Very important point. And those with a vested interest in censoring the opposing view(s) because they have financial ties to the outcome they promote are, as we have seen with the global warming "climate change" issue, more than willing to flat-out LIE about there being concensus even when there is none. Remember their "97% of scientists agree" that climate change was "caused" by humans burning fossil fuels? A totally made-up-out-of-thin-air number when not even remotely that percentage "agreed". And they enforced their position by making sure that almost no articles got published by real climate scientists who had facts that disputed their politically-driven narrative. And by now lots of evidence has emerged of their suppression of the truth about "climate change", and their collusion to alter data and hide evidence in order to promote their wrong position that carbon dioxide is a "dangerous pollutant" that is causing global warming, and that fossil fuels are at fault! When the world's most wealthy and powerful people have an agenda that benefits only themselves, as we have seen, they will stop at nothing to further their goals.
>Scientific dissidents will never be popular. We associate them with crazy views like “climate change is a hoax” and “childhood vaccines cause autism.”
And there it is.
Into the trash it goes. I utterly reject this crap and do not need lukewarm approval from people who want to kill me.
I think it's fair to cherry pick the best bits and utterly disregard the garbage thrown in to obviously separate themselves from the "alt-right" whatever tf that is supposed to be.
Not a fan of Jon Stewart but he was there fighting for 9/11 victims who got sick from working on the pile so there’s that. People can change and sometimes it’s a slow change, too slow IMO. We are all a mix of different beliefs and ideas and everything isn’t black or white. I’m a tree hugger who wants world peace and doesn’t like eating animals etc but I’m extremely conservative when it comes to life, the sanctity of marriage between a Man and Woman, family, God and believe the bigger the Gov the smaller the citizen. I eat right, exercise, don’t drink or do drugs. I don’t believe it’s good or healthy that people enjoy poisoning/killing themselves with so many “legal” toxins. I consider myself old fashioned, want my MAN strong and secure who can see thru the BS (which he does). I’m a happy camper and just wish more people would not comply and at the same time help and take care of one another. I guess I’m an anomaly lol 😆
You're not an anomaly. For one thing, your views and lifestyle choices are closely aligned with mine, though I'm guessing my conception of God is different from yours. I know quite a few people who would match you well in all but two or three items in your description. (Granted, two of the most common mismatches would be "big ones": the sanctity of marriage between a Man and Woman; and God.) I don't know how old you are, but I think you'd fit in well with many people who are old enough to have developed "the wisdom that comes with age." In other words, people age 50 and up. Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth...
Winsberg's essay is interesting and I'm glad to have read it. But I have to say that as the parent of a vaccine-injured, vaccine-disabled child, I choked when I got to "Scientific dissidents will never be popular. We associate them with crazy views like 'climate change is a hoax' and 'childhood vaccines cause autism.' " How about, Winsberg, you take a good long look in the mirror and notice your own Semmelweis reflex toward the parents of children who dare to point out that their children's autism was triggered by vaccines. You owe us a debt of gratitude for our diligence and our courage in speaking this awful truth, and our constant efforts to warn other parents and to get the medical/scientific world to listen to what we've learned. Got that? You owe us!
"But few scientific dissidents in the pandemic were treated with as much scorn and reprobation as those who challenged the consensus regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2." Actually that's not true. Vastly more scorn and reprobation was heaped on all the scientists that argued compellingly that early treatments such as hydroxychloroquin and ivermectin prevented and cured Covid. So why didn't Winsberg use this as his featured example? Could it be that accepting and acknowledging that fact would mean that Joe Biden as the person most responsible for over 1 million Americans not getting the treatment that would have saved their lives and countless others around the world, was effectively a mass murderer in the same league as Stalin or Pol Pot? Seems that even for a Cambridge professor of the philosophy of science that is outside the Overton window.
I agree with you that vastly more scorn and reprobation was heaped on scientists (including physicians) who advocated effective treatments for COVID-19. But I'd say Anthony Fauci was the person most responsible for all the deaths due to lack of effective treatment, *and* all the deaths due to deadly treatments using Remdesivir, ventilators on high pressure settings, etc.
Trump should have told Fauci, "I am the President of the United States, and when I tell the American people something, you don't walk up to the microphone a minute later -- or any time later -- and contradict me. What you do is make an appointment to speak to me in the Oval Office at my convenience, and in the meantime you have the common sense and courtesy to keep your mouth shut."
Biden inherited the Fauci problem that Trump didn't confront. On his first day in office, Biden should have called Fauci into the Oval Office and told him "You can resign today, or I can fire you today. Either way, starting right now you have nothing further to say about COVID-19. Not a word. This is an Executive Order from the President of the United States."
"Throughout the pandemic, any scientific heterodoxy, but especially heterodoxy about the virus’s origin, was treated as a mark of affiliation with a set of unsavory political views associated with the supporters of Donald Trump."
Why are supporters of Donald Trump defined to have unsavoury political views? What sort of an analysis is this by Eric Winsberg? I have only glanced through it but with the sentence above, I'm already very suspicious that this article is written from a left wing perspective for a left wing audience.
Since I'm not that kind of a left winger, I suppose I'm not the intended reader of the article.
Very important point. And those with a vested interest in censoring the opposing view(s) because they have financial ties to the outcome they promote are, as we have seen with the global warming "climate change" issue, more than willing to flat-out LIE about there being concensus even when there is none. Remember their "97% of scientists agree" that climate change was "caused" by humans burning fossil fuels? A totally made-up-out-of-thin-air number when not even remotely that percentage "agreed". And they enforced their position by making sure that almost no articles got published by real climate scientists who had facts that disputed their politically-driven narrative. And by now lots of evidence has emerged of their suppression of the truth about "climate change", and their collusion to alter data and hide evidence in order to promote their wrong position that carbon dioxide is a "dangerous pollutant" that is causing global warming, and that fossil fuels are at fault! When the world's most wealthy and powerful people have an agenda that benefits only themselves, as we have seen, they will stop at nothing to further their goals.
For a thoroughgoing deconstruction of climate-change alarmism, you might like this post in The Menelaus Gambit: https://ernestdlieberman.substack.com/p/climate-change-alarmists-ignore-how
>Scientific dissidents will never be popular. We associate them with crazy views like “climate change is a hoax” and “childhood vaccines cause autism.”
And there it is.
Into the trash it goes. I utterly reject this crap and do not need lukewarm approval from people who want to kill me.
I think it's fair to cherry pick the best bits and utterly disregard the garbage thrown in to obviously separate themselves from the "alt-right" whatever tf that is supposed to be.
I start every day with a cup of Jeff Childers’ Coffee ☕️ and Covid 🦠. You should too: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/
I have been starting my day with C&C for over 1 1/2 years !!!! I recommend it too 😀
Consensus = Stagnation
Stagnation = Death
Stephen Colbert is a sycophantic dunce.
Nothing is more ridiculous right now than the whole set of people in a mass formation psychosis about Trump.
25 in 25
Not a fan of Jon Stewart but he was there fighting for 9/11 victims who got sick from working on the pile so there’s that. People can change and sometimes it’s a slow change, too slow IMO. We are all a mix of different beliefs and ideas and everything isn’t black or white. I’m a tree hugger who wants world peace and doesn’t like eating animals etc but I’m extremely conservative when it comes to life, the sanctity of marriage between a Man and Woman, family, God and believe the bigger the Gov the smaller the citizen. I eat right, exercise, don’t drink or do drugs. I don’t believe it’s good or healthy that people enjoy poisoning/killing themselves with so many “legal” toxins. I consider myself old fashioned, want my MAN strong and secure who can see thru the BS (which he does). I’m a happy camper and just wish more people would not comply and at the same time help and take care of one another. I guess I’m an anomaly lol 😆
You are not at all an anomaly--just a person who doesn't conform to the all or nothing fake poison that is the bulk of what we see right now.
Thank you 😊
You're not an anomaly. For one thing, your views and lifestyle choices are closely aligned with mine, though I'm guessing my conception of God is different from yours. I know quite a few people who would match you well in all but two or three items in your description. (Granted, two of the most common mismatches would be "big ones": the sanctity of marriage between a Man and Woman; and God.) I don't know how old you are, but I think you'd fit in well with many people who are old enough to have developed "the wisdom that comes with age." In other words, people age 50 and up. Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth...
Always welcome different opinions! Wisdom is missing from most these days and yes I am over 50 but feel like 30 lol! ❤️
The body is your temple.
Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
C&C Army headed by General Childers for the win!
Winsberg's essay is interesting and I'm glad to have read it. But I have to say that as the parent of a vaccine-injured, vaccine-disabled child, I choked when I got to "Scientific dissidents will never be popular. We associate them with crazy views like 'climate change is a hoax' and 'childhood vaccines cause autism.' " How about, Winsberg, you take a good long look in the mirror and notice your own Semmelweis reflex toward the parents of children who dare to point out that their children's autism was triggered by vaccines. You owe us a debt of gratitude for our diligence and our courage in speaking this awful truth, and our constant efforts to warn other parents and to get the medical/scientific world to listen to what we've learned. Got that? You owe us!
"But few scientific dissidents in the pandemic were treated with as much scorn and reprobation as those who challenged the consensus regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2." Actually that's not true. Vastly more scorn and reprobation was heaped on all the scientists that argued compellingly that early treatments such as hydroxychloroquin and ivermectin prevented and cured Covid. So why didn't Winsberg use this as his featured example? Could it be that accepting and acknowledging that fact would mean that Joe Biden as the person most responsible for over 1 million Americans not getting the treatment that would have saved their lives and countless others around the world, was effectively a mass murderer in the same league as Stalin or Pol Pot? Seems that even for a Cambridge professor of the philosophy of science that is outside the Overton window.
I agree with you that vastly more scorn and reprobation was heaped on scientists (including physicians) who advocated effective treatments for COVID-19. But I'd say Anthony Fauci was the person most responsible for all the deaths due to lack of effective treatment, *and* all the deaths due to deadly treatments using Remdesivir, ventilators on high pressure settings, etc.
Trump should have told Fauci, "I am the President of the United States, and when I tell the American people something, you don't walk up to the microphone a minute later -- or any time later -- and contradict me. What you do is make an appointment to speak to me in the Oval Office at my convenience, and in the meantime you have the common sense and courtesy to keep your mouth shut."
Biden inherited the Fauci problem that Trump didn't confront. On his first day in office, Biden should have called Fauci into the Oval Office and told him "You can resign today, or I can fire you today. Either way, starting right now you have nothing further to say about COVID-19. Not a word. This is an Executive Order from the President of the United States."
Trump did nothing about Fauci because he wanted to be reelected.
Biden did nothing about Fauci because they are both tools of the Globalist.
I'm sick of looking for HOPE in a hopeless world!
It’s a debate strategy
To change the topic when THEY can’t make points against the actual topic
Distract with
Pink flying elephants
Easy to spot
Nothing to do with science or consensus
Censor yourself or be labelled and debased by the clowns, cia media
THEY are used to controlling the narrative and covering up any all manner of deception and fraud
Free speech and free minds are the real weapons of THEIR demise - we the people seeking truth and speaking it, writing it etc
An aside
I have a new take on lung and blood physiology that dismisses the gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
My article is titled
We breathe air not oxygen
Air is measured by its humidity
Oxygen is measured by its dryness for example medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Oxygen toxicity is directly related to its dryness and ability to dehydrate.
Lungs at the alveoli requires the air to reach 100% humidity. Can you see the mismatch?
The RBCs are carrying salt water, they are salt water sponges.
The red light monitoring is checking hydration
Dark RBCs are dehydrated
Light RBCs are hydrated
The lungs rehydrate the RBCs
Just as the ubiquitous saline drip rehydrates RBCs.
I hope you take the time to read my article and ponder.
Medicine and science have been retarded intentionally with schooled fraudulent facts.
Scrutiny is the way back to truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Distract and censor
F’ck John Stewart
"Throughout the pandemic, any scientific heterodoxy, but especially heterodoxy about the virus’s origin, was treated as a mark of affiliation with a set of unsavory political views associated with the supporters of Donald Trump."
Why are supporters of Donald Trump defined to have unsavoury political views? What sort of an analysis is this by Eric Winsberg? I have only glanced through it but with the sentence above, I'm already very suspicious that this article is written from a left wing perspective for a left wing audience.
Since I'm not that kind of a left winger, I suppose I'm not the intended reader of the article.
We are the enemy, they know it, we don't.
We are looked upon like the Japanese looked upon the brown sub human Manchurian