Antisemitism and Adventist Participation in the COVID Conspiracy Movement

Are you sure you want to say this kind thing? This is really easy to misinterpret by readers and should the moderators see this you might get banned as a result.

  1. Nielsen data for 2022 rank the Fox News round table program “The Five ” as the most watched show in cable news with an average of 3.5 million viewers. The figure tops “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” which averaged 3.3 million viewers for the year.

  2. Rachael’s program has an about 1.5 million each Monday night.

  3. Rachel Maddow speaks highly of Tucker Carlson in a new interview: ‘Tucker’s doing great right now’

Isabella Zavarise

August 7, 2022·

  • Rachel Maddow credited Tucker Carlson with giving her a start on his show “Tucker” in 2005.
  • In an interview, the MSNBC host compared Carlson’s hosting style to watching professional baseball.
  • “There’s respecting the game, in terms of people who are doing well and people who are good at it,” she said.

Rachel Maddow spoke highly of Tucker Carlson in an interview in the September issue of Vanity Fair, published on Sunday, saying, “Tucker’s doing great right now.”

It was Maddow’s first first interview since scaling back her duties as the host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC.

  1. You guys need to widen you perspective. Or at least the sites where you get new.

I read a Los Angelus Times article last spring about late night talk shows. It discussed Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, etc. The article told of each one. But they left out one, in fact the one that was most newsworthy, Gutfield. In fact, he had just started that show a few months before, and it had become the one with the most viewers. He beat out all the old guard,

Yet Gutield was not even mentioned. If you read that paper, that news, really the most astounding bit of news was absent. That makes the Times just a propaganda sheet, not a newspaper.

And you need the news, not propaganda.

My point is that unless you get out of the liberal bubble, you will not know all the facts or what is really going on. Read Realclearpolitics, or listen to fox, at least a bit.

God’s blessing.

1 Like

“The truth changes according to what point of view is beholding it.”

I think of this bit of wisdom given by the communist father of the protagonist in a novel I am reading when I read the face mask/Fox News/ MSNBC, etc bickering in this blog stream.

2 Likes

I teach history, and I have a side-hobby in the history and historiography of science. There are very clear times when experts are wrong, and all the people who I like who write about science, are also clear on this: experts get it wrong. Sometimes it has catastrophic consequences and people die.

But science is an iterative process, so we add and reshape the knowledge as we go. A pandemic is not the best time to be testing things and there is simply no way to know what will happen until it does, and you won’t know how effective your responses are until you try them, and what works in one place, may not work in another, because you have no controlled environment. Some guy running around shouting they’re wrong because they googled it in the bathroom isn’t on the same level.

Also, do you understand the fundamental issues with peer reviewed research,

I do. I also know that careers can be made and lost by either defending a thesis, or by showing that a thesis is wrong. Anyone with a ‘wrong’ paper will have all sorts of people champing at the bit to take it down. This has happened quite a bit.

and that science is not a democracy which necessarily involves a certain amount of human subjectivity, confirmation bias and open-endedness, so all scientific knowledge has an “our current best guess” quality to it?

I’m not sure why it should be a democracy, it’s a hyperspecialized discipline and therefore has a set of rules that the average people will unable to meet or understand. It has rules because the average person’s cognitive patterns are inadequate and faulty, and if you want to engage, you need to learn the ways to overcome those patterns. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t say ‘this is our current best guess’ - except it’s not a guess, it’s a process. The information leads us to say ‘so far’. The model is self-correcting and therefore will have errors in it, but that doesn’t mean the people who think there are errors in it are correct.

5 Likes

lol the whole SDA religion is foundered on a conspiracy theory!

3 Likes

This is an easily disproved, unscientific assertion. While field theory, for example, is admittedly difficult for a layperson to understand, the rules by which physicists have arrived at their current theories are so simple that a third grader can grasp them as easily as a middle school student can understand the problems with the peer review process, as discussed in the article.

The consistent misreadings of academic papers here has put that chestnut to bed.

I’m absolutely certain science shouldn’t be a “one person one vote” process, as that could only ever be called “politics”, and not even political science.

I’m (still) unclear what you meant by democracy in this case, so chose a definition that roughly looks like ‘anybody can contribute’ which I disagree with because of the aforementioned skill requirement.

This is why the current stifling of dissenting opinions and labeling them as “misinformation”, or simplistically dismissing experts who disagree with a consensus of the expert community as “conspiracy theorists”, is fallacious reasoning and anathema to science.

All true, if they turn out to be true and made good faith. However, the last 40 years and especially the last decade, has shown that that is absolutely not true. The scientific community has closed ranks against certain ideas because it’s very clear they are ideologically funded, and they are almost invariably on the right.

The website has eaten your comment so I unfortunately can’t see it anymore to respond to.

3 Likes

I didn’t say this was known up front.

I know, and I’m not imputing to you that motive, but it’s normally the next step in the line of reasoning and I wanted to close that off asap.

