- Re: Thanks Walter, for doing the leg work, and showing Archived Message
Posted by walter
on May 9, 2020, 12:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Thanks Walter, for doing the leg work, and showing "
|
Hi Sinister Burt. I don't think the Robert Kennedy quote was offered by Margo to indicate an anti-vaccination position but as a counter to Wikipedia's matter-of-fact denunciation of her. Can I say where I'm coming from - I am trying to make sense of what I read. I suggest the critics of Mikovits here aren't doing that, and neither are most of the material they are citing which is trying to prove she is a quack or even mentally ill - this latter was Adamski's first attempt, a crude hit piece by a psychiatrist posting under the banner of mental health, trying to pass round the 'bonkers' message about a member of the public, someone who was not his patient and that he had not interviewed. A pretty clear, serious breach of professional ethics, in my view. Would you agree with that!? Your source respectfulinsolence.com does not appear to be trying to get to the truth; when I see 'bonkers' in the introduction I don't expect objectivity - is that not reasonable? This was about the blurb to the movie. It's not bonkers, but a bit of a stretch of things; but of things that are happening or threatening to happen in places, or seem to be in the pipeline. It asserts that It asserts she is a crank, and also claims that Andrew Wakefield was never a good scientist. This shows too much of their slip to indicate objectivity. If 'ant-vax' can be used as a slur (without even requiring evidence of the person having that status), then can not the same be said of someone who asserts that people critical of vaccines are bad scientists? It's obvious they are preaching to their choir, who actually get a nod in the article, ie regular readers. Anyway it's clear not to expect objectivity, and there is none of that - it's got so much nasty commentary, you would need to be bonkers yourself to look there for the truth. Don't people know that sarcasm isn't evidence? Looking through it for anything of evidential quality is quite a frustrating experience. This caught my eye: "She also cites the bogus claim that the flu vaccine increases your chance of getting COVID-19 by 36%. It doesn’t. Unsurprisingly, hydroxychloroquine makes an appearance, too, because of course it does. Like so many hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theorists do, Willis and Mikovits portray the drug as a powerful treatment for COVID-19 that “they” don’t want you to know about, even though hydroxychloroquine probably doesn’t work. Mikovits is all-in with conspiracy theories about it, though." A good scientist would not assert this as a bogus claim; it might be a premature claim but the strongest piece of numerical evidence (there aren't many either way) supports it, as I think I showed in my reply to Adamski. Neitheer should they say that HCQ probably doesn't work on the basis of one trial when a large number of doctors seem to be saying it was effective to an extent. They are entitled to a view but not submit it as evidence of false claims. Here is what Dr Mikovits said about HCQ in the film under discussion, the 25 minute one I transcribed: "JM: The AMA was saying doctors will lose their license if they use hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that's been on the central list of essential medicine for 70 years. Dr Fauci calls that anecdotal. It's not story-telling if we have thousands of pages of data saying it's effective against this family of viruses. This is essential medicine and they keep it from the people" Seems factual to me. It IS the most widely used drug for Covid-19. Maybe there's more in another film that they have seen, but they do not present it, of course. For me, the only use that can be made of such prejudiced places is when they offer evidence that you can check. There are lot of links there, so there may well be evidence buried amongst the mood music. You're welcome to show me some but I can't go there and find it. There is no-one on the planet with enough time to sift evidence from all the innuendo and sarcasm that is sparked off about people once they fall foul of the medical establishment and go public. This is to me a highly remarkable phenomenon, which I have followed for years. Probably qualified people, with twice the brains I have switch them off and cheer every 'blow' or crap point without a care as to its validity. Then they start to quote each other as if it were reference material (which they begin to believe it is), and eventually this dog's dinner is served up to someone as evidence they are expected to refute. Needless to say SB, I don't place you in that bracket! I'll reply to your other posts shortly. |