I resemble an old git! I use FB as a way to keep in touch with family, but I also follow some motorbike and local band pages. The adverts are a pest, but I can scroll past them. It's quick and easy to load and share pics from the cell phone.
I am sure "confirmation biais" goes both ways on here. Here are few old quotes that fit into the main stream media of today. "This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it." Joseph Goebbels "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain (debatable that he actually said it) And this is exactly what the MSM and our governments are doing today. "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." Joseph Goebbels
I just wanted to see what peoples thoughts on the subject were after almost a year of lock downs, masks and vaccine propaganda. Guess not much has changed. I do read other sections of this forum but rarely post since I don't document my rides and am only a shade tree mechanic at best. I actually like the opinions given here, even if I don't agree with all of them, because we have a diverse group and people from various countries.
Here is my take on the 'peer reviewed research' people are so fond of, when it concerns pharmaceutical companies. You can't always trust it because it is bias. Similarly to an attorney presenting evidence in favor of a client, and attempting to suppress evidence which may harm the client’s case, academic researchers commonly conduct studies that favor the industry funding their study, in order to remain within the boundaries set by such industry. Since each piece of research is paid for by the pharmaceutical company creating the new drug, the scientist conducting the research must remain within guidelines, set by the drug company, not the FDA. Whereas the public has the perception that standardized policies and procedures are the controlling factor in research, in many cases, the public does not always understand that financial conflicts of interest, often play a key role in drug development (Korn, 2000). In addition, during independent research all findings become the intellectual property of the company funding the study (Gray, 2013). If the FDA, and doctors for that matter, only have limited and restricted research to make the decision, that a given drug is both effective and safe for the consumer, how does this affect the general public? According to the American Journal of Public Health, the FDA and doctors need strong evidence based information, in order to provide adequate, safe health care to consumers. However, Big Pharma “has used seeding trials, publication planning, messaging, ghostwriting, and selective publication and reporting of trial outcomes to distort the medical literature and undermine clinical research by obscuring information relevant to patients and physicians” (Ross, Gross, & Krumholz, 2012, p. 72). This limited research, and suppression of findings, can lead to an ethical fine-line for academic researchers involved in pharmaceutical studies. Due to the contractual agreement between the academic researcher and Big Pharma, none of the findings can be published until the drug in question is patented (Gray, 2013). According to the same contract, that limits the publication of findings; academic researchers are limited “to examining only those questions that are defined up front” (Gray, 2013, p. 632) by the company funding the research. In other words, if the criteria is to understand how a drug reacts to cell A, yet, the scientist discovers it adversely reacts to cell B, these findings cannot be included in the completed research, which is forwarded to the FDA for approval. This process keeps the pharmaceutical company from finding out information they do not want to know, which may inhibit the possibility of receiving FDA approval, and patenting the new drug (Gray, 2013). Mike Bundrant found in his study of the pharmaceutical industry, that even during medical conferences, the majority of information provided, 97.4%, was in favor of the drug being presented. In addition, only 2.6% of information presented held mixed findings, and none of the Big Pharma funded research presented had any negative results (Bundrant, 2012). References Bundrant, M. (2012). Study: Massive bias toward pharmaceuticals at American Psychiatric Association conferences. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from Natural News: https://www.naturalnews.com/036007_APA_psychiatric_drugs_conference.html Gray, G. C. (2013). The ethics of pharmaceutical research funding: A social organization approach. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 629-634. doi:10.1111/jlme.12072 Heyes, J. D. (2012). Vitamins more effective at Type 2 Diabetes treatment than pharmaceuticals. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from Natural News: https://www.naturalnews.com/036106_type-2_diabetes_vitamins_pharmaceuticals.html Kennedy, R. F. (2018). Caveat emptor: Science vs. CDC on scary flu shot promotions. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from Health Nut News: https://www.healthnutnews.com/caveat-emptor-science-vs-cdc-on-scary-flu-shot-promotions/ Korn, D. (2000). Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 284(17), 2234-2237. doi:10.1001/jama.284.17.2234 Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326(7400), 1167-1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 Light, D. W., Lexchin, J., & Darrow, J. J. (2013). Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 590-600. doi:10.1111/jlme.12068 Mercola, J. M. (2018). Millions fall for nightmare treatments that studies show are worse than worthless. Retrieved February 19, 2018, from Health Nut News: https://www.healthnutnews.com/milli...s-that-studies-show-are-worse-than-worthless/ Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., & Krumholz, H. M. (2012). Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 72-80. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300187 Tierney, W. M., Meslin, E. M., & Kroenke, K. (2016). Industry support of medical research: Important opportunity or treacherous pitfall? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(2), 228-233. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3495-z
I never trust fact checkers but I kind of like the bias checker you posted. I ran couple searches through it and it seems accurate for the most part. Given that, a center right to right rating does not make the article false it just shows that the paper leans in a better direction, IMO. But the same bias checker gave MSNBC CNN a left bias, not surprising, and factual reporting as Left Biased. Basically the same rating as the Desert Review but in the other direction but DS cane out as Mixed on factual reporting and listed as questionable. I did think it odd, given the multitude of recent retractions, the New York Times was rated high in factual reporting and CNN and MSNBC were only rated mixed and left biased instead of questionable for all three agencies. But I still like the bias checker and will save the link.
VIAGRA to treat COVID? I just found this interesting but am still not sure where I stand on the subject. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10362771/Nurse-wakes-28-day-Covid-coma-medics-VIAGRA.html https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/uk-nurse-recovers-from-covid-19-after-being-given-viagra/ https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-05/viagra-discovery-could-treat-coronavirus-patients
Scepticism is a sound principle and should always be applied to moderate, well, confirmation bias. You picked up on the political barometer first, which is interesting. That was the last, and least interesting metric for me, because facts are apolitical (if your 'fact' is based primarily on a political perspective then it's actually an opinion). I'm well aware that large news organisations can have political leanings. The reader should account for that, and I do when I read my usual newspaper. I don't automatically believe everything I read in it and I don't agree with everything that's written; sometimes errors are made. These principles will apply whether right or left leaning. The further the leaning though, the more facts become distorted or chosen selectively. Those outlets I avoid. There has been a huge amount of disdain and aggression towards established media entities (the so-called 'MSM') recently, but I wonder how many people ask themselves, who stands to benefit from undermining press credibility and the freedom to effectively question authority and speak truth to power? The answer of course is obvious. You only have to look at other regimes around the world to see how that works. Finally, some sources of 'news' simply fail the sniff test. You know, like when you go to buy a bike but something seems a bit off with the machine, or the seller. The sensible thing to do under those circustances is to walk away and find a better vendor. Many people don't.
The viagra helped to open up her airways, it says. It didn't directly attack the virus. In other words, it's not a cure. The original local paper article also records her doctor stating that if she hadn't been vaccinated she would have died.
Not sure what you mean. If it is about Goebbels I know it is strange but I like to read about him. His propaganda campaigns really showed how he could change peoples thoughts and ideas. It's kind of like a tanker studying Rommel, who was also a propagandist but not as good, IMO.
I saw that about the airway. The part I like is that someone went outside the box and was willing to try a new treatment.
No, I meant that the war against the MSM being waged by people with power and money is exactly the propoganda you may be unaware of.
I don't think that's what happened. You need an effect and you choose a drug that does it. Viagra is more applications than just erectile dysfunction.
There is a question over the Murdoch empire, and certain other right-wing media here in the UK raises some questions, but there are others that are less concerning. As i've mentioned before, the BBC isn't owned by any media moguls.
Part of some research I did in college I found that in many cases the drug is invented before they even know what it will be used for. For this reason many drugs have multiple uses. Kind of like the myth that saccharin is a rat poison. It is true but not true. Saccharin was an artificial sweetener that was going to be used to attract rats to the poison but it was not actually the poison. But, side note, artificial sweeteners are still bad for your health.
I remain distrustful of all media but you have to get news from somewhere. Have you ever looked into Operation Mockingbird? The CIA spied on and controlled the American media mainly members of the Washington press corps, starting in the early 1950s. The CIA finally admitted it was real a few years ago, but of course it "ended" years before they admitted it.