By September 2020 we knew children weren’t at any significant risk of death, plus common sense will tell you that black and brown kids were going to disproportionately suffer if they are forced to learn from home

You said you’re in Cali, I’m in England, so our experiences will be slightly different. We had opened up again roughly by September. Teaching Unions wanted them closed again at Christmas (as the teachers are the ones to be affected) and they opened again in February. The US saw a similar rise around Christmas with Omicron. The issue is that while children may not be affected, teachers are. Who is going to force them to put themselves at literal risk of death?

I think lockdowns were justifiable because we knew so little but as time went on, and we saw what population was impacted, the most the elderly and those with diabetes and other serious health problems, we needed to adjust And anyone who tried to do that as a governor or mayor was demonized.

Indeed, but it was heavily politicized in the US, (and still is) and much of the noise to signal was rhetorical arguments about the collective responsibility vs hyper-individualism, and they tend to fall along partisan lines.

But I do blame those who just wanted to slap the label of “miss information “or “ Conspiracy theories “or “fanatical, right wingers “on anyone who disagreed with closing schools or locking down cities or imposing mask mandates.

I agree in principle, except there were people who were pushing misinformation, conspiracy theories, and they, (unfortunately for your case), tended to be on the right. While a broken clock might end up being right, they weren’t being right for the right reasons (and the hulabaloo around the Hopkins paper is precisely a good example of that). If you are going to argue a point, you need to make sure your arguments are impeccable, and if the right had any impeccable points, they never displayed them, but they were very good at cherry picking parts they liked (Hopkins for example again) and ignoring all the points they didn’t. Of course, there’s some interesting work into Left-wing Authoritarianism coming out…

When the medical experts are purposely giving false information, of course people are going to become distrustful.

Absolutely true. But it’s a condition of those on the right that they are generally distrustful of all authorities, and that distrust is amplified heavily through those pundits on the Right - you know, the ones who fed the hysteria about the vaccine, but took it themselves :wink: There’s quite a few papers that show how conspiracy theorists meld with distrust of institutions (eg here).

But I do not see any interest in the media to really look at how we handled it put politics aside and analyze what this country did. Because we have set a precedent in squelching information online and labeling it as misinformation which should scare every American

I think that will take time, but I’m interesting in what online information was correct - as in, it was objective and expert-led - but was squelched?

4 Likes

Thanks for mentioning you’re from England. I find it fascinating to talk to people from diff parts of world and get their perspectives. In my city, schools were closed for over a full year! They did not open in September. And we knew by September who the most vulnerable were, the risk of death to a teacher under 50 with no serious underlying issues was EXTREMELY low. Could we have arranged some alternatives for those teachers least at risk? I guess I’m speaking more for the way it was handled in my area. It was a blanket closure for all teachers and all students which I completely disagree with. And the data did not support that.

No doubt some we’re pushing disinformation. But the left did the same thing , just in a diff way. Here in US we had nonstop coverage of every horrible case and the point was drilled over and over how dangerous this was, to the point where people were so panicked that they thought a COVID diagnosis was a death sentence. One Gallup poll showed that 40% of democrats here thought that
The hospitalization rate for a COVID case was 50%! That means nearly half of Democrats thought if you catch Covid, you have a 50-50 chance of ending up in the hospital. When the actual hospitalization rate was 2 to 3% of the overall population, and when you look at specific age groups, anyone under 50 the chances less than 1%. This shows that the non-stop only negative coverage wildly exaggerated the risk to the entire population and to me, that is just as bad as any miss information.

No doubt the right was more against the vaccine. But if trump had been in office and imposed a vaccine mandate, 100% guaranteed the media here and the left would not have supported it as they did with Biden.

And for me, the biggest issue was the mandate, not the vaccine. In my city, if you didn’t get the vaccine, you lost your right to a public education, and to work for the city or the county, which is what I do. The thought that an emergency vaccine for a virus That has a mortality rate well under 1% for the vast majority of the population was mandatory or you lose your job and your children can’t go to school was going way, way too far! And all those decisions were imposed by the left, I live in a very liberal city. And many of their policies well into the pandemic made absolutely no sense. In Los Angeles our health Director attended the Super Bowl while I couldn’t sit alone in my office with the door closed unless I had a mask on, It was absolutely ridiculous. No science at all behind that.

I honestly don’t think it’s going to happen. This fundamentally changed life here for everyone and I see absolutely no interest in looking back and analyzing the results. Anyone who said the virus began in a lab was banned in fb and propagating misinformation be abuse Fauci said it didn’t come from a lab. After weeks of drilling he finally admitted this was possible and so did other experts. But my point is why couldn’t someone share that idea if they chose to? They had to get their accounts banned? Now I realize it hasn’t been proven, but that’s kinda the point. I we know how closed China is when it comes to sharing information, and if it can’t be proven that it came from a lab, it also cannot be proven that it came from that wet market or bats in a cave near the lab. Yet that was taken as the only truth that could be repeated online. When in fact it could very well be wrong! It hasn’t been proven to come from bats or a wet market or whatever. Yet that was allowed and the theory that it came from a virology lab was banned? This is unjustifiable and scary!

