@jammycakes So sorry for the delay responding, and thrilled that this thread is still open so I can.
In context here I’m arguing that the authors of the Cook video are quietly trying to paint all those who have questions about the “official” covid story as “conspiracy theorists” ala Mikovits.
This is an argument from extremes. In my previous post I’m not totally incorrect simply because there are cases of true black and white. On the majority of issues, most of us are neither totally wrong nor totally right. It’s when we think we are totally right that we stop listening. Very bad.
And BTW I’m NOT a postmodern! I believe in truth. There are things that are wrong. The problem is that some claims by the CDC are among them. Some of the ideas labeled in this thread as conspiracy have kernels of truth sprinkled around. Attempts to suppress those disturb me.
The straw man Cook is easily shredding is the Mikovits arguments that are particularly wacky. If he wanted to debunk issues in the Plandemic video, he could have done so simply. The annoyance to me is that I don’t think he cares at all about conspiracy theories, but about labeling things as such.
Dude! Go to his channel and find me one video that exposes CDC lies and errors. He’s a partisan hack! His use of a sloppy covid video to supposedly help us poor souls understand “conspiracy theories” in spring 2020 is deeply disingenuous, regardless of the fact that he is not wrong about some points.
More important to me is the context of this thread. I have argued for good listening and recognizing truth in “the other side’s” arguments. Especially for my thesis, I feel this video works against that.
@Randy any progress on this? I’m still disturbed that the CDC would publish a paper based on math, not show the math, and conclude the opposite of the real world population studies! The paper is authored by like 60 PhD and MD types, but it feels like total propaganda. One can speculate on how there might be a valid reason for some skew. But shouldn’t population studies with large numbers be considered definitive over speculative, unstated math? Yet if I’m not mistaken, the CDC persists with this BS.
The husband of Judy “Plandemic” Mikovitz, David Nolde, has died. He was 83 years old. Evidently he had COPD and heart problems. She says he didn’t have covid. "By a miracle of God I was able to get into that hospital just in time,” she says. She intervened because the hospital was planning to deliver what she says would have been a deadly treatment of remdesivir and intubation. (But it wasn’t covid, you see.) She released a video claiming it wasn’t covid. When he died, she blamed it on the hospital, claiming he didn’t get his blood pressure or heart medicine!
This is truly pathetic. He was much older than her and was unvaccinated despite being very frail. He deserved better. SorryAntiVaxxers is trying to get more information on this case.
I am so sorry to hear that. However, one does not give BP med if one is septic. I’m not sure of the report or situation, of course, but if he’s very sick, then the hospital did exactly the right thing, and she does not have insight into medicine.
Marty, Happy Christmas Eve! I hope you and your family are well.
Can you remind me what your concern is? Are you concerned there is no need for a booster vaccine?
I’m finishing up listening to a book that you might find helpful. “How to Talk to a Science Denier,” by Lee McIntyre, examines a lot regarding conspiracy theories. He notes how CDC and WHO made a mistake about being too confident against masks at first–thus, setting up for lack of trust. He recommends admitting uncertainty from the beginning.
He also encourages explaining why they were mistaken in the first place, so as to regain trust. I think that we all want certainty. When they are trying to encourage best behavior, it’s hard to encourage people to do what we “think” is the right thing.
He also discusses flat earth, GMO and vaccine denials. It’s a very interesting book.
Another book a friend of mine has recommended is “The Plague,” by Camus. I think I’ll listen to that next. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Thanks.
Have a great Christmas!
I’m sorry, but that’s reading between the lines of the video without reading the lines themselves, and in the process missing the point of the video entirely. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he is doing anything of the sort.
Marty, it would help if you read the whole of my post and make sure you get the central point that I’m making. By selectively quoting one and a half sentences that I’ve said here, you’ve missed out on a very important point that I made in the sentence before:
Furthermore, in many subjects, determining which side is right and which side is wrong is either (a) blatantly obvious even to the layman, or (b) a matter of life and death.
Look, I get it that not every issue is black and white. I get it that some things are just a matter of perspective. I get it that sometimes there are no right or wrong answers. I get it that sometimes we need to be more prepared to listen to “the other side.” I get it that sometimes we need to be more tolerant of other viewpoints in the interest of, as the Apostle Paul said to Titus, avoiding foolish controversies.
But there are times when such an attitude is not appropriate. It’s may be all very lovey-dovey and diplomatic to think in these terms, but there are times when such an approach could be misguided or even dangerous. Especially when we are dealing with claims whose falsehood is either (a) putting people’s lives in danger, or (b) so egregiously blatant that it is impairing people’s ability to tell the difference between what is real and what isn’t.
And there is a very good reason why some of us get snarky about people crying “there are two sides to every story” when there are not. Some of us have learned that there aren’t the hard way. Some of us work day in, day out, in situations where thinking that there are two sides to every story when there aren’t would get us fired. When your IT infrastructure, your clients’ pensions, your patients’ lives and health, or the structural integrity of the bridges that you are building are at stake, you can’t afford to indulge in misguided diplomacy with people who are cutting corners or trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Well if that’s the case then you need to state what those claims are and why they are wrong, and provide evidence to back up your assertions.
