kwilco

1 hour ago, johng said:

It's not hidden at all ..they actually tell you what the plan is... it's just you are not listening.

Seriously? - I suppose they are those voices in your head?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Utter nonsense. Bats don't 'carry' viruses of any description.

so what would you do if bitten by a bat?

and secondly what would you do if bitten by any mammal?

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Sorry to misunderstand your point Sir.

 

For me, the whole lot are compromised. US and UK governments for sure. Big Pharma runs the medical Industrial complex. Big Oil. The Chemical industry. The Military complex. Israel lobby, They all have a bigger say than the guy or gal in the street.

 

Although elected bods talk the talk, when elected,  they don't walk the walk. And guess what? The financial industry is the ultimate decision maker for the west. One could be forgiven in thinking that Joe and Jane in the street are simply a nuisance.

 

There were 200 independent newspapers in the US when I was young. And as many TV stations. Where are they now? Gone! Just a handful now rule the roost.

 

The WHO is the biggest threat to human health ever, Yet the MSM keeps deathly quiet.

 

MMMM ……. this kind of sweeping list of villains (governments, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the WHO, the media, Israel, finance, etc.) is exactly how conspiracy thinking works:
Lots of blame, zero evidence, and everything framed as part of some hidden master plan.
Why is this so attractive to people? Well, complexity is uncomfortable,  it’s so much easier to believe in grand, evil forces pulling the strings than to accept that the world is in reality, chaotic, flawed, and often just badly managed.
Then, patterns and blame feel safer. Conspiracy theories give people something — or someone — to blame. It simplifies fear into a story with heroes, villains, and certainty. And that mistrust is contagious; once you lose faith in one institution, it’s tempting to believe they’re all rotten. Suddenly, everything official becomes suspect — and everything “alternative” feels like truth.
At this point confirmation bias kicks in. People seek out sources that tell them what they already believe and dismiss everything else as “controlled” or “mainstream.”
You mentioned newspapers and TV shrinking — true but It’s more about media consolidation and profit than secret coordination. What’s often missed is that the internet has more than replaced them in terms of access to information. The real issue isn’t the lack of media — it’s the overload of it.
However, unfortunately, a huge number of people are either afraid of, or overwhelmed by, the internet and IT in general. That fear or confusion makes them vulnerable — they don’t know how to verify sources, spot misinformation, or separate fact from opinion. Either they didn’t listen at school or are to old to join in effectively
It’s not a media blackout — it’s a crisis of media literacy,  it has been more than replaced by the internet.
 Same with governments and pharma: there’s real criticism to be made, but blanket conspiracies help no one and solve nothing. In fact they hinder any real understanding of the issues People are trying to cover their ignorance with cynicism
If we’re going to talk about real problems, we need evidence, not just suspicion dressed up as insight.
 

40 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The biggest spreader of disinformation. Or is it misinformation. Maybe malinformation is governments. Hard to believe that the people some vote for and look to honesty and integrity give back just the opposite. 

You’ve misunderstood my point. I was talking about how media shapes public perception — not defending governments.

But ironically, your comment actually fits the classic pattern of a conspiracy theory:
– Blames a vague, powerful group (“governments”)
– Offers no evidence, just suspicion
– Uses dramatic language to imply hidden truths
– Distracts from the real issue: how misinformation spreads

That kind of thinking doesn’t challenge power — it just muddies the waters and helps the real snake oil salesmen do their work unnoticed.

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I've been connected to the internet since '86.... before the WWW existed.  In those early days sharing on the internet took place through mailing lists and Usenet.  Learning curves for new technologies got squashed by like minded people sharing experiences.  Thankfully during the early years the idiocracy were not the type of people that instinctively learn and share information.  I rue the day that they figured it out.

You're right that the internet used to be a place where knowledge was shared among those who were genuinely curious and willing to learn. But the snake oil salesmen were never far behind — and the techniques are just about the same, they’ve just adapted.
As it happens, I was the first person at my university in Australia to apply online, and the first in my hometown to buy a house with internet bundled in as a utility — and yes, it was fibre optic! So I’ve been watching this space for a long time too.
What many of us didn’t fully appreciate back then was just how much media and mass influence would end up dominating the web — just like newspapers and television did before it. It’s not that the con has changed — it’s that the delivery system is now faster and louder. (although I was on of the first in my field to have a business “web site” on line).
Back in the 19th century, a snake oil salesman with nothing but a bottle of alcohol and opium (and a well-rehearsed assistant) could roll into town and convince everyone he had a miracle cure.
Now? They don’t even need a wagon — just a camera, a following, and a monetised platform.
The internet was supposed to democratise knowledge. Instead, it’s been hijacked — not just by the "idiocracy," but by people who know exactly how to sell misinformation and make it look like truth.
 

