Zuckerberg admits censorship.

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I can't believe I'm required to explain to these people why Wikipedia and MSM headlines are not better than actual independent, non-Pharma-funded medical studies and real life datasets.

But here we are. 🙄

Try telling leftists that CNN was wrong about something in the last ten years, they won't believe you. They trust CNN more than they trust their own mothers. 

[User]

22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Yes, you will get an anesthetic to knock you out.

But, no, you won't. Can't trust "Big Pharma"

That is the point being made here. 

[impartialobserver]

Just now, User said:

But, no, you won't. Can't trust "Big Pharma"

That is the point being made here. 

What he is trying to get at it is oxycodone, oxycontin, and opioids not anesthesia or milder pain killers such as valium, darvocet, or vicodin that have been around for decades. I get where you are going with this.. just trying to steer you back on to the course. 

[Goddess]

Back to the issue of censorship (Nice that Zuck finally admitted it.)

This is from Jeff Childer's substack:  (He's a lawyer I follow.)

On Wednesday, podcaster Chris Williamson (2.6 million subscribers) interviewed “intellectual dark web” member Eric Weinstein in an electrifying videocast episode titled, “Eric Weinstein - Are We On The Brink Of A Revolution?” It’s worth watching, especially the first 40 minutes or so, but since it’s over 3 hours long, I’ll hit the high points for you.

Eric Weinstein is a multi-talented mathematician, economist, physicist, and managing director at Thiel Capital. A classic liberal, he became deeply critical of conventional physics, particularly “string theory,” which Weinstein considers an unfalsifiable, fake, deep-state invention enforced by government grant-driven orthodoxy and groupthink. And it’s dumb.

Although not labeled “anti-vaxx,” during the pandemic, Weinstein broke with conventional covid narratives, questioning the lack of transparency, the rushed vaccine development, and the destructiveness of lockdowns and other forced mitigation measures. He was among the first scientists to question the now-debunked “natural origins” narrative for the virus.

As a result of his intolerable heterodoxy, like the Biblical scapegoat of old, Weinstein was professionally banished to the academic wilderness. He now publishes his work in his own podcasting and direct-to-public venues. Ironically, having been excommunicated from academic circles, Weinstein now enjoys more freedom to criticize the creaking, ossified, bureaucratic establishment.

In the podcast I linked above, Weinstein provided one of the most insightful, well-described analyses of the current woeful state of our ‘democracy’ that I have yet seen collected in one place. Fair warning, Weinstein is not optimistic. But he admitted that the best thing Trump ever did was prove in 2016 that The System is not omnipotent or omniscient, but can screw up and can be beaten.

 Weinstein has a broad and more discrete view of what the ‘deep state’ is. He describes it as an alliance of government, academic, and corporate interests that live off the established “rules based order.” Weinstein suggested NAFTA as an example.

However “bad” a deal the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was for America, government actors and big corporate interests feast off advantages and benefits cleverly buried in the text of the incomprehensibly complicated laws. When someone like Trump comes along, and threatens to toss the whole deal out and replace it with something simpler (and less amenable to exploitation), it threatens to disrupt a carefully balanced ecosystem of benefits and sinecures that elite groups have spent decades building.

Not surprisingly, this coalition of elite interests fights more ferociously than a pack of starving coyotes to preserve their rewarding sinecures.

In other words, Weinstein suggested that the "deep state" isn't an ill-defined, shadowy cabal, but instead is a vast and intricate network of incentives — an alliance between bureaucracy and capital that thrives on complexity. This makes it devilishly difficult to dismantle, because even modest proposals for reform can trigger widespread institutional rebellion.

It’s not super controversial. Over the last four years we have seen that battle violently erupt onto the social and political stage. With that in mind, Weinstein believes this deep state coalition has completely captured an increasingly bizarre and unhinged corporate media, which slavishly serves the interests of its corporate controllers.

This brings us to Weinstein’s explanation for why corporate media pushes absurd narratives like “Republican Liz Cheney endorses Harris” on people like my relative, and why they uncritically and unquestioningly cling to those ridiculous narratives more tightly than an old man gripping his bus ticket.

 Weinstein proposed that captured corporate media’s only job is to publish orthodoxy. In other words, stories like “Republican Liz Cheney endorses Harris” aren’t actually meant to convince anybody that there is some rising groundswell of Republican opposition to Trump. Rather, corporate media is signaling to the orthodox establishment’s members what is permissible for them to think and say.

People whose careers depend on established institutional structures implicitly understand this. If, like Weinstein, someone decides to challenge or break with the approved narrative, they risk losing their careers and reputations. Questioning the narrative means losing invitations, opportunities, promotions, and killing your career.

In this way, the corporate media serves as the day-to-day mechanism for rapidly disseminating ‘safe’ groupthink. The participants —especially those in government, academia, and international corporations— know that straying from media-established boundaries means risking scapegoat status and excommunication.

After all, Weinstein should know. That’s what happened to him.

Over time, corporate media has evolved from being a source of investigative journalism and watchdog reporting into a mechanical device for reinforcing consensus among elites.

