This chain of events is a shockingly clear example of how the censorship industry works. It is all the more shocking considering how seriously flawed Carballo-Carbajal‘s „fact-check“ article is.
Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 13, 2023Liked by Thorsteinn Siglaugsson
These "fact checks" are an arm of the "disinformation" calvary that was seeded, funded, organized and weaponized to spring into action when needed - which was about 3 years ago. These fact-checkers and disinformation chairs at colleges and think tanks had to exist to fight any dissent that was coming ... and not just about Covid topics. For example, digital currency or climate change initiatives. This all reeks of complex or elaborate pre-planning to me. So if installing these people and organizations was so important to the Establishment, we've got to figure they have bigger fish to fry in the future. In other words, we haven't seen anything yet when it comes to audacious and nefarious agendas of the Statists and totalitarians. Buckle up.
That your Facebook group has the fact check is proof that you are over the target. I think "fact check" is short for factitious check. Who checks their statements and what is the penalty if they are spreading disinformation? Also, Carballo seems pretty late to the dance.
Thorough deconstruction of Carballo-Carbajal’s “fact check.” The use of her greatly flawed work to censor the Cochrane review is a disturbing commentary on the group think that has turned much of the independent press into passive stenographers for whatever are the officially sanctioned policies. What you did in this post is what newspapers and others should have done before using Carballo-Carbajal’s “fact check.” But they were never interested in whether it was correct or logically sound, they were instead simply looking for a way to block the open debate.
Speaking of masks, I have recently begun watching The Daily Show, now that Trevor Noah has left and I am noticing that when they pan the NYC audience, everyone is wearing masks!
What's up with this? Apparently, it is a requirement to get into the show. Who knew?
The NYT got its point across, which was to reinforce their corporate view that cheap consumer masks do work to protect people from viruses, despite much evidence to the contrary.
If you take the time to read any user comment thread attached to NYT articles related to Covid, you'll see an overwhelming number of [clueless] readers posting that they fervently believe that masks do a good job of protection. After all, "if they didn't work, why would surgeons wear them in operating rooms?", goes the all to common retort.
To quote George Carlin "Think how stupid the average person is and then remember that 50% are stupider than that!". This should explain everything.
These "fact checks" are an arm of the "disinformation" calvary that was seeded, funded, organized and weaponized to spring into action when needed - which was about 3 years ago. These fact-checkers and disinformation chairs at colleges and think tanks had to exist to fight any dissent that was coming ... and not just about Covid topics. For example, digital currency or climate change initiatives. This all reeks of complex or elaborate pre-planning to me. So if installing these people and organizations was so important to the Establishment, we've got to figure they have bigger fish to fry in the future. In other words, we haven't seen anything yet when it comes to audacious and nefarious agendas of the Statists and totalitarians. Buckle up.
This is excellent analysis. Thank you for your commitment to staying the course on truth.
That your Facebook group has the fact check is proof that you are over the target. I think "fact check" is short for factitious check. Who checks their statements and what is the penalty if they are spreading disinformation? Also, Carballo seems pretty late to the dance.
Thank you for this article.
These 'fact checkers' have no shame.
The world of the so-called fact checker. Not “From symptoms to cause“ but “from conclusion to reasoning“.
Thorough deconstruction of Carballo-Carbajal’s “fact check.” The use of her greatly flawed work to censor the Cochrane review is a disturbing commentary on the group think that has turned much of the independent press into passive stenographers for whatever are the officially sanctioned policies. What you did in this post is what newspapers and others should have done before using Carballo-Carbajal’s “fact check.” But they were never interested in whether it was correct or logically sound, they were instead simply looking for a way to block the open debate.
Speaking of masks, I have recently begun watching The Daily Show, now that Trevor Noah has left and I am noticing that when they pan the NYC audience, everyone is wearing masks!
What's up with this? Apparently, it is a requirement to get into the show. Who knew?
The NYT got its point across, which was to reinforce their corporate view that cheap consumer masks do work to protect people from viruses, despite much evidence to the contrary.
If you take the time to read any user comment thread attached to NYT articles related to Covid, you'll see an overwhelming number of [clueless] readers posting that they fervently believe that masks do a good job of protection. After all, "if they didn't work, why would surgeons wear them in operating rooms?", goes the all to common retort.
To quote George Carlin "Think how stupid the average person is and then remember that 50% are stupider than that!". This should explain everything.
Hi. I think your statement below is incorrect:
"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 21% 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 79% 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥; (𝘖𝘙=0.21, 95% 𝘊𝘐 0.06 𝘵𝘰 0.79)."
Reason:
The upper bound is 0.79 (𝗻𝗼𝘁 79%) which = 21% favouring mask group ((1-0.79)x100).
The OR=0.21 (𝗻𝗼𝘁 21%) which is 79% favouring mask group ((1-0.21)x100).
The rest of your article is excellent.
Cheers.
Jav.
"Masked Science":
Thread:https://mobile.twitter.com/JavRoJav/status/1339983830250377217
T:https://t.me/JavRoJav/3