Coronavirus

[runrussellrun]

So you'll be one who doesn't watch it.
Awful lot of food for thought in there,
but will be written off as just another
Dumbforkistanian's post.
You obviously think those lines are to
be trusted. All legit, no room for question
there. I'm not convinced, the Dr. (who is
vaccinated) has questions and research
results.

Mr. ""I know a guy" apparently, doesn't know any insurance actuaries.

Or, morticians

[tech37]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

[runrussellrun]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

For a guy that only leaves these decisions up to the "professionals", he sure likes to tell others "whats what".
(and the defending of the Biden gang tells much, too )

Apparenlty, the DOCTORS that sued to get the fhizer "test results" and other documents related to the "operation warp speed" emergency approval for a NEVER tried drug mix, aren't his types of "professionals"

75 years was the ask....and tRumps FDA allowed it. Thank goodness for that Texas judge. A tRump appointee

And those at the "center" want to NEVER discuss anything in all those documents...now completely released.

Oh....and the "censorship" ?

tinfoil hat label......

......so, yeah. let's start talking about known side effects.

" .....I got polio. but, since I have been "vaccinated", I got less polio sick...."

unfrigging believable.

[a fan]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

Stick to the context, Tech. NYPost and the NationalReview are claiming wikipedia is lefty.

All that tells me is that they don't understand wikipedia, and are whining as they always do.

If you don't like an entry, and think it's biased? You can always get off your *ss, put in the work, and fix the entry yourself.

You know: the ENTIRE point to wikipedia. But sure. Lefties.

[a fan]

For a guy that only leaves these decisions up to the "professionals", he sure likes to tell others "whats what".

Says the guy who tells me I'm always posting wrong.

Rough day at the office again? Need a hug?

[MDlaxfan76]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

You do realize that "POV" can simply be a cover for falsehoods?
That's not helpful, right?

In my experience with wikipedia, if there's been some disagreement, some controversy about a person, about an issue, etc, it gets mentioned. With whatever critique is made, and the counterpoint. The reader is free to explore that controversy further if they wish, but the important aspect is that it's mentioned, not ignored.

Not all critiques are valid, of course, and that can be evident (if we have open eyes and brains) from the counterpoint, or not if no counter is offered by the "crowd"...but that's the point of the system, it's an ongoing editing process. New information gets included, and edits get made.

However, if one insists that falsehoods are to given even weight by the system, by the 'crowd', as is given to provable reality, one is going to be inevitably disappointed.

[tech37]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

Stick to the context, Tech. NYPost and the NationalReview are claiming wikipedia is lefty.

All that tells me is that they don't understand wikipedia, and are whining as they always do.

If you don't like an entry, and think it's biased? You can always get off your *ss, put in the work, and fix the entry yourself.

You know: the ENTIRE point to wikipedia. But sure. Lefties.

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

[Typical Lax Dad]

... NY Post and National Review, certainly no bias there.

Forever pushing the partisan idea that there's no such thing as "The Center". They thinks it's either "what we agree with", or they're extremists.

or... offering a different POV so that discerning people in "The Center" can consider and decide for themselves

Stick to the context, Tech. NYPost and the NationalReview are claiming wikipedia is lefty.

All that tells me is that they don't understand wikipedia, and are whining as they always do.

If you don't like an entry, and think it's biased? You can always get off your *ss, put in the work, and fix the entry yourself.

You know: the ENTIRE point to wikipedia. But sure. Lefties.

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Your “team” wouldn’t do that…. Never would cross their mind….

[a fan]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

[tech37]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

[a fan]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

Sigh. The original citation, who's claims you are defending in your post.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

[MDlaxfan76]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

The article that was posted.

The guys' been criticizing the site since he left in 2002.
Nothing new.
Angry guy, definitely far right in personal views.

But hey, let's ignore that...

