The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Sorry, Royal Institute, not Royal Society... (nm) Archived Message

    Posted by Ian M on July 17, 2022, 7:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, Royal Institute, not Royal Society... (nm)"

    Thanks for the background on Breadtube, didn't know it was so loosely organised or that the ideology was so variable. Thorn certainly doesn't come across as an anarchist from what little I've seen...

    Re: the Brownstone Institute, I see the interview by Blumenthal of the GBD's Jay Bhattacharya & Martin Kulldorf is now available again (I wasn't able to find or view it last time I tried, though Blumenthal hasn't made a stink about it being censored as you would expect, so maybe it was just technical issues on my end):

    https://rokfin.com/stream/12315/Foreign-Agents-16--The-War-on-Scientific-Dissent-wJay-Bhattacharya--Martin-Kulldorf

    Blumenthal puts the question of Koch Bros and other right-wing industry funding to them around 25:30 which they deny in the specific Koch instance and then point out that industry funding is across the board in medicine. Maybe there's more to the story than that, and you can't deny that many the libertarian right were keen on GBD for reasons of getting back to biz as usual. I would read those critiques or investigations but yes, it doesn't fit with MB's editorial stance so GZ probably wouldn't be the ones to break it.

    Otherwise you write:

    'As for her deceiving, I don't she was - she probably doesn't agree with your formulation about vaccine safety (asking for years long safety records in a pandemic has never been the policy afaik and seems unrealistic (they don't do it for the yearly flu vaccine)), so at the most it would be unintentional deception (in your opinion).'

    She says that: 'we can be very confident that the covid vaccine isn't going to have any surprises long term because of how it works' (13:30ish) then launches into a generic description of how vaccines work in general without addressing the novel technology involved with RNA, the fact that 5 year studies are usually required before a vaccine goes to market, the concerns about heart conditions in young men or any of the other issues that have cropped up, eg: the menstrual irregularities which GZ were among the first to report on and which are only now starting to get reluctant, hedged msm coverage:

    https://thegrayzone.com/2021/08/13/cdc-fda-women-covid-19-vaccines-menstrual-disruption/
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/well/live/covid-vaccines-periods.html

    So 'we [who?] can be very certain' is a political, not scientific statement, and the info is available to anybody researching it - as she would have had to do, one assumes, to do a video about vax hesitancy. So that points to deliberate deception for me, or just massaging the truth to get the desired outcome from a population as with the govt's 'safe and effective' messaging. It's dishonest (not to mention a violation of the medical principle of informed consent) to not note the side-effects and deaths that have occurred linked to taking the vaccine IMO, even if you then point out that these are extremely rare and it's still worth taking it because of the higher risks from getting covid.

    Just gimme some truth!





    cheers,
    I

    Message Thread: