for being common.

      […]

      It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warrant their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonisation of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a “devil’s advocate.” The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him is known
      and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the mean-time we may rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it.

      The important thing to note, here, is that this essay was written at a time when Newtonian physics was thought to be the absolute, correct expression of the physical world. Mill’s point is not lost. Had any dissenting opinion not been allowed to question what was, at Mill’s time “settled Science”, it’s very likely Einstein never would have been a household name.

      1. So let virologists question the consensus wisdom about COVID. They can knock themselves out and win a Nobel prize. Not just that one, but the one for Peace, as they will have discovered that millions of people didn’t actually die. Perhaps accountants should join the fun too.

        Billions of yokels being led by the throat by Rupert Murdoch? Why does their collective stupidity have to be my actual existential problem?

        The interesting question comes when, say, they become an actual democratic majority, possessing both genocidal stupidity and the legitimate right to decide things for me, something they thankfully don’t actually have except by rube-goldberg concessions to dead slaveowners.

        I’d be in quite a pickle, democrat that I am. I’d have to really think about when it becomes okay to sacrifice democracy for tyranny. That’s just the sort of conundrum that gets my juices flowing, I’ll tell you that much.

        Right now I’m simply hypothetically contemplating the necessity of government forcing media not to publish certain things in the name of public safety, a right it has always had anyway.

          1. Scientists hon.

            1. I’m sorry you’re not educated enough to read actual scientific studies and realize that “consensus wisdom” isn’t an actual scientific term but a political one.

              I hope you realize this makes me realize you’re a hack though.

              1. I’ve read enough to know that whatever you read on some blog that confirms your political worldview isn’t science either.

                It’s like decades in with this “we can’t possibly know if the world is round because some neckbeard on the internet said it’s flat teach the controversy!11!” crap. I’m not convinced you’ve read anything, literally anything, since you were forced to in school.

                1. Tony
                  July.7.2021 at 1:57 pm

                  It would be a mistake to take my posts too seriously, as I have no deeply held beliefs.

                  1. Probably also a mistake to become obsessed with me. I’ve broken a heart or two.

                    1. Nobody’s obsessed. You’re a funny bitch to slap around.

                2. “I’ve read enough to know that whatever you read on some blog that confirms your political worldview isn’t science either.”

                  What blog are you referring to? I haven’t referenced a single blog. Ever in my time commenting here. What a weird response. And by weird I mean stupid.

                  Your comic books aren’t science!

                  That’s just as relevant of a point. But please go back to “consensus wisdom” and explain the meaning of that in scientific terms, hack.

                  1. It just means what it means. What’s “scientific terms”? Latin?

        1. Einstein was a patent clerk

        2. Youtibe censored doctors and virologists who disagreed with the CDC dumbfuck.

          1. As I predicted, he wouldn’t understand a word of it.

          2. I can’t account for the actions of private companies. Many of them do things I don’t like.

    4. “the problem of COVID misinformation”…. is what?

      That not everyone is willing to accept as true the statements of your chosen sources?

      Normally I tend to accept with what comes out a peer-reviewed studies, but when I start getting a sense that the authors were letting their conclusions determine their facts, I get a bit annoyed.

      Case in point, in spite of what the official statements are, I have experienced firsthand that masks DO inhibit proper airflow. And not just my perceptions, but numbers on tests run by medical personnel.

      So let’s keep the discussion open, and passably civil, ok?

      Or, to put it another way, let’s have some other examples of censorship that is not bad.

  22. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1425296960769175554?s=19

    If they’re saying it directly, they know they’re losing. Expect the psychopathic.
    [Link below]

    1. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/politics/covid-unvaccinated-fear-analysis/index.html

      (CNN)The Covid-19 vaccines work to greatly lessen the chance of a person getting a symptomatic case, getting hospitalized or dying. Yet nearly a third of eligible Americans haven’t gotten a single dose and more than 40% have not been fully vaccinated.

      So what does work to get more people to take the vaccine?

      One answer seems clear in the polling and in the real world: fear. Fear of getting the virus and of losing freedoms looks like it motivates people to get vaccinated.

      1. Among those who are extremely or very concerned about the virus, about 39% of the unvaccinated say they’re likely to get the vaccine. This drops to about 30% who are somewhat concerned. It declines to only about 12% with those who are not very concerned about the virus, and a mere 5% of those who are not concerned at all about the vaccine.