Well I’m sorry, but that is both (a) a genetic fallacy and (b) a straight-up ad hominem attack if not outright name calling. Even if he is some kind of “partisan hack” as you put it, whatever “partisan hackery” you are accusing him of is not the point of his video. Besides, he is a climatologist, not an epidemiologist, so the fact that he says nothing about the CDC is irrelevant.
In any case, there are two very good reasons why he would use a particularly sloppy video to help us understand conspiracy theories in this way.
Sloppy arguments are often the best way to explain why bad arguments are bad because the logical fallacies that they contain are the most obvious and easiest to understand. More sophisticated bad arguments would require specialist knowledge and detailed reasoning to explain why they are bad, and a primer on critical thinking and logical fallacies would get too bogged down in the details to be useful.
There are many, many people out there who fall for arguments that are that egregiously bad, not least because they don’t understand what logical fallacies are or how to spot them.
You have said that by using such egregiously bad arguments in that way, he is tarring all non-mainstream claims with the same brush. But to think that is, once again, to try to read between the lines of the video without actually reading the lines themselves. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he is doing anything of the sort.
@jammycakes I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the video authors and their motivations. If we could sit down over coffee we could probably find agreement on a number of items, but this forum is probably not the best place for litigating these details.
But do you think that, in the context of this thread, that video encourages people to engage more thoughtfully with others, or to dismiss them, or it would have no impact?
I’ve found that the best way to help people to filter out plausible ideas from implausible ones is to explain to them some general principles by which to do so – what makes a good argument and what doesn’t, what the different logical fallacies are and why they are logical fallacies, how to reason and think clearly, and so on and so forth. As far as I can see, whatever the motivations behind the video are, it does a good job of explaining that.
@jammycakes And has this video helped you (or anyone) connect with people who think there is something funny going on? For example:
The CDC has been lying to us (they have).
I knew these vaccines were not going to prevent infection (they don’t).
The drug companies are in cahoots with the FDA and the CDC.
Yeah, they called the lab leak theory a “conspiracy theory” once (it’s always been quite plausible).
There’s surely more, but these are off the top of my head. If you’re explaining principles of conspiracy theories and using covid-related examples, it sounds like you’re only talking to people who think none of the above have any merit.
You think I’m reading between the lines. I think I’m putting this in the context of our political and media divisiveness, and recognizing what Cook is trying to do (again, see his utube channel). All of the media uses truth, but each side only uses truth that supports their narrative.
As I said, you need to explain what lies they are telling and provide evidence that they really are lies.
That is a false dichotomy, and flat-out wrong. “They don’t prevent infection” does not mean “they reduce infection rates by 80% rather than 100%.” It means “They have no discernible effect on infection rates whatsoever.”
Again, evidence please.
Just because some “conspiracy theories” are plausible does not mean that all conspiracy theories are plausible.
Is it plausible that the virus was leaked from a lab? Yes. Is it plausible that it was leaked deliberately? No.
Just because some people turn these things into political partisan issues, that doesn’t mean that everyone trying to address them is treating them as political partisan issues. Some of us are trying to take an evidence-based approach to such questions that is independent of politics and culture wars.
We won’t get through to the people who are being partisan about it. They are too blinded by outrage at the “other side” to be rational. And they will always accuse evidence-based approaches of being “partisan” when the evidence contradicts their own “side.” But there are plenty of other people who, like ourselves, are somewhere in the middle, can see there’s a lot of bull**** being spouted, and want to know how to filter it all out. And with people such as that, yes, such approaches most certainly do help.
@jammycakes Hmmmm. I would sure prefer if I didn’t feel like you were trying to win an argument rather than engage in conversation.
I was recently in a long conversation with a couple where one has had three shots and the other had none, and I was able to help the hesitant consider getting the jab for the right reasons. Why? Partly because I was able to agree about truths in points put forward by the hesitant, discuss the real implications of those truths, and clarify the right reasons to get vaxxed anyway. If I approached it like you are here, there would have been no conversation. No conversation!
Remember, my objective here is not to litigate covid, vaccines, or the CDC. Mistakes were made, lies were told, and you should know what those are. The Vax hesitant focus on those. Have you been in conversation with vax hesitant where you have acknowledged they are right about some of the points they have raised? If so, then why can’t you do that here? If not, you may be in danger of blaming them for “being partisan” when really it’s your inability to effectively engage.
My objective here is to help people talk to one another from across the two sides of our bitterly divided nation in the context of a media environment that continually tries to stoke division. Your recent response tells me that whatever I post you’re likely to try litigate why I’m wrong. Please don’t waste our time. I’m not wrong in what I’m actually saying, you’ll hear it from the vax hesitant, and if you want to converse with them you better not just lob grenades of refutation.
If you want to be able to hold conversations with the vax hesitant, find what’s true in my posts. Don’t read them so that you can refute them. If you want to win arguments, I’ll be glad to let you have the last word. If you want to get better at talking to people you disagree with, I’ll engage more. Up to you.
