Covid Vaccine Scam, Ivermectin is the cure (Compilation)

[gwb-trading]

MIT Researchers Admit Anti-Maskers Are More Scientifically Rigorous
" . . .
one could argue that maskers are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically.

View attachment 265153

MIT Researchers Admit Anti-Maskers Are More Scientifically Rigorous

By Annie Holmquist
3 ½ min
Upon recounting my bout with COVID to an acquaintance, I was asked if I knew where I might have picked up the virus. When I mentioned my hunch about the source, my acquaintance gasped, then inferred that I and those I caught it from must not have been wearing masks since the virus had spread.

“No,” I responded, much to her surprise, “we were wearing masks.”

Such a comment demonstrates the great confidence which many have placed in measures such as lockdowns and mask mandates in recent months. “Science confirms that these measures work!” many exclaim, arguing that those who question masks or other allegedly helpful restrictions are anti-science.

Yet new research from several MIT academics casts some doubt on the anti-science nature of COVID skeptics. In their paper, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” the academics show some curious cognitive dissonance, making anti-mask proponents out to be clever propagandists who create easily understandable charts and graphs to sway the public away from the authoritative opinions of experts.

At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”

People can bicker all day long about which side is right on this issue, but in this instance, these straightforward, honest comments from the MIT researchers should give us pause. They are clearly opposed to the ideas of the anti-maskers, yet they can’t help but begrudgingly respect the scientific methods of their opponents.

So how do we cut through the obvious politics of this issue and discern between science and propaganda? American philosopher James Burnham offered some insight into this question in his 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution, writing:

The aim of propaganda is to persuade people to accept certain ideas or feelings or attitudes. The aim of science is to discover the truth about the world. The propagandistic aim is usually best served by being thoroughly one-sided, by presenting only what is favorable to your case and suppressing all that might weaken it and bolster your opponent.

One could say that both the anti-maskers and the MIT researchers are engaging in propaganda, anxious to present only evidence favorable to their side. But in another sense, one could argue that they are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically.

Burnham expands upon this thought by noting, “In the case of any hypothesis which is under consideration, science, in contrast to propaganda, is always anxious to present all the evidence, for and against. The scientific aim is just as well served by proving a hypothesis false as by proving it true.” [Emphasis added.]

Given these facts, why is it that nearly every media source, politician, and even the average Joe is so eager to squelch “unorthodox” opinions like those explored in this MIT paper? If they refuse to allow their hypotheses to be tested, then they are the ones who are truly anti-science.

LOL -- the article links to a study showing that vaccine skeptics and anti-maskers are fooled by data visualizations on social networks which is why they spout fake information and hold non-scientific ill-informed views. The study demonstrates those with anti-vaccine and anti-mask views are not highly informed or scientifically literate whatsoever... they just fantasize they are because they saw a complex chart which looks sophisticated on Twitter or Facebook.

In fact the study outlines that the best way to spread COVID misinformation online is through charts and other data visualizations which propagate a false narrative. In the era of 140 characters on Twitter most people don't take the time to look at detailed data but merely base their views on bullet points and quick visualizations (e.g. charts).

Let's read the summary from the MIT News office...

When more Covid-19 data doesn’t equal more understanding
Social media users share charts and graphs — often with the same underlying data — to advocate opposing approaches to the pandemic.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/when-more-covid-data-doesnt-equal-more-understanding-0304

 

[jem]

The Irony is that the article just called you a fucking moron for being such a moron. It says the exact opposite... you moron.

read the second part of the quote below.


"And those visualizations weren’t sloppy. “They are virtually indistinguishable from those shared by mainstream sources,” says Satyanarayan. “They are often just as polished as graphs you would expect to encounter in data journalism or public health dashboards.”


“It’s a very striking finding,” says Lee. “It shows that characterizing antimask groups as data-illiterate or not engaging with the data, is empirically false.”

LOL -- the article links to a study showing that vaccine skeptics and anti-maskers are fooled by data visualizations on social networks which is why they spout fake information and hold non-scientific ill-informed views. The study demonstrates those with anti-vaccine and anti-mask views are not highly informed or scientifically literate whatsoever... they just fantasize they are because they saw a complex chart which looks sophisticated on Twitter or Facebook.

