the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.
this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.
now, there is.
could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?
we may never know.
the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.
when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?
yikes.
they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible
they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them
so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.
use other search engines.
bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.
(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)
i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing now.
https://t.co/pvbWfJ4MkE
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 10, 2020
google has memory holed the great barrington declaration
not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"
it's pure, simple propaganda
here's bing (who plays it straight) pic.twitter.com/kTdhH8zXia
it's not a full win, but it's a step in the right direction.
perhaps we all played some role.
i hope so.
let's keep watching and keep calling fouls when we see them
it's vital to a high functioning internet and informational ecosystem
consumer choice is what keeps businesses in line
but i also support transparency. if they ARE going to do this then people should know
no memory holes
let's circle the censorship in red pen and route around it
More from el gato malo
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
It took a Freedom of Information request but @Covid19DataUK acquired 2017-2019 averages for England hospitalizations.
— Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) December 31, 2020
2020 had 18% fewer hospitalizations than prior years.
All around the world, using hospital data without context of prior years is just a fear generating lie. pic.twitter.com/DJDpqhIQuw
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:
google has memory holed the great barrington declaration
not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"
it's pure, simple propaganda
here's bing (who plays it straight)
simple, right? here's the declaration, here's the wiki page.
you can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya's names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.
there's no slant, not editorializing, it's primary source info.
now let's have a look at google.
pretty different looking results, huh? not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.
they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.
um, no. this is "fake search."
the google results for "great barrington declaration" are simply not search results at all.
it's a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of "deniers."
it's staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?
or will they be fooled by this because it's subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.
and it's now EVERYWHERE.
reddit will not allow users to see
google has memory holed the great barrington declaration
not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"
it's pure, simple propaganda
here's bing (who plays it straight)
simple, right? here's the declaration, here's the wiki page.
you can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya's names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.
there's no slant, not editorializing, it's primary source info.
now let's have a look at google.
pretty different looking results, huh? not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.
they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.
um, no. this is "fake search."
the google results for "great barrington declaration" are simply not search results at all.
it's a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of "deniers."
it's staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?
or will they be fooled by this because it's subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.
and it's now EVERYWHERE.
reddit will not allow users to see
OMG \U0001f62f
— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) October 10, 2020
- reddit has censored discussion of The Great Barrington Declaration
- and Google has removed it from their search engine results (can only see articles about it now, as they cannot censor those
1984 is here?
Sign up here: https://t.co/lBaMxnQD1xhttps://t.co/1decFrnoCs
for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.
also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to
first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.
it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.
the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.
ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks
the good studies do not support use
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.
it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to
first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.
it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.
the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was
CDC claims that masks stopped the spread of covid in kansas by comparing masked and non-masked counties.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) November 23, 2020
counterpoint: this was a cherry pick in terms of date and seasonality.
they ended the "study" aug 23.
then, covid season hit and the masks look to have made no difference. https://t.co/LgyjqPodOC pic.twitter.com/P2cfuZRtDs
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.
ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same
this is from the study that CDC head robert redfield showcased the other night to "prove masks work"
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) July 28, 2020
it it the epidemiological equivalent of doing a sun dance at 5.30 AM and claiming you made that ball of fire in the sky appear
it's assumptive, lacks a control, & proves nothing pic.twitter.com/yTdBa7UFit
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks
the good studies do not support use
back in the halcyon days of 2019, before the great politicization of epidemiology turned up into down and down into sideways, the WHO performed a survey of randomized, controlled trials on masks
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) September 28, 2020
1100 citations were winnowed to the 10 best for review.
masks looked ineffective. pic.twitter.com/A04MVVmXhu
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.
it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply
this is a fascinating thread on possible physical properties of masks, viral spread, & infectivity
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) October 24, 2020
in essence, even if a mask stops large droplets, the force of expulsion may nebulize them into aerosols
so, it's possible that aerosol spread of cov is caused/accentuated by masks https://t.co/FiHfMU3NKD