I really do fear as a society we’re breaking, left and right. Trust is really low on both sides. Yeah many on the right here doubted the vaccine but many in the left took measures to an absurd level.

I’ll close with This lol, I truly believe that the left here in the United States over emphasized the risk and miss stated the danger to the public in order to implement socialistic programs. I’ll give you an example in my area, many businesses, restaurants, etc. were closed for months Manny went out of business and in their place my state started mailing out stimulus checks and developed a policy where a renter cannot get evicted even if they don’t pay rent and that policy has been in place for over two years now. Life here is 100% back to normal. Yet that policy is still in place meaning that if a renter today in January 2023 is not paying rent and has not paid rent for 2 1/2 years they cannot get evicted yet the owner must still make their mortgage payments. sensible pandemic, relief was understandable. But many of the policies implemented on an emergency basis were done using the pandemic as a justification. When the death rate has been overstated, the hospitalization rate has been overstated. The risk to the general population has been overstated, but I feel all of that was done with the end goal of justifying implementation of policies they would not be able to implement if it were not for Covid.

Take care and have a great sabbath! Good chatting with you!

2 Likes

So much for “impeccable”.

The assertion that the right never displayed its arguments is not only not impeccable, it is a logistical and logical nonstarter.

The first question to be asked of one making such a claim is exactly how much effort went into trying to find opposing expert research, or is the person merely one of scientism’s sycophants who assumes that anyone who doubts the high priests of his cult is a deplorable heretic, undoubtedly funded by unscrupulous ideologues, and therefore undeserving of any serious consideration?

IOW, the right may have already proved its case but the left hasn’t or won’t accept the verdict.

Furthermore, few private citizens have the financial or legal wherewithal to initiate such an exhaustive investigation so the funding would naturally have to come from a source with deep pockets.

In the case of China, an honest attempt to get to the bottom of the question would be exceedingly expensive, and might even cost a person extended incarceration or his freedom for life.

Secondly, alternative views have been routinely “assumed guilty until proven innocent” since someone invented the derogatory cliche “we’re from the government and we’re here to help you”. Thus dissenting ideas have most recently been denied access to the WWW and other media for no reason other than that their views do not conform to the Big tech/Big Pharma/Big Government narrative. This situation makes finding contrarian sources, no matter their credentials, very difficult. It is a tautology to say that people involved in a cover-up are typically recalcitrant, vehemently averse or may even lash out violently, at the suggestion that they should provide assistance to those looking to uncover their activities.

But most importantly, one cannot demonstrate that the opposition never showed its evidence, or establish any statement of what anyone didn’t do, as there is no way to prove a negative. So while it is admittedly contradictory to say that one should “never say never”, that does not mean that the adage is untrue.

Hopefully you see not only that fallacious argumentation as quoted above does nothing to prove anything but also you agree that obviously and inherently biased rhetoric is antithetical to the promotion of fair and reasonable conversations in any situation.

Otherwise it’s clear that instead of seeking truth, you are looking for a fight in order to somehow prove that which cannot be proven, i.e., that any human is absolutely right.

Having said all that, I will look forward to-if not an abject mea culpa-from the powers that be, then at least less didactic and more forthright comments from the left as further revelations about the collusion between these Big Three come to light, in addition to what Elon Musk-I know, an ideologue-has already presented. In a kinder, gentler future I would be interested to have more about details about how and why those looking for more wholistic, and less authoritarian, responses to the COVID were systematically stifled and suppressed in the interest of profiting off the pandemic.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Coming from a teacher and history buff, this statement seems either intentionally deceptive or sadly amnesiatic; as if made by a con person or a mental neophyte who’s believes the history of the world started this morning.

Any child of the 60’s has seen a long list of conspiracy theories promoted by the left come and go, starting with the charge that the US performed “military exercises” in Viet Nam at the behest of Exxon, then allegations in the 70’s that nuclear power would be the end of civilization, followed by the left’s alarmist belief that Reagan’s election was a precursor to WWIII, up to and through more recent times when Gore was supposedly wrongfully deprived of the presidency and Trump is alleged to have an unsavory-but as yet unsubstantiated-affinity for Vladimir Putin.

As a long time supporter of “none of the above” opinion in regards to both religion and politics, I find it laughable when one side ignores or forgets it’s history in this manner and claims the moral high ground, as if refusing to remember one’s previous sexual dalliances magically restores one’s virginity.

Even more condescending and risible is when either coterie gratuitously admits, “Yes, we are evil.” but immediately equivocates with “But not as evil as them.” as if the fires of hell will somehow be made less hot and hurtful especially for them, this being god and Satan’s way of acknowledging their “somewhat less guilty” pretentiousness.

:smiling_imp:

And BTW, if you want to simplistically lump me in with all the other conspiracy theorists who distrust experts who insist that they are the only trustworthy people on the planet, you know I can’t stop you.

Just as you know that stereotypes are never valid, nor a true representation of anyone in any arbitrarily delineated gro…oops, there’s that “never” word again….

:innocent:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.