[runrussellrun]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

Sigh. The original citation, who's claims you are defending in your post.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

what does Wikipedia say about the corona V19 shot and its efficasy

What narrative does Wikipedia "frame" those that are "skeptical" of all things mRNA shot ?

bonus question: What "nice" verbage does Wikipedia use towards RFK jr ?

exactly

yup....posting wrong.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ohh no!
Wikipedia includes critiques of critiques!

[tech37]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

Sigh. The original citation, who's claims you are defending in your post.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

I'm defending Malhotra's and Tess Lawrie's right not to have their research/data/presentations to be labeled "misinformation" on Wikipedia.

[jhu72]

[a fan]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

Sigh. The original citation, who's claims you are defending in your post.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

I'm defending Malhotra's and Tess Lawrie's right not to have their research/data/presentations to be labeled "misinformation" on Wikipedia.

Yeah, but you didn't spell that out. I'm not a mindreader. And I don't know anything about that, so.....

[tech37]

The point is... the info Wikipedia is putting out there may have changed from being fact based to more opinion based in keeping with establishment narratives, very similar to what has happened to MSM. That's the context... not whether or not you can "fix the entry yourself."

Wikipedia is global, tech. So when you say "MSM", you're talking about America.

And when you say "left".......the left in Belgium is entirely different than the American left.

Globally, compared with every other 1st world country? We're way the F to the right. I'd imagine you know that.

There are over 6,000,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia, Tech. How do you tell if they're "to the left"?

It's a unverified claim, tech.

Look at the Biden entry that they cited. I see plenty of criticism---happy to go over it, if you'd like. And as you know, I can't stand Joe, and am livid that he's been in our government for 1,000 years. They cite many of the things that I hit Biden for.....voting yes on Iraq invasion, lies and exaggerations he's made, reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth, etc.

They have a log for all edits. And they welcome people to contribute. Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? Muck in, and sign up to be an editor...problem solved.

Who said anything about "the left"? You OK a fan?

Sigh. The original citation, who's claims you are defending in your post.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

I'm defending Malhotra's and Tess Lawrie's right not to have their research/data/presentations to be labeled "misinformation" on Wikipedia.

Yeah, but you didn't spell that out. I'm not a mindreader. And I don't know anything about that, so.....

You jumped into the thread mid-stream and didn't follow. That's not on me. You might want to go back through the thread posts, prior to your entry, if you really want to.

[RedFromMI]

If they cannot present their data/research/presentations through normal scientific outlets such as peer reviewed journals and science society meetings I have little problem with a characterization of “misinformation,” given that they choose present only through what is considered a misinformation channel.

It’s not like those preferred outlets don’t ever have any kooks…. The American Physical Society has a long standing practice of allowing any paying member to present at a general meeting at least one poster or 12 minute talk. My very first presentation was second to the end of a session on electronic spectra instrumentation, and the room was packed for the next guy who: insisted God gave him the true baryon masses, that he would give anyone $2k is they could _prove_him wrong, and of course he would be the judge. I finished my talk about 2-4 minutes early because it was quite intimidating to face so many in an obscure section…

[tech37]

If they cannot present their data/research/presentations through normal scientific outlets such as peer reviewed journals and science society meetings I have little problem with a characterization of “misinformation,” given that they choose present only through what is considered a misinformation channel.

It’s not like those preferred outlets don’t ever have any kooks…. The American Physical Society has a long standing practice of allowing any paying member to present at a general meeting at least one poster or 12 minute talk. My very first presentation was second to the end of a session on electronic spectra instrumentation, and the room was packed for the next guy who: insisted God gave him the true baryon masses, that he would give anyone $2k is they could _prove_him wrong, and of course he would be the judge. I finished my talk about 2-4 minutes early because it was quite intimidating to face so many in an obscure section…

Dr. Lawrie: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theresa-Lawrie

There's plenty more if you need it. I'm pretty certain she vetted Malhotra's work prior to introducing him at the conference.
Don't you think?

And even if he's wrong, it's not "misinformation" bullsh!t, labeled by captured establishment Drs. and scientists who don't want the boat to be rocked. It's simply information/data that can be challenged and proven as either correct or not. You know, the way science is supposed to work?