Weinstein’s theory helps us understand how in 2023, Time could rail against ultraprocessed foods, but one year later in 2024, after the Trump-Kennedy alliance, can turn on a dime and publish silly headlines like “What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?”

It also explains why corporate media seems blithely unconcerned about its historically low levels of trust. There is a simple explanation. It doesn’t care about public trust, because its mission is to maintain cohesion among the elite class, not to provide honest, transparent information to the masses. Thus, publishing false or exaggerated stories that serve a particular political or corporate interest are useful for keeping the right people in alignment.

In other words, the general population’s trust is secondary or even irrelevant because the real power brokers —decision-makers in government, business, and academia— are still receiving and aligning with the messages the media sends. As long as the right people (those with influence and authority) continue to trust and engage with corporate media, the public can be safely ignored.

Even more dystopian, the erosion of media trust doesn’t even hurt its mission at all. If anything, it might even help maintain the status quo, by keeping the unwashed general public out of the conversation.

When we see media’s narrative spin machine working, like when it tells us ultraprocessed foods aren’t really that bad, or that Republican Liz Cheney is breaking with the party, or that America is systemically racist, we must not frame those narratives in terms of how horrible the media is, but rather understand that media is telling Democrats and captured elites how to think.

The best vaccine for these virus-like mind-control narratives is mockery. Every narrative has a simple anti-narrative waiting to be discovered. That’s why memes are effective, and it’s why the deep state coalition cannot tolerate free speech.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, User said:

But, no, you won't. Can't trust "Big Pharma"

That is the point being made here. 

It's 100% correct.

You can not trust Big Pharma, major health publications, and the NiH. 

And FYI, not all the drugs in the hospital are still protected by patents. 

[User]

15 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

What he is trying to get at it is oxycodone, oxycontin, and opioids not anesthesia or milder pain killers such as valium, darvocet, or vicodin that have been around for decades. I get where you are going with this.. just trying to steer you back on to the course. 

When you say, can't trust Big Pharma... maybe you need to be a bit more specific on what that means. 

You are not steering me anywhere. You need to go back to the source on what he means then and a better explanation. 

[Goddess]

Just now, User said:

When you say, can't trust Big Pharma... maybe you need to be a bit more specific on what that means. 

FFS 

Are you THAT completely and utterly uninformed of the many scandals, frauds, billion dollar fines, and dangerous drug approvals that Pharma needs to be hauled kicking and screaming that take years to revoke?

 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

an electrifying videocast episode titled, [insert fakename-->] 'Eric Someonestein: Are we on the brink of Something?"

I feel like I got red-flagged by CSIS and Homeland Security just for reading that title in your post, I'm definitely not copying and pasting it here.

If there's another incident that gets the same apocalyptic TV coverage as J6 6th, everyone who watched that video will get their door kicked in by the FBI/RCMP. 

WTF was he thinking when he named it that? "Click this link if you want to be anally probed".

 

Funny side-story: at my son's school the kids are saying that the test for money pox is a metal probe into the butt. I don't know if it's true, but do you remember when people were told that they didn't have have to get the jab, but they'd need to get tested for covid every day? 🤣 Now they can say "Get one jab in the arm or play 'Kamala on political appointment day' every day for the next year."

[User]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's 100% correct.

You can not trust Big Pharma, major health publications, and the NiH. 

And FYI, not all the drugs in the hospital are still protected by patents. 

So, you can't trust Big Pharma while "they" have the patents, but you can trust Big Pharma once the patent run out?

Like, drug bad, no trust one day, Patent runs out, drug good, me trust now!

[impartialobserver]

5 minutes ago, User said:

When you say, can't trust Big Pharma... maybe you need to be a bit more specific on what that means. 

You are not steering me anywhere. You need to go back to the source on what he means then and a better explanation. 

Well.. just trying to assist you. Oh well, back to mind numbing computer code. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Well.. just trying to assist you. Oh well, back to mind numbing computer code. 

OK, thanks... 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

FFS 

Are you THAT completely and utterly uninformed of the many scandals, frauds, billion dollar fines, and dangerous drug approvals that Pharma needs to be hauled kicking and screaming that take years to revoke?

 

Give me your best estimate, ball park, how much of modern medicine can be trusted and how much do you just dismiss as dangerous and not to be trusted?

You are coming across as nothing can be trusted and making broad, generalizing statements. 

 

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Back to the issue of censorship (Nice that Zuck finally admitted it.)

You were the one who brought up the vaccine schedules. You did that. You are now running from addressing any of the questions or challenges I made. 

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, User said:

You are now running from addressing any of the questions or challenges I made. 

No, I'm not.  You're deliberately and consciously uninformed and use MSM headlines and hastily googled Wiki pages to rebut with and seem too think they are superior sources of information than well-researched books on the subject (which you refuse to consider) and medical studies and datasets.

You don't leave much room for discussion.

And you demand explanations for things like why I don't trust CNN over independent scientists.  Which I think is fairly obvious.

