I think few experts do that. And I don’t think that is the situation here.
Instead, experts are giving information they believe is true and valuable, and other people just think it is misinformation.
Agreed.
True, but you are thinking mistakenly, as the facts in the video demonstrate.
I see you have spent far more time arguing on the forum than in listening to the analysis of the validity of Malone’s interview.
Here’s what I got from the first 12 minutes of that video:
- Malone was not be a very long shot the inventor of mRNA vaccines or technology. He did one mRNA experiment in grad school that was never published. He got a couple patents, but abandoned them because they never got used. Hundreds of other scientists have been deeply involved for decades in making mRNA vaccines a reality, and his contribution to their efforts was infinitesimal.
- The process Malone studied and patented was never used at any stage in the development of mRNA vaccines.
- Malone’s claim to have been at the “tip of the spear” in the development of the Merck Ebola vaccine is at best grossly exaggerated and quite likely an outright lie.
- Population-level vaccination programs are important for several reasons:
- minimize spread to the immunocompromised, who often have little to no immune response to vaccines
- minimize the virus’ opportunity to mutate
- minimize the harm (e.g., long COVID) to the general population
- keep health facilities (especially ERs) available for accident victims, heart attack victims, etc.
- Safety concerns about vaccines are not censored.
- For example, the blood clotting concerns re: the J&J vaccine
- The truthful message of public health authorities is not that the risks are zero, but that the risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. The contrary message (Rogan’s and Malone’s) is dangerous not just to their listeners, but to the friends and families of their listeners (who might get COVID from the listeners), to the friends and families of the friends and families, etc.
I regret that I do not have more time to listen to the rest of the analysis, but I have learned enough to realize that Malone’s message is, to the extent that it influences behavior, dangerous to the listener and to the commonweal.
Perhaps you feel that private companies against their better judgment should be forced to platform such a dangerous message, and I would disagree. But we should be able to agree that Malone’s grad school research project that went nowhere 30 years ago does not make him qualified to pass judgment on the work of thousands of scientists and epidemiologists in the decades since.
Best,
Chris
6 Likes
Why do you think that?
Why do you think it is?
What makes you think Dr. Malone is a lying con man?
Because what he says is demonstrably false. Why do you believe him?
What do you think that I have been arguing?
It is not about the right or wrong of his views.
My argument is that censorship is not good.
I am surprised that so many here favor censorship and even criminal prosecution of people with opinions differing from theirs!
I do believe that private companies presenting themselves as platforms rather than publishers, and enjoying the legal protections granted to platforms, should not censor views.
Thank you for investing 12 minutes
It’s about censoring lethal ‘opinions’ when reality dictates otherwise!
1 Like
Did I say I believe him?
I said that I believe he has a right to be heard.
Do you think corporate social media platforms should be forced to host material that is known to be false and a known risk to public health?
3 Likes
That is not the point. He has been heard by people who know better and he should be censored!
Should slander and libel be allowed?
1 Like
There are legal remedies for this.
Yes, platforms should be impartial hosts.
And the slanderers and libelous people should sued by the targets of their lies.
It appears we have very different philosophies.
News outlets should be allowed to publish slanders and lies and materially false and dangerous ‘alternative facts’ is your philosophy. Got it.
1 Like
There are some excellent examples.
Nicholas Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse come to mind.
Sandmann has had the compensation due him. I expect Rittenhouse will too.
Hopefully the financial costs to the news outlets will give the publishers pause.
How is that relevant to the issue? We are talking about lethal misinformation for the populus.
I am surprised you can’t see the connection
This has never been the case in the entire history of the US. All media has always decided what they will print or air. No newspaper or news program is forced to give voice to lies and misinformation. They are independent, which means they can decide what exists on their platform. Social media is no different.
2 Likes
That was a compliment. Thank you.
The fact that he tells lies, or at least makes clearly false statements. Whether he’s a con man or not is immaterial – what he says is false.
And my argument is that killing people is also not good. You seem completely uninterested in whether Malone is right or whether he is contributing to the death of thousands by encouraging people not to be vaccinated. You could investigate his claims before spreading them, but you don’t.
3 Likes