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't want your snake oil though, but you want to force everyone to take it.

The irony is that snake oil relies entirely on belief to have any effect. If you're rejecting what I’ve said outright, then by your own logic, it can’t be snake oil — because it clearly doesn’t “work” on you.

Actually, if we’re talking about snake oil, it’s the ones you believe — the conspiracy peddlers and anti-vaxx grifters — who are the truly successful salesmen.
They’ve sold fear, fake cures, and false certainty — and somehow convinced people to trust anonymous YouTube comments over medical science.
Now that’s a sales job.

sadly I don't think you'd recognise "snake oil" or even know what it actually is? - It's a fake cure sold with big promises but no real results — and by that standard, it’s the anti-vaxx influencers, not me, who’ve nailed the business model.
They’ve sold fear, not facts — and you bought it.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

One of my favorite books is "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless. It explores common fallacies and dishonest means of argument, seen daily on ASEAN.

Yes - it's very old - but still useful.

THere are a load of publications that cover this these days and probably fit better in a modern context given the amount of conspiracy theories raging about the place as well as the floods of misinformation. Basically IT has re-released the snake oil salesman on society, and many people are totally unprepared for this.

54 minutes ago, hotsun said:

Ive read some of your stuff and i dont agree. They are bad drivers and the infrastructure isnt safe for driving, its a double whammy. 

exactly the same type of thinking you get from anti-vaxxers. Drawing conclusions from cherry-picked ideas - and a deliberate misinterpretation of my posts coupled with a naive use of evidence.

"not thinking about vaccines"? - what is that supposed to mean a general slur on Thai people and false observations all round.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Agree with the T-shirt message, but you seem to think that science is only to be found in peer-reviewed articles in 'prestigious' scientific journals like the Lancet or NEJM (heavily sponsored by Big Pharma).  

But do consider what the former editors of both publications have to say on that issue:

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

And here also Dr. Richard Horton, the long-time Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet.

In 2015, he made a striking statement during a symposium on research integrity:

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

 

And here is what Allan Savory has to say on 'peer reviewed science'  in this 1.5 minute clip. 

 

 

 

Yes, the T-shirt is right: “Science doesn’t care what you believe.” And no — science isn’t only what appears in The Lancet or NEJM. But let’s stop pretending that quoting disgruntled former editors somehow proves mainstream science is broken or that vaccines are deadly. That’s a leap so big it should have a parachute.

Take the often-misused quotes from Marcia Angell and Richard Horton. They’re expressing frustration with corporate influence and the publication of low-quality or biased studies — a valid concern shared by many in the scientific community. But here’s the trick: anti-vaxxers rip these quotes out of context and spin them into a false syllogism:

“Some science is flawed → All science is fake → Therefore my wild theory must be true.”

It doesn’t follow. If half the literature is “untrue” — you still don’t get to assume your blog post, YouTube video, or Telegram meme is in the other half.

And those wild claims like “All vaccines will kill you” or “mRNA shots are proven deadly”? 

That’s not evidence. That’s propaganda. Repeating it louder or wrapping it in stolen credibility doesn’t make it true. The actual data — from countries all over the world, across millions of doses — shows the opposite: COVID vaccines have saved lives, massively.

So no, these editor quotes are not proof of anything except that science needs to be rigorous and constantly self-correcting — which is exactly what peer review, replication, and critical analysis are for. The real danger isn’t scientific debate — it’s the distortion of it by people who want to replace evidence with ideolog
 

58 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Agree with the T-shirt message, but you seem to think that science is only to be found in peer-reviewed articles in 'prestigious' scientific journals like the Lancet or NEJM (heavily sponsored by Big Pharma).  

But do consider what the former editors of both publications have to say on that issue:

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

And here also Dr. Richard Horton, the long-time Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet.

In 2015, he made a striking statement during a symposium on research integrity:

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

 

And here is what Allan Savory has to say on 'peer reviewed science'  in this 1.5 minute clip. 

 

 

 

In the clip above , Allan Savory launches into a tired attack on peer-reviewed science — claiming it “prevents” new ideas and that only outsiders can see the truth. This is the classic Galileo fallacy: “they laughed at Galileo, so I must be right too!” No — lots of people get laughed at because they’re just wrong and in this instance Savory is one of them.
Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s there to test ideas with evidence. If your theories collapse under scrutiny, that’s not a sign of a broken system — it’s a sign that your work doesn't hold up.
Savory’s ideas on grazing have been heavily criticised because they lack solid data. Not because he’s too visionary, but because he waves off actual science and replaces it with grand claims and anecdotes. That’s not science — it’s self-promotion.
He wants scientific respect without doing the hard work. Rejecting peer review isn’t bold — it’s an excuse.
 

for those who don't understand critical thinking, here is an introduction...