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I feel like I got red-flagged by CSIS and Homeland Security just for reading that title in your post, I'm definitely not copying and pasting it here.

That's crazily frightening.

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, User said:

Give me your best estimate, ball park, how much of modern medicine can be trusted and how much do you just dismiss as dangerous and not to be trusted?

I take each claim individually.

For instance, when natural immunity for covid was loudly denied, even by "experts", I compared it to what we already knew about coronaviruses/colds/flus and virology/epidemiology and concluded they were full of 💩.

And I was right.

When they said if you got the jab you would not get covid or pass it on to others and that's why we needed mandates, I compared it to what we already knew about cornonaviruses and flu vaccines and also knew right away they were full of 💩

And I was right again.

When the studies first came out about myocarditis and the "experts" were saying no such thing as vax-induced myocarditis, I compared it to what we already knew about myocarditis being an adverse event for jabs in general, again - I knew they were full of 💩.

When the 6-foot distancing thing came out and made everyone's life miserable, I compared it to what we knew about the physics of aerosols and dispersals and knew they were full of 💩.

So when Fauci admitted under questioning that he just made it up, I was like, "No 💩, Sherlock."

I guess I'm a person who, if you lie to me continuously, I check out everything you say afterwards.

[WestCanMan]

34 minutes ago, User said:

So, you can't trust Big Pharma while "they" have the patents, but you can trust Big Pharma once the patent run out?

Like, drug bad, no trust one day, Patent runs out, drug good, me trust now!

No, if a drug is still around in 25 years it's safer than Oxy and the Jab.

The story behind the Oxy epidemic:

 

[Goddess]

Everyone should watch that movie.

THEN we'll have a talk about how much Pfizer loves you.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I take each claim individually.

For instance, when natural immunity for covid was loudly denied, even by "experts", I compared it to what we already knew about coronaviruses/colds/flus and virology/epidemiology and concluded they were full of 💩.

And I was right.

When they said if you got the jab you would not get covid or pass it on to others and that's why we needed mandates, I compared it to what we already knew about cornonaviruses and flu vaccines and also knew right away they were full of 💩

And I was right again.

When the studies first came out about myocarditis and the "experts" were saying no such thing as vax-induced myocarditis, I compared it to what we already knew about myocarditis being an adverse event for jabs in general, again - I knew they were full of 💩.

When the 6-foot distancing thing came out and made everyone's life miserable, I compared it to what we knew about the physics of aerosols and dispersals and knew they were full of 💩.

So when Fauci admitted under questioning that he just made it up, I was like, "No 💩, Sherlock."

I guess I'm a person who, if you lie to me continuously, I check out everything you say afterwards.

At this stage of the game, if someone can't name ten times they were absolutely lied to about covid and the jabs, their IQ is below 50 or their confirmation bias is set to scorched earth.

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, if a drug is still around in 25 years it's safer than Oxy and the Jab.

The story behind the Oxy epidemic:

 

Another one is the Hulu miniseries, Dopesick. It gives more of a boots on the ground perspective. 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Another one is the Hulu miniseries, Dopesick. It gives more of a boots on the ground perspective. 

It's why I have little patience with the whiney, "But WHY don't you trust Big Pharma?" crowd these days.

 

[impartialobserver]

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's why I have little patience with the whiney, "But WHY don't you trust Big Pharma?" crowd these days.

 

I know of your issues with covid vax but does this distrust cover all prescription drugs made and not just opioids? A simple yes or no will suffice. 

Edited September 5, 2024 by impartialobserver

[User]

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I know of your issues with covid vax but does this distrust cover all prescription drugs made and not just opioids? A simple yes or no will suffice. 

Good luck. 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, User said:

Good luck. 

All i can do is try. 

[User]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

🙄

Ya, OK, Mr. Critical Thinker Who Only Believes MSM Headlines.

I'll get right on that.

I never said I only believe MSM headlines and nothing I have done here supports such an accusation. 

Clearly, you have no intentions of ever getting on responding to the criticism and questions you are confronted with to defend the bogus assertions you are making. 

[User]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Do you ever check your sources?

Once again, you seek to ignore specific claims and dismiss the source... Wiki linked to the sources it provided, it was not the actual source. 

Beside, I only quickly provided that to demonstrate, again, that your claim about that book was absurdly wrong. 

If it will make you feel better, I can go pull one of the examples out of Wiki and link straight to that... but I guess you will just ignore me or dismiss that too. 

 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I know of your issues with covid vax but does this distrust cover all prescription drugs made and not just opioids? A simple yes or no will suffice. 

It's not just the covid vax. It's Oxy and other opioids. It's shady Drs who traffic them. It's health publications who act as shills for big pharma. it's governments and judges who let them off the hook. It's legislation in western countries that says "anything defined as a disease can only be treated with prescription drugs". It's MSM outlets that let these stories fade away into oblivion without properly covering them.

Just think of how many less-important stories got headlines when all this was happening... 

From 2012-2015 Duffygate was headline news in Canada on a consistent basis, how many times did Oxy or Purdue Pharma grab a headline?