        Kaiser Family Foundation polling confirms this trend. Of those who are open to getting the vaccine but aren’t sure (i.e. the wait and see group), 45% are concerned they could get seriously ill from coronavirus. This drops to just 8% among those who say they will definitely not get the vaccine.

        These findings also comport with what I showed last week: The vaccinated are most likely to fear the virus most. Protecting themselves from getting sick or fear of getting sick was the No. 1 and 2 reasons respondents who are vaccinated said they got the vaccine in a June Kaiser poll.

        Fear, not surprisingly, is a powerful emotion. For those who don’t fear the virus, fear of losing their job may be the answer to getting them vaccinated.

    2. Some good secondary citations on the thread in the Twitter link

  23. Ipsos showed this past week that 33% of unvaccinated adults said an employer requiring them to get the shot would make them likely to get one. That may seem low, but it was actually the highest rated action of any tested to see if the unvaccinated would likely get a vaccine. The only thing that came close was when respondents were told that they would get a bonus or raise (26%).

    This 33%, however, may be an underestimate. Back in June, Kaiser put the question more bluntly. When non-self employed and currently working adults were asked whether they would get vaccinated or leave their job over a vaccine mandate, 42% said they’d get the shot. Half (50%) said they’d leave their job.

    According to the Kaiser poll, about half of all adults who are unvaccinated are non-self employed workers.

    This means that about one-quarter of all unvaccinated adults in this country would probably become vaccinated with a vaccine mandate at their job. That would be nearly 20 million extra people.

    Fear of missing out on extracurricular activities seemed to work to get some people to take the vaccine in France. A record number of people got vaccinated after the government announced that people would need to produce a negative Covid test or be vaccinated in order to enter bars, restaurants and for travel on trains and planes.

    Of course, there will always be people who won’t get vaccinated no matter what. About half of America’s unvaccinated adult population say they’ll never get a vaccine. The key is to convince the other half who aren’t vaccinated yet to get it. Fear does seem to be working with them.

    1. Oops, this is part of the CNN article above

  24. Your argument is that these people will always be idiots so no use in even trying to stop it.

    I mean…at this point, I almost agree with you.

  25. “People are literally dying.”

    I love when memes become reality.

  26. I am generally a fan of this website, but they have really drunk the Kool-Aid on the necessity and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines.

    From https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM

    Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine said individuals formerly infected with COVID-19 are seven times more likely than vaccinated people to fight off the virus. This specific number appears to be based on some research out of Israel that I have heard about.

  27. Dr. Malady is not an anti-VAXer by the way. He also say this:

    The pandemic of the unvaccinated is a misnomer. It’s a pandemic of the non-immune. More precisely, it’s a series of regional outbreaks in select pockets of the country with low population immunity. Same take-home message though: If you’re not immune, get immune by getting vaxed.

    I would correct his final sentence to this:

    If you’re not immune *and you are in a risk group,* get immune by getting vaxed. Even the Kool-Aid drinkers here at Reason seem to understand that the infection fatality rate for people who are not in a risk group is below 1%. It’s probably closer to .2% according to blank, the legendary Stanford epidemiologist.

    https://wethepundit.com/stanfords-dr-john-ioannidis-destroys-the-covid-lockdown-narrative/

    Note about references: although the links I provided are from popular media sources, they reference credible mainstream researchers and point back toward the original sources for those who are interested. By point back, I mean there’s enough information in the articles to locate the original sources yourselves.

    1. Oops. I forgot to replace the placeholder word “blank” above with the name of the researcher. It is Dr. John Ioannidis.

  28. I am not unsympathetic to idea of banning outright falsehoods; several based nations like Taiwan do this. But later they’ll use this power to politically incorrect truths like high black criminality or low black IQ, so we must stand on the First Amendment or perish.

  29. I have a problem banning speech because it is an inalienable right. It is the ONLY right that actually proteus from falsehoods intended to coerce us.

    Instead of banning speech with censorship, the intentional speaking falsely should be a crime.

    The difference being transparency and the exposing of secrecy and conspiracy. The accusation of a lie must be supported by irrefutable evidence in a public court. The accuser facing the same penalty as the accused.

    Because the “victim” is the public, the public need to be present at court proceedings.

    There’s my personal “fuck you” to secret societies.

    1. “Protects”

  30. disagreement, dissent = disinformation in this Administrations eyes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.