In fact the study outlines that the best way to spread COVID misinformation online is through charts and other data visualizations which propagate a false narrative. In the era of 140 characters on Twitter most people don't take the time to look at detailed data but merely base their views on bullet points and quick visualizations (e.g. charts).

Let's read the summary from the MIT News office...

When more Covid-19 data doesn’t equal more understanding
Social media users share charts and graphs — often with the same underlying data — to advocate opposing approaches to the pandemic.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/when-more-covid-data-doesnt-equal-more-understanding-0304

 

[gwb-trading]

The Irony is that the article just called you a fucking moron for being such a moron. It says the exact opposite... you moron.

read the second part of the quote below.


"And those visualizations weren’t sloppy. “They are virtually indistinguishable from those shared by mainstream sources,” says Satyanarayan. “They are often just as polished as graphs you would expect to encounter in data journalism or public health dashboards.”


“It’s a very striking finding,” says Lee. “It shows that characterizing antimask groups as data-illiterate or not engaging with the data, is empirically false.”

Once again you take one quote of the article out of context. Go read the entire article and study... and educate yourself.

Clowns pushing data visualizations (charts) that look complex via social media on people who have no in-depth data analysis or scientific skills -- therefore broadly promoting misinformation.

 

[easymon1]

LOL -- the article links to a study showing that vaccine skeptics and anti-maskers are fooled by data visualizations on social networks which is why they spout fake information and hold non-scientific ill-informed views. The study demonstrates those with anti-vaccine and anti-mask views are not highly informed or scientifically literate whatsoever... they just fantasize they are because they saw a complex chart which looks sophisticated on Twitter or Facebook.

In fact the study outlines that the best way to spread COVID misinformation online is through charts and other data visualizations which propagate a false narrative. In the era of 140 characters on Twitter most people don't take the time to look at detailed data but merely base their views on bullet points and quick visualizations (e.g. charts).

Let's read the summary from the MIT News office...

When more Covid-19 data doesn’t equal more understanding
Social media users share charts and graphs — often with the same underlying data — to advocate opposing approaches to the pandemic.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/when-more-covid-data-doesnt-equal-more-understanding-0304

gwb, why do you bold and color your posts?

http://vis.csail.mit.edu/covid-story/

 

[Van_der_Voort_4]

Cons should keep sucking on their horse
paste while we pull this country ahead (again).

 

[easymon1]

Once again you take one quote of the article out of context. Go read the entire article and study... and educate yourself.

Clowns pushing data visualizations (charts) that look complex via social media on people who have no in-depth data analysis or scientific skills -- therefore broadly promoting misinformation.

gwb-trading, What objective proof, what raw data, what Science have you based your decisions on that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the injections currently in use?

 

[gwb-trading]

gwb-trading, What objective proof, what raw data, what Science have you based your decisions on that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the injections currently in use?

Maybe go read all the threads here outlining all the data proving the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines based on published data and Phase 3 trials.

Or maybe you should just note that well over 95% of people in hospitals gasping for air are unvaccinated.

 

[Cuddles]

Once again you take one quote of the article out of context. Go read the entire article and study... and educate yourself.

Clowns pushing data visualizations (charts) that look complex via social media on people who have no in-depth data analysis or scientific skills -- therefore broadly promoting misinformation.

my favorites are the ones where they put a bubble of some irrelevant fact like mask mandates while cases are going up.

 

[jem]

These sentences are the point of the study and the article... you moron...the authors were were surprised that there was no conclusive data...

the anti maskers were able to counter the " Orthodoxy" (read expert/fauci bullshit and lies) with quality charts, graphs and data.



"And those visualizations weren’t sloppy. “They are virtually indistinguishable from those shared by mainstream sources,” says Satyanarayan. “They are often just as polished as graphs you would expect to encounter in data journalism or public health dashboards.”


“It’s a very striking finding,” says Lee. “It shows that characterizing antimask groups as data-illiterate or not engaging with the data, is empirically false.”

Once again you take one quote of the article out of context. Go read the entire article and study... and educate yourself.

Clowns pushing data visualizations (charts) that look complex via social media on people who have no in-depth data analysis or scientific skills -- therefore broadly promoting misinformation.

 

[Wallet]

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

Ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus for less than a $1 a day, according to recent research by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer.

Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/...vid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612