What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

And Your "Fact-Checkers," Too... (1 Viewer)

dkp993 said:
I think that’s certainly a challenge, especially on things we are by in large experiencing for the first time. Inevitably there are going to be “credible” scientists on either side of the topic at bar.  
You keep ignoring the primary reason for the excluded theory (politics) which is the whole point of this thread.  This tells me you still don’t believe it, which given the amount of evidence being presented is amazing.  The media, and even scientific journals, blacklisted a theory out of pure hatred for a politician.  When science starts being infected with politics we’re in deep crap.  But Liberals don’t seem troubled by it, because right now it’s benefiting their side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You keep ignoring the primary reason for the excluded theory (politics) which is the whole point of this thread.  This tells me you still don’t believe it, which given the amount of evidence being presented is amazing.  The media, and even scientific journals, blacklisted a theory out of pure hatred for a politician.  When science starts being infected with politics we’re in deep crap.  But Liberals don’t seem troubled by it, because right now it’s benefiting their side.
So you clearly just aren’t reading what I wrote.  Let me help you below, I’ll even isolate it, bold it and underline it for you 

dkp993 said:
* for clarity sake I’m not talking about this specific discussion topic, I happen to believe/think that Covid was likely modified in a lab and accidentally released, just pointing out the argument point.  
Oh and not a liberal so there’s that too.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
It's easy to say that after the fact, but the question is how should that understanding influence our thinking and debate on topics going forward...particularly in a badge wearing "I believe science!!!!" environment.
I don't think it changes anything - there will always be complex, esoteric issues where you're asked to defer to expert opinion. Unfortunately, experts are people too, who make mistakes, lie and act in their own/other's interests. Less commonly, our fundamental understanding of some phenomenon is off-base. As long as we apply critical thinking and a healthy amount of skepticism, the truth will usually surface.

Writing off entire segments of science/academia/government/media in favor of contrarians with the same potential biases isn't helpful. But it's not realistic to expect everyone to critically appraise every opposing viewpoint, so ultimately, you need to figure out who is trustworthy, and who isn't. Just realize no one is perfect.

How does that approach differ from what you currently do?

 
You keep ignoring the primary reason for the excluded theory (politics) which is the whole point of this thread.  This tells me you still don’t believe it, which given the amount of evidence being presented is amazing.  The media, and even scientific journals, blacklisted a theory out of pure hatred for a politician.  When science starts being infected with politics we’re in deep crap.  But Liberals don’t seem troubled by it, because right now it’s benefiting their side.
Why would scientific journals be rejecting anything based on politics?

 
I don't think it changes anything - there will always be complex, esoteric issues where you're asked to defer to expert opinion. Unfortunately, experts are people too, who make mistakes, lie and act in their own/other's interests. Less commonly, our fundamental understanding of some phenomenon is off-base. As long as we apply critical thinking and a healthy amount of skepticism, the truth will usually surface.

Writing off entire segments of science/academia/government/media in favor of contrarians with the same potential biases isn't helpful. But it's not realistic to expect everyone to critically appraise every opposing viewpoint, so ultimately, you need to figure out who is trustworthy, and who isn't. Just realize no one is perfect.

How does that approach differ from what you currently do?
Which part, there are a few differing statement in what your wrote.  Critically appraise?  I’d say yes that is largely my approach.

But I don’t run around shouting “believe the science and truth” either.

 
Which part, there are a few differing statement in what your wrote.  Critically appraise?  I’d say yes that is largely my approach.

But I don’t run around shouting “believe the science and truth” either.
Great! You’ll notice dogmatic shouting isn’t part of my plan, either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems odd a basic consensus of scientific journals would all conclude it was most likely natural and not entertain the other thoughts...at least to me.
It’s not surprising at all if you talk to people in the scientific research community.  It’s a highly “political” community.  And I don’t mean political as in Dem/Republican.  But there are factions and there is groupthink.  Sad but true.

 
So you clearly just aren’t reading what I wrote.  Let me help you below, I’ll even isolate it, bold it and underline it for you 

Oh and not a liberal so there’s that too.  
I wasn’t talking about whether or not you believe in the lab leak theory.  I’m talking about why that theory wasn’t allowed to be vetted, ie liberal bias in the media and academic circles.  Just seems like when that issue was raised you didn’t address it.  Apologies for the assumption in my part - shouldn’t have done that.  What are your thoughts on that though?

 
I wasn’t talking about whether or not you believe in the lab leak theory.  I’m talking about why that theory wasn’t allowed to be vetted, ie liberal bias in the media and academic circles.  Just seems like when that issue was raised you didn’t address it.  Apologies for the assumption in my part - shouldn’t have done that.  What are your thoughts on that though?
All good.  

Like most things I don’t think it’s binary, IMO it’s a complicated mix of ingredients that made up this soup.  Media narrative/bias is certainly one of those ingredients though.

My general thoughts on the media I posted about the other day, ( in the link below to save myself some typing), but the years of Trump divisiveness and in turn the counter Trump culture that became prevalent unfortunately likely played into this.  

