It's not Russia, it's Putin

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

@robert I remember Dr. Campbell, who seldom does anything other than read and interpret learned documents, actually saying that Covid deaths are certainly undercounted since so much of it depends on reporting and since often people die of something other than Covid who might have lived were it not for Covid. I’d like to see him saying they were overcounted in general. Perhaps he might have referred to some particular situation. So, he gets a lot of views. He’s lucky.

He is not “lucky”.  He is immoral. He may have been sincere when he started but once the money started rolling in, it became pandering (“misinterpreting”) to the huge anti-vax, Trumpet crowd. It’s not hard to do. Read the comments, they are all right there. Let’s see him debate an actual COVID researcher or even a general statistician about his kitchen table “interpretations” and he would be shredded to protoplasm in a blink. Why doesn’t he publish his interpretations in a peer reviewed paper, you know, like a real scientist? Ah, because he is a politicized YouTube blogger, that’s why.

[_Robert_Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

Robert, If the claim has no substance beyond hearsay and unnamed sources then credibility may be the only criteria to assess a claim.

Jake, if you recall credible news sources used to print retractions for news reported in error. They also made very clear and bold distinctions between news and opinion. It is fine to give your opinion on what might have happened if it is clear the information portion is over, and it is now conjecture and bullshit entertainment time. At some point entire news programs have become all opinion.

Politics is the new religion, and the media is the preacher.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

He is not “lucky”.  He is immoral. He may have been sincere when he started but once the money started rolling in, it became pandering (“misinterpreting”) to the huge anti-vax, Trumpet crowd. It’s not hard to do. Read the comments, they are all right there. Let’s see him debate an actual COVID researcher or even a general statistician about his kitchen table “interpretations” and he would be shredded to protoplasm in a blink. Why doesn’t he publish his interpretations in a peer reviewed paper, you know, like a real scientist? Ah, because he is a politicized YouTube blogger, that’s why.

He’s “anti-vax? I suspect I watch his videos far more often than you and, yes, he does occasionally discuss side effects or alternative studies done by reputable journals or public health agencies in other countries (uncivilized countries like Germany and Israel, perhaps). However, he is clearly FOR vaccination but not for treating contrary data as disinformation, the way Youtube, Twitter, and the main media sources do seemingly at the behest of the American public health authorities, ignoring equally qualified authorities elsewhere.

I’m a retired philosopher who publishes his views all the timed. Here, for example. Should I publish them in a philosophical journal first?

Does the word “retired” mean anything to you? LOL

 

[UnseenParticipant]

@robert

Here is Dr. John discussing Ivermectin. What do you object to about his treatment of the medicine? He has a wide following having little to do with “don’t get jabbed.” Just read the comments. I read the first few and found no rabid anti-vaxxers. I suspect a true anti-vaxxer would excoriate him for not drawing their conclusions.

[jakelafortParticipant]

From Robert..Politics is the new religion, and the media is the preacher. Nice!

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Jake, if you recall credible news sources used to print retractions for news reported in error. They also made very clear and bold distinctions between news and opinion. It is fine to give your opinion on what might have happened if it is clear the information portion is over, and it is now conjecture and bullshit entertainment time. At some point entire news programs have become all opinion.

Well, Robert, there is NO evidence Russia blew up the pipelines whereas there IS evidence that the U.S. did it (military activity in the area, public statements by Biden and Blinken) plus little or no benefit to Putin vs. a potential windfall for American producers.

Lacking conclusive evidence, we are left with speculation, which by its very nature is opinion.

So, which side is the more harebrained? The “It’s bad so Russia must have done it” or the “Well, if you look at who benefits, it’s certainly not Russia” side?

• This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

@robert

Here Dr. John discusses vaccination status in a video that got him a Youtube “Warning.” While he does find it interesting that Dr. Fauci and top Pfizer execs, all of them fully vaccinated and boosted, nevertheless contracted Covid-19. None died or even got seriously ill, but presumably could still transmit the disease. Nowhere does he advise against getting jabbed. He doesn’t say anywhere not to do so. He certainly doesn’t even imply that it might be a bad idea for even some segment of the population to avoid vaccination.

Rather than hiding from comments, encourages us to read through them.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

Here’s an article from a man who claims experience in the realm of offshore drilling and piping. He gives a very plausible (and humorously-expressed) explanation for how the Nordstream Pipeline exploded. Yes, it was the Russians, but not for the reason you may think:

Nordstream
https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html

It makes even more sense when you consider that Russia is still an economy where the State and State Cronies run everything and they’re still trying to allot goods and services without an unfettered Free Market Supply-And-Demand pricing system…and that includes services for maintaining pipelines. The end result is always chaos and destruction.

I don’t know who originally said it, but never attribute to malevolence what is best attributed to incompetance and stupidity.

😁

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

Just what we needed. One more theory to add to the “Russia did it” side, though this one removes any mens rea, which makes a lot more sense than proposing Putin did it intentionally. It also comports with the Russian incompetence on the battlefield.

[Author]

Posts