Marty, great for you for having talked with them. It sounds like you approached them with patience, humility, and kindness. It reminds me of Lee McIntyre’s book which I just finished, “How to Talk With a Science Denier.” In it, he discusses the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory thinker, and also how to talk with them–with respect, listening, and patience, as you have shown.
He also agrees with you that we have to start with acknowledgement of what we don’t know. He remarks that CDC and WHO should have started their recommendations against masks as “we think it’s better not to have masks at this point.” It’s hard, going into a pandemic and times of stress, when people demand certainty, to say that conditionally. However, scientists are not perfect.
Not only that, but as McIntyre notes, one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists is they put science to an impossible standard.
In contrast, it is the compassion, humility and patience you demonstrated that really communicates, especially when we are all stressed.
McIntyre agrees with CDC, however, as do I. We can discuss this in another thread, if you like.
I would be interested in your impression, if you get a chance to read this good book. He deals with how to talk with many different types of conspiracy theories–Flat Earth, GMO, vaccines, and many others–from both liberal and conservative sides.
Again, thank you for your desire to save lives. Blessings!
In medical school, they had a saying–“In 4 years, about 1/4 of what we teach you will have changed. The only problem is, we don’t know what 1/4 that will be!”
I’m currently doing recertification studies for neonatal resuscitation. It reminds me of how things changed in standard of care in resuscitation. In residency 20 years ago, we were told to focus on the air way first–“ABC-airway, breathing, circulation.” However, for adults, that has changed. Now, we start with chest compressions right away–as we found that the brain doesn’t do well without some sort of perfusion. In contrast, with newborns, the airway is still the first area to focus on. I do remember studies seeming to push the airway as the most important as a resident; and now, things have changed. We also no longer use some medications in adult resuscitation that we used to --bretylium, for example.
Many of us may have noted that Pap smears are so much better than we no longer do them yearly, but from 3 to 5 year intervals separate Paps. Colonoscopies now start at 45, not at 50. Prostate cancer screening has less benefit than we used to think. It is a great place to find humility.
Marty, when “engaging in conversation,” it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to challenge vague and unsubstantiated assertions by asking for specifics and evidence to back them up. It is also perfectly reasonable and legitimate to challenge claims that are false or misleading by explaining what is false or misleading about them. To dismiss such challenges with accusations of “trying to win an argument rather than engage in conversation” or that “Your recent response tells me that whatever I post you’re likely to try litigate why I’m wrong” just tells me that you expect me to roll over and say yes and amen to everything that you are saying without question. I’m sorry, but I am not prepared to do that. And I would expect that nobody else round here is either.
No I don’t know what those are! I don’t know what they are because you haven’t told me what they are, despite me asking twice. What do you think I am, some sort of mind reading psychic? Besides, if your “objective here is not to litigate covid, vaccines, or the CDC,” why do you keep accusing them of lying? More to the point, why do you keep accusing them of lying without giving any indication as to what those lies might be?
Look, maybe you’re right. Maybe the CDC has been lying. Maybe there are things that the vaccine hesitant have to say that we need to listen to. But I can’t respond to those lies unless I know what they are actually lying about, and what evidence you have that they really are lies.
Back a couple of posts I listed a few issues that the covid vax hesitant say. I recommend that we find what is true in what they say. But you seem focused on finding what is wrong in what they say. Your most recent reply doubles down on that. I’m trying especially to understand how you think your approach would help any of them.
There’s a good piece by Jordan Peterson where he talks about the importance of listening, asking questions, trying to understand, and finding agreement. Scroll down just past the intro to read Peterson.
As regards the word “lie,” if you listen to the covid vax hesitant, you find that it’s an emotionally laden term for the betrayal and distrust they feel. It covers issues that may not technically be “lies” per se, but are morally suspect. Again, if you want to help them it’s important to understand their perspective. Prov 18:13: “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”
In any case, I’ll give you the most egregious actual lie told by the CDC, that “the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity.” That issue has been on this thread for discussion with @Randy. Before I put in anything else, would you agree that this is a well-known lie?
It is established beyond doubt that an antigen exposure will cause immune response. CDC recommends a vaccine, even if you’ve had Covid. There is excellent history, pre and post Covid, to suggest that.
Marty, you asked that people interact kindly. Some of the words I read above are not consistent wtih your character.
I ask you seriously to talk respectfully, without the word “lie.” You can say all sorts of words to avoid that–that something doesn’t make sense to you, for example.
However, CDC have for decades served us well, in many ways beyond Covid. Just for interaction on the discourse, everyone deserves our respect.–but especially they do.
They supply travel information for missionaries for decades for me and patients who ask; they are experts with experience and integrity far above many others.
Your style is usually better than this. Your interaction is usually really good. However, I’ll stop interacting if this continues. Thank you.
First, is that an actual quote from the CDC? If not, what precisely did they say?
Second, no, it’s not a lie. In some studies immunity acquired from infection appears superior to vaccine-induced immunity, in some the reverse, and in some it’s a toss-up. What answer you get very likely depends on exactly what you’re looking at and when you’re looking at it. For an exhaustive rundown of studies on the subject, see this thread on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1473327810534154241