[as shown by Stanford Epidemiology Professor John Ioannidis et al. ] - Ioannidis showed VERY early on in the "pandemic" COVID was a nothingburger. Anyone who spread the fear and apocalypse nonsense was spreading disinformation. Glad you name checked Swan - one of the most egregious jab pushers.
I'll never forget him saying in 2021 (unfortunately I can't locate the video ad now) that 'we already know what the side effects are, so there are no nasty unknown side effects around the corner'. On black box provisionally approved therapeutics still in phase three trials. WTF.
'misinformation' is publishing information that is wrong - publishing untruths, irrespective of intention? Mmm. Molto difficili!
Like all legislation ... or rules for life ... or moral principles ... or moral do's and don'ts, the issue is that WORDS are used - words that have definitional ambiguity.
In respect of the photo/footage of the young woman (actress?), supposedly in hospital with C19, its moral standing (to me) is hardly different whether she was an actress or whether she was a real cherry-picked patient. The issue for me was the intent of deception ... of some organisation/group or person deliberately fomenting dubious perceptions of reality. Msm is guilty of fomenting erroneous perceptions in this way (ie through cherry-picking particulars, but omitting hard data that would give a much clearer idea of the general) all the time. And this annoys me.
As I have written before, though, an act/utterance of deception can be noble, just as the conveyance of a truth can be morally dubious. LINS (Life Is Not Simple).
Censorship typically fails because it gets hijacked by activists.
And yes, I agree with the writer that the determination of just what is 'truth' is tricky. Today's conventional wisdom (scientific or other) tends to be tomorrow's embarrassment.
And medical and climate science is particularly unbankable, it seems.
Part of me is thinking that if it is not possible to draft satisfactory legislation then it should not be drafted at all. My father used to say that a job not well done is a job not worth doing ... or words to the same effect.
PS I should like to know how you got past US customs, Rebekah. It's declaration form is foreboding and you do have a history of anti-government behaviour.
[as shown by Stanford Epidemiology Professor John Ioannidis et al. ] - Ioannidis showed VERY early on in the "pandemic" COVID was a nothingburger. Anyone who spread the fear and apocalypse nonsense was spreading disinformation. Glad you name checked Swan - one of the most egregious jab pushers.
I'll never forget him saying in 2021 (unfortunately I can't locate the video ad now) that 'we already know what the side effects are, so there are no nasty unknown side effects around the corner'. On black box provisionally approved therapeutics still in phase three trials. WTF.
I just can't believe all this is happening.
I mean where the west is going.
Read something about EU as well.
It all seems surreal.
Is it "just stupidity and incompetence"?
It's hard not to be thinking about various conspiracy theories.
Are there any credible explanations?
I guess almost 0?
They can't be all touting "build back better" and "misinformation bills" type of rules in sync.
Well, we'll face it HEAD ON :)
Just some thoughts, in no particular order....
'misinformation' is publishing information that is wrong - publishing untruths, irrespective of intention? Mmm. Molto difficili!
Like all legislation ... or rules for life ... or moral principles ... or moral do's and don'ts, the issue is that WORDS are used - words that have definitional ambiguity.
In respect of the photo/footage of the young woman (actress?), supposedly in hospital with C19, its moral standing (to me) is hardly different whether she was an actress or whether she was a real cherry-picked patient. The issue for me was the intent of deception ... of some organisation/group or person deliberately fomenting dubious perceptions of reality. Msm is guilty of fomenting erroneous perceptions in this way (ie through cherry-picking particulars, but omitting hard data that would give a much clearer idea of the general) all the time. And this annoys me.
As I have written before, though, an act/utterance of deception can be noble, just as the conveyance of a truth can be morally dubious. LINS (Life Is Not Simple).
Censorship typically fails because it gets hijacked by activists.
And yes, I agree with the writer that the determination of just what is 'truth' is tricky. Today's conventional wisdom (scientific or other) tends to be tomorrow's embarrassment.
And medical and climate science is particularly unbankable, it seems.
Part of me is thinking that if it is not possible to draft satisfactory legislation then it should not be drafted at all. My father used to say that a job not well done is a job not worth doing ... or words to the same effect.
PS I should like to know how you got past US customs, Rebekah. It's declaration form is foreboding and you do have a history of anti-government behaviour.