1 hour ago, hotsun said:

Yup and the vaccine stuff on a thailand forum is silly. I just got back from a trip on the highways here. Definitely not thinking about vaccines

Read my stuff on road safety in Thailand - same as the anti-vaxxers full of wooly thinking and anecdotal evidence by those who don't understand. 

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It wasn't when I needed it, not that I could have afforded it.

probably more a reflection of the Thai healthcare industry - which is a totally different tangent. Too many people have blind faith in healthcare in Thailand and often don't realise when they get bad advice.

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Absolutely!  

It took them less than a month to approve the data, and it would take 70 years to 'redact' what they approved?  

Obviously the judge didn't buy that BS and ordered the FDA to release all the data over a more reasonable period.  

...and what conclusion do you get from this ?

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Tetanus is the interesting one, bacteria is common in soil and animal poop, infecting the smallest break in skin.

 

So I spend every day gardening and touching rabbit poop. Hands and arms always getting cut and scratched from plants, teeth and claws. I don't even bother cleaning any wounds, just wipe the blood off with tissue.

 

Why aren't I dead?

Is it like allergies, only some people at risk?

Does it only affect people with damaged immune systems?

Is the bacteria not that prevalent?

 

How does science explain why I haven't died from tetanus?

 

Yet another example of misuse of Google! "So you play Russian roulette every day and think you're invincible because the gun hasn’t fired yet? That’s not science, that’s luck and bad logic. Tetanus is rare because of widespread vaccination and basic hygiene — not because it's harmless. You're not proof it's safe; you're just one of the lucky ones… so far."

3 hours ago, TedG said:

I should add if you watch  TED talks - you shouldn't be commenting on any threads about anything. 

looks like a pretty good example of a poor assessment of sources I was talking about earlier.

4 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that the word 'solidify' was associated with 'approach to learning' not to 'thinking' since I did not use that word at all.

deflection - don't be silly.

9 minutes ago, johng said:

This new gene therapy is not a "vaccine"   they changed the very definition of a vaccine to try and make it fit this
"new normal narrative"

It had also never been successfully deployed  before the

"emergency use"  authorisation...why the need to keep test results hidden for 70 years  if its so "safe and effective"   ?

no not trade secrets or patent technology...the results that showed thousands of injuries including death.

 

It seems that in some (maybe all)  people the mrna has spread system wide and has no off switch  leading to a host of  issues,

"long Covid" ,turbo cancer,heart attacks etc etc

This is my opinion...of course the MSM,Google "fact checkers"

and big pharma have a different opinion.

So… mRNA vaccines aren’t “real” vaccines because science moved on from the 1950s? And they’re secretly gene therapy because someone on YouTube said so?

No, mRNA doesn’t edit your DNA. No, the FDA didn’t “hide” data for 70 years — it just takes time to process half a million pages. And no, VAERS isn’t proof of mass death; it’s a public report system, not a death registry.

Calling it “my opinion” doesn’t make made-up stuff true. Facts still matter — even if Google, doctors, and actual scientists are inconvenient to your worldview.

But hey, good luck curing viruses with vibes and vitamin D.

30 minutes ago, merck said:

The older type vaccines are ok. If you ever got polio and ended up in an iron lung, you would rue the day you didn't get the vaccine.

The modern day MRNA vaccines, not so much.

Old vaccines were fine — it’s just the new ones I don’t trust! - ????

This argument falls apart fast.
Why? Because the principles behind vaccines haven’t changed:
Safely train your immune system
Build immunity before infection
Prevent serious illness and the spread of it
The only thing that’s changed is the technology — and that’s a useful thing.
mRNA vaccines don’t replace your immunities. They teach it the same way older vaccines do, just more precisely and without using live or inactivated virus.
Saying “I trust old vaccines, but not new ones” is like saying you trust horse-drawn carriages but not seat belts — it’s not logical, it’s just fear of the unfamiliar.
Science evolves. That’s how we beat diseases faster and safer.
 

25 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Indeed... this is the main benefit of college/university.  I think it takes years to really solidify your approach to learning and sharpen your ability to extract the signal from the noise.

"Solidify" is not the word I'd use to thinking  but like anything, you can't do it without the right tools.....and there are certainly some right tools on this thread

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

but I am merely trying to match your grandeur…

kind of shows why you aren't really fit to argue if you think comments like that have any value

For those of you who can't read for any reason here is a TED Talks vidoe by Ben Goldacre

I should also add that if you have never heard of or watched TED talks - you shouldn't be commenting on any threads about science or health

28 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Buy you are here to explain them to me 

There is a limit - endlessly refuting the rubbish you post is very tiresome. I think if you are going to enter a discussion you should have some knowledge of the topic - and this also involves how to cite references and critical thinking - you never went to tertiary education did you?