Consider: if anyone else here had posted this vid, would your reaction be in any way different? Consider that question very carefully. Anyone else. edit: Would your consideration of the vid change? Would your opinion of what you already know of the vid and its participants change?
The vid:
No. I was put off by her leading questions but those could easily be a product of post-editing. The first guy seems earnest but has taken on the role of "Voice in the wilderness," which means he's not really bouncing his thoughts off of anyone before going on TV. The second guy's credentials made me snicker and when I skipped to the end, what he was saying was predictable so I ignored him. Overall I learned a bit that I consider useful, but I discarded a lot of chaff. I never for a minute thought it was attempting to be a balanced presentation.
This is what you're not getting about science and medicine. It's not about you; it certainly looks like you want it to be.
Instead, science isn't/shouldn't be emotional or based on personality, although compassion needs to be part of the equation, certainly.
Once you get past the "look at what I know" then it can make more sense to you.
You rejected the video without even watching it. You admitted this. Your rationale was you didn't believe the participants in the video had any credibility. Yet you hadn't watched the video to know who appeared in it or what they had to say. You now appear to want to forget this fact, and move the goal posts.
Everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with some or all of what is presented in the vid. But to reject it outright without even knowing what is being presented is easily the dumbest thing I've seen on this site in quite a while.
Consider: if anyone else here had posted this vid, would your reaction be in any way different? Consider that question very carefully. Anyone else.
This is what you're not getting about science and medicine. It's not about you; it certainly looks like you want it to be.
Instead, science isn't/shouldn't be emotional or based on personality, although compassion needs to be part of the equation, certainly.
Once you get past the "look at what I know" then it can make more sense to you.
Consider: if anyone else here had posted this vid, would your reaction be in any way different? Consider that question very carefully. Anyone else. edit: Would your consideration of the vid change? Would your opinion of what you already know of the vid and its participants change?
Sheryl Attkisson deserves to be ignored. She has spent her late career spreading falsehoods, falsehoods that convince people to do actual harm.
She is a journalist, one ignorant of the subject she covers. This isn't unusual; I bet you could rattle off a dozen examples of misleading coverage of a topic you know by someone who swooped in, interviewed someone from his/her rolodex, and ran with a garbled impression of what that person said. That impression may be all many laymen ever learn about the subject and sounds authoritative because it comes from a news source that its users trust.
She has impressed other journalists because they are also ignorant of the subjects she covers and because there are people they don't like calling bullshit on her coverage. Provoking controversy means she's making an impact, something many journalists prize far higher than disseminating truthful information.
She's a fraud with a following, a huckster selling snake oil to an enthusiastic audience. Their enthusiasm doesn't make what she says any truer, it just makes her voice louder. Loud enough to drown out people who know what they're talking about.
See, a response like that...clearly what you're doing is just for the ego boost.
No one's angry, I suspect, so you're just projecting it onto us for your own needs.
What's really happening is that you're posting something ludicrous and we're telling you that it is. Even backing it up.
And that hurts your ego.
So if you can't dialogue with reasonable disagreeing information, rather than realize you're out of ammo...it must be us, angry, that you pivot towards - and you get to save yourself with the ego boost one-up of having "controlled" our emotions.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not angry at all.
I really don't understand the alternate world some people live in. A complete rejection of facts that don't comply with their own thinking. Reflexive responses without either considered or critical examination. Perhaps these are the outdoor medical mask wearers that are becoming more numerous once again.
See, a response like that...clearly what you're doing is just for the ego boost.
No one's angry, I suspect, so you're just projecting it onto us for your own needs.
What's really happening is that you're posting something ludicrous and we're telling you that it is. Even backing it up.
And that hurts your ego.
So if you can't dialogue with reasonable disagreeing information, rather than realize you're out of ammo...it must be us, angry, that you pivot towards - and you get to save yourself with the ego boost one-up of having "controlled" our emotions.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not angry at all.
I learned a bit, but I also saw two smart guys. Dr. Vaughan used language to describe fibrin that's very similar to the article that Lazy linked. So we have Vaughan who's working independently, but reading a lot and making some connections but is really not waving a red flag, but he's being vocal enough to draw attention and get on TV. The other one is a quack. I tried to watch his bit but I couldn't finish. Scrolled to the end and I wouldn't trust him on any subject. No that's not a valid commentary on what he has to say, but I don't like him so he's wrong. ;-)
I learned a bit, but I also saw two smart guys. Dr. Vaughan used language to describe fibrin that's very similar to the article that Lazy linked. So we have Vaughan who's working independently, but reading a lot and making some connections but is really not waving a red flag, but he's being vocal enough to draw attention and get on TV. The other one is a quack. I tried to watch his bit but I couldn't finish. Scrolled to the end and I wouldn't trust him on any subject. No that's not a valid commentary on what he has to say, but I don't like him so he's wrong. ;-)
Saw that back then. Yeah, I've got the Long Covid and have been watching to see how it's being figured out.
A buddy had emergency heart surgery after a valve rupture and my optometrist was out of work four months because of busted brain. We need a good reason that it's so heterogenous in presentation.