I hate the idea that the hatred for Trump played a role with what seems like a very logical virus pathway being vetted more throughly (I mean come on a level 4 lab in the town of the break out that just happens to be studying that strain of virus’s) but it’s hard to argue that it didn’t.  
 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/796270-the-price-of-rejecting-the-mainstream-media/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-23413521

 
I hate the idea that the hatred for Trump played a role with what seems like a very logical virus pathway being vetted more throughly (I mean come on a level 4 lab in the town of the break out that just happens to be studying that strain of virus’s) but it’s hard to argue that it didn’t.  
 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/796270-the-price-of-rejecting-the-mainstream-media/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-23413521
While disdain for Trump may have played a role, it’s hard to imagine how a lab leak could/will be vetted. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

 
While disdain for Trump may have played a role, it’s hard to imagine how a lab leak could/will be vetted. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
The China element plays a massive role in the hurdle to get it done for sure but pressure creates diamonds.  There’s almost no question not enough was applied.  

 
Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory

EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, whose nonprofit has funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology for years, appeared in multiple media fact-checks and reports over the past year dispelling the notion the coronavirus accidentally emerged from the lab.

Dr. Daszak's organization sent $3.4 million in National Institutes of Health grants to the Wuhan lab between 2014 and 2019, according to the Wall Street Journal, but his involvement with it didn't prevent him from playing a key role in early media dismissals of the lab-leak idea.

The British scientist appeared in a Washington Post fact-check video published last May, where he discussed his work with the Wuhan Institute researching viruses in bats that could cause "the next pandemic." The video outlined circumstantial evidence around the leak, such as its proximity to the outbreak, its work with coronaviruses, and its known security concerns, but still concluded it likely didn't happen.

FORMER STATE DEPT INVESTIGATOR ON LEAKED FAUCI EMAILS: ‘I DON’T TRUST THESE SCIENTISTS' ABOUT WUHAN LAB

After the narrator repeated the lab's denial that it was the source of the virus, Daszak said "China's been incredibly open, and I believe it's because it's been a scientific collaboration."

The Post's Glenn Kessler taunted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at the time after Cruz criticized the Post's video, saying it showed it was "virtually impossible" the virus jumped from a lab. A little more than a year later, Kessler published a timeline about how the lab-leak theory "suddenly" became credible.

Daszak was also cited by Facebook fact-checking partner Science Feedback in a February 2020 post headlined, "Scientific evidence indicates virus that causes COVID-19 infection is of natural origin, not the result of human engineering." Last June, he penned a Guardian op-ed assailing "conspiracy theorists" for blaming a lab leak.

Last April, Daszak was cited in a CNN article headlined, "How did coronavirus break out? Theories abound as researchers race to solve genetic detective story," where he said he was "very confident" that the virus originated naturally. He was also quoted in an NBC News story about "conspiracy theories" involving the lab.

Video

"The fact that they published the sequence so quickly suggests to me that they weren't trying to cover up anything," he told NBC News.

A Chinese state media outlet also cited him saying there was "absolutely no evidence" for the lab theory.

Widely dismissed in the press for more than a year, the theory the virus escaped the Wuhan lab is being considered anew. President Biden ordered the intelligence community last week to assess the virus' origins and report back in 90 days, after outlets ranging from the Washington Post and New York Times to CNN and NPR once disparaged the idea as a fringe conspiracy theory.

Published emails showed Daszak orchestrated the widely cited February 2020 letter in The Lancet from 27 scientists who "strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." it did not disclose to readers that Daszak's group had funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab, and at least three of those signers have since said a laboratory accident merits consideration.

The letter stated at the time, "We declare no competing interests."

Fox News contributor Dr. Nicole Saphier said Friday Daszak had a clear conflict of interest.

"It would really be bad optics for his company if it was a lab accident, whereas if it was natural spillover, that validates their entire company's work," Saphier told "America Reports."

Video

In one email asking someone to sign on to the letter, Daszak said "conspiracy theorists" had targeted some of EcoHealth's Chinese collaborators and needed support.

"I hope you are willing to sign on to this - your voice will be very influential, particularly in keeping these critical bridges open between the USA and China. You should know that the conspiracy theorists have been very active, targeting our collaborators with some extremely unpleasant web pages in China, and some have now received death threats to themselves and their families. They have asked for any show of support we can give them," he wrote.

Last year, after the Trump administration yanked the NIH's grant to EcoHealth, CBS News' "60 Minutes" profiled Daszak and lamented that he had been undercut by "pandemic politics."

"I'm a scientist. And what I do is I look at the evidence around a hypothesis," Daszak told CBS News. "There is a huge amount of evidence that these viruses repeatedly emerge into people from wild animals in rural areas through things like hunting and eating wildlife. There is zero evidence that this virus came out of a lab in China."

Daszak was also the lone U.S.-based representative on the World Health Organization's investigative team in China that said in February a lab leak was "extremely unlikely," while conceding its probe was limited in scope.

Daszak's NGO funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Both Daszak and NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci have flatly denied any monies went to "gain of function" studies, a controversial technique which involves manipulating viruses to make them more infectious for research.

Daszak is quoted in a 2015 Nature report discussing the benefits of such research, however. In a 2019 interview with virologist Vincent Racaniello, Daszak discussed the ease of manipulating coronaviruses for the purposes of vaccine development. Racaniello told Just The News he believed Daszak was describing gain-of-