Like you slinking away after your claim that a retired FBI

spooneye®

All-In [34113]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 33621

Joined: 9/13/99

I said disinformation. And here's what I meant by it.

Jan 25, 2023, 12:57 PM [ in reply to Can you define misinformation? ]

I'm referring to the deliberate use of bad information for the purpose of affecting public opinion and obscure the truth. (This is approximately the Merriam-Webster definition.)

Now to be clear, I am not necessarily blaming you for the "deliberate" part. There's a good chance you are merely deceived. I think you are an honest person. However, I don't think you're very knowledgeable about what you're posting. If you are, then I'll have many follow-up questions for you. (It's rare to have an opportunity to talk to a Covid expert.) Assuming you're not an expert, I expect the tweet you posted genuinely gave you pause (as you put it), but only because the tweet makes it sounds like the vaccines are scary harmful.

In answer to your second question (where is the disinformation): The disinformation is the "Natural Immunity" person tweeting about the "extensive damage" caused by Covid vaccines, with limited explanation or context, and with a screenshot of some unidentified text thrown in. This tweet neatly sums up a big problem with the "did my own research" crowd, which is a willingness to accept random tweets like this for no good reason other than it reinforces their fear.

Can we determine if it's true? Well, the tweet forces readers to google partial phrases from the quote. You have to manually type it into Google because the text was deliberately turned into an image file. Otherwise you can't determine where it came from and what it means. Without doing that, you wouldn't know (for instance) that this pertains to mRNA vaccines rather than the old type of vaccine (both are available). You also wouldn't know that the autopsy confirmed that the person died of Parkinson's Disease, not myocarditis or brain inflammation. And then it has a video purportedly of a doctor (unclear as to expertise in Covid) talking about the vaccine's effect on the human genome, which as far as I can tell was not mentioned at all in the quoted study. Which means the tweet is suggesting scientific findings that aren't there. And overall, non-experts are in a bad position to read and comprehend scientific articles, not to mention understanding their role in the overall science.

Now, let's look at the extent to which this could be seen as genuine data for making an informed decision about getting vaccinated. The answer is: it's not. But let's acknowledge something: all vaccines can have side effects, and Covid vaccines are no different. That's real, and anyone who pretends it can't have side effects is simply wrong. To make an informed decision with respect to those side effects, however, you have to consider the statistics as a whole. No one should ever, ever, ever, choose a treatment because of something that may have happened to someone one time. Instead, the question is about both (a) the chances and (b) the magnitude of harm in getting the treatment (in this case, a vaccine) vs. the chances and magnitude of harm in not getting the treatment (in this case, having Covid). And of course you should also consider the result of getting the vaccine and the disease, since that has happened to many people. All of this requires a large statistical sample and lots of data. Mere anecdotes are bound to confuse rather than inform.

So, in summary, your post contains disinformation because the author of the tweet is attempting to sway public opinion by (1) deliberately limiting information (converting it to an image, withholding the source), (2) presenting a partial paragraph from a scientific article which, even in presented in whole, would be difficult for a layperson to draw conclusions from, (3) linking together medical claims that do not appear connected in the source material, (4) presenting a video of someone who is not obviously an expert and does no explaining of the data, and (5) presenting an anecdote as important decision-making data (which it isn't).

That's a quick rundown of what I saw and there may be more to say, but my time is limited. And that's actually another important point about disinformation, which is that disinformation is so much easier to spread than it is to refute. I spent a lot of time putting together this response, and you can always just go find 20 more tweets making other claims that would then have to be separately run down and analyzed. Which means that you always find more and more disinformation and eventually you won't get refuted because people eventually run out of time, energy, and willpower.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift

No need to apologize; I was just explaining why I wasn't defining the word you asked me to define. The words are similar except the "dis" is the more malicious version.

I went back to your first post, and when I click on your link it does not show me any link to the autopsy study. But I clicked around and found it, so yes, she does link it. Aside from the fact that some people (including me) will never see the link due to Twitter's format, I consider your response to counter my first two criticisms, which my 5-part summary labeled as (1) and (2).

Pete McCullough: I had never heard of this guy but I'm willing to believe he's an expert. Googling his name does not go well for him: looks like he's been spreading false propaganda for a while. (Random search results below.) He has promoted ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, neither of which are actual treatments. What leads you to think he's one of the most expert people in the world about Covid? I am willing to believe you if you can show why you think that.

Finally, you seem to agree with me that the data is what matters. But that means that you need to stop posting anecdotal evidence distributed via tweet, because that's not data. At best it's a datum, but it's not even that without context, i.e., as part of a larger data set.

Random McCullough links:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-with-peter-mccullough-contains-multiple-false-and-unsubstantiated-claims-about-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-vaccines/

Joe Rogan interview with Peter McCullough contains multiple false and unsubstantiated claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines

To date, more than 241 million people in the U.S. have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical trials as well as the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns provide overwhelming evidence that the vaccines’ benefits far outweigh their risks. There’s no evidence indicating that the amount of spike protein generated by mRNA vaccination is dangerous. The use of multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccines isn’t unusual or unprecedented; some childhood vaccines that have been used for decades also require four or more doses for complete immunization.

https://healthfeedback.org/authors/peter-mccullough/

Peter McCullough articles analyzed - Health Feedback

https://abcnews.go.com/US/group-physicians-combats-misinformation-unproven-covid-19-treatments/story?id=83097330

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936

Lawsuit: Doc Using Old Baylor Affiliation While Dishing COVID Vax Falsehoods

Baylor Scott & White Health says Peter McCullough, MD, used former title during media interviews

https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/news/2021/10/06/doctor-fired-baylor-spreading-covid-19-misinformation-finds-supportive-crowd-bartlesville/5995698001/

Doctor fired for spreading COVID misinformation finds supportive crowd in Bartlesville

Dr. Peter McCullough received standing ovation at the Bartlesville Community Center. He was fired from Baylor for spreading COVID misinformation.

In considering whether or not to get the vax

Mah spiracy!!!!***

Re: In considering whether or not to get the vax

Some people never grow up.***

yeah, like people who make important medical decisions

You mean based on a means of transferring information?

Re: You mean based on a means of transferring information?

So Pete McCullough

Nah. Just a Ph.D. in spotting bull ####.

He's not wrong.

He is.

You could show

So you're telling me...

I know that it is medical professionals

So again...

I believe he

Why are you dodging that source question?

I'm happy to see

I'm not going to look up stuff for you

Sounds like

Re: I'm not going to look up stuff for you

Re: Like you slinking away after your claim that a retired FBI

Accidentally TU this dumb post so enjoy a freebie.***

Re: Like you slinking away after your claim that a retired FBI

Thanks for the rules refresher...

lol, so CATA knows better. He would tear your butt apart

Nah, man, my opinion holds NO WAIT.***

^^^buttchugs supplements from infowars.com***

Hate to break the news to you but

So you advocate repeated

No, it doesn't matter. 97% of people have been exposed

Wouldn't a vax or booster be a repeat exposure?***

Re: So you advocate repeated

Wrong.

Can someone, anyone, raise their hand if you posting

Re: Can someone, anyone, raise their hand if you posting

Dude yells at nurses.

"I know the president of the hospital!!1!"***

Nat. immunity via periodic exposure to <= 300 viral units?

its amusing that you think he can read***

I do this for you, not him.***

Devastating 5th grade retort.

Nah, that's #########.

Re: In considering whether or not to get the vax

She seems like an awesome source.

"YOU'RE YOUR OWN BEST DOCTOR."

Re: "YOU'RE YOUR OWN BEST DOCTOR."

Re: "YOU'RE YOUR OWN BEST DOCTOR."

I hate to tell you guys, but most people aren't getting the

I think there's a difference between...

No, no...Not to these lunatics. If you don't want the

Which lunatics? In this thread?

Conservativealex, obviously soccerkrzy since he gave me a TD

I'm not one of them, my TD is because you're obviously

Unless if you think you are your own best doctor...then yeah

My reply was already after it had been derailed

Look man, I love you. But what we're doing here is not

her? i think he's a mail doctor and a million times more

HE'S A MAIL DOCTOR SO YOUR OPINION HAS NO WAIT

First...

Wrong again.

Not yet, but the day is young

Even Tiggity

Wait a second.......

There is an autopsy report.

We need an autopsy report

That chick is kookoo

And yeah, I'm with you.

So my replying to somebody mocking "anti-vaxxers" was

It’s become a religion

Who's still rampaging for boosters?

Re: First...

I remember Big House***

Speaking of strawmen.

Re: Speaking of strawmen.

Do you even know what that is?

It was a kids show in the 80s...

Sad fact is the latest "bivalent" booster, offers only

I'm waiting to wake up dead any day***