I'm assuming, if you're on this platform, you appreciate the liberty the platform provides. This makes me ask if anyone else is tracking this video. I guess it was taken down a few times. Is there really a conspiracy?
@EVoCeO https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral
I would say there is no conspiracy after reading this.
@vnarek Ya, after reading the article (which seems a little biased) it's still up in the air for me. The article says often, something to the tune of: "there is no evidence..." and "we don't know what she means when she says...".
I try to remember when taking in information, first never make assumptions. Allow the facts to speak and remember where the information is coming from; how does the messenger convey the message and what are their motives. Second: The lack of evidence does not count as evidence to support the opposite of the claim, it just means there is more research to do or questions to ask. I don't necessarily think she could be right, but she could be one person who knows these people and who or how they are as individuals. She could be jaded with how she left the organization she was with.
I do however look to a lot of the everyday casual doctors not in the public eye that have their own intuition and experience. There are a lot of them that are frustrated because the recommendations are puzzling or contrary to their understanding or experience.
To quote a favorite movie of mine "Times is hard...". Who can we trust anymore? Authority or not. People have their own motives and are out for themselves. There are so few who are intelligent and selfless enough to do what's right for humanity, the future of mankind and this planet. Hmmmm. What to do, what to do...?
Continuing research.
https://gph.is/2gtnnkW
@vnarek Ya, I can get behind all of that. I get who she is and her agenda, for sure and I hope that isn't confrontational tone I'm getting in this reply. 😆 This is a STEM community after all.
I do pick up a bias in the article in the sense that it states "there is not evidence..." almost sounds like a counter claim. I come to this conclusion because there where dozens of points or claims she was making that weren't addressed by science.org, for whatever reason. That seems like there were some facts looked into and others not. I imagine they focused on the some of her "high points". Not really incriminating just, weird. This is how get a sense of bias. There is very little in support of her claim or assertion of another. I don't know science dot org, but I do like the facts they are providing. Their article does make her look like "a woman scorned" and her book ruins her credibility as an unbiased protector of truth. Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if she never wrote it.
I don't agree or disagree at this point. This whole movie raises some interesting questions like, what will the government do next. Will the next action support or her claims? Separately, the best part of the article you linked here was: "From the name, you can tell that this is going to be a conspiracyfest of a “documentary,” arguing that the current COVID-19 pandemic was somehow planned." This killed me. I got that same sentiment.
I bring attention to the fact that we are clearly in the middle of another interesting world-wide "crisis" and everyone with access to a camera or a website has a conspiracy theory to throw out and someone to counter it. It creates a shit ton of white noise which muddles the truth and limits our ability to make educated decisions or develop a sound understanding of the world around ourselves without hours of dedicated research and debunking bullshit claims. We need to become amateur virologist just to get the facts to call people on their garbage.
Ya, I agree. I mentioned in another "toot" that the video stinks of marketing tactics and she definitely has her reasons to defame Fouci but again, who knows where to go with what now days. I take the "interesting assertions" she and the "documentarist" are making with a whole pinch of salt. It seems like everyone is scorned now days. So they do the only think they feel they have power to do which is "let my voice be heard!!" and is rallying sheep to their emergency. When everything is an emergency nothing is an emergency.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/HUkOv6BNWc1HO" width="480" height="362" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/mrw-show-remote-HUkOv6BNWc1HO">via GIPHY</a></p>
@EVoCeO Sorry I didn't want my reply to sound confrontational. My goal is not attacking, just giving my perspective and reasons behind my thoughts.
There is no need to counter claims, because the burden of proof is on her. So "there is no evidence that..." is okay for me. They could say that it is untrue, but they don't want to lose credibility they have like she did. The truth is there is no evidence.
Some of the claims she presented were debunked before so maybe that is the reason they didn't mention them in the article. Like that "false covid death" conspiracy. Science dot org is a really old peer reviewed magazine. She published her findings in that magazine btw, but soon they were falsified.
I would say I am like 95% sure this is untrue. I don't even believe that some shots in the documentary are from real incidents (like 20 officers coming to her house). There are some interesting filmcuts when they talk about anti-vaccination.
Yes, I have the same sentiment about white noise around news. It helps to find some independent fact checking organizations to do the hard job for us. I think that banning her video from social media did more harm than good though.
@vnarek Ya Wow. Great points. I do like that science dot org is available. I'm noticing a lot of the narrative around the vaccination talk is about rich getting richer. Someone just posted this guy too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oivXAM76fY&feature=youtu.be
25:48 he starts talking about the business of vaccination. Prior to that he talks about how we got there commercially and politically.
This is the perfect business model. Entire human population, recurring annual vaccination revenue, organized oligopoly based on blood type or virus (similar to telecom).
@EVoCeO
What part of the article seemed biased to you?
Yes, because the claims she made in that video are not factually checked. If she doesn't provide any evidence then her claim is nothing more than a guess. "There is no evidence means" there is no scientific consensus in the field of study it is from, but she frames the narative like there is.
If you wanna talk about how the messenger conveys the message. She lied about why she was in jail, about her being pioneer in foundings of HIV virus and about lots of other things. + She is selling book called Plague of corruption and this is just the perfect advertisement for her.
I found other articles about her that could be interesting to you. For sure, do your research, this is STEM community after all.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/06/judy-mikovits-pandemic/
I like the fact that even antivaxxers don't believe her 😄.
There are other sources on her Wikipedia page about the claims made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits#cite_note-politifact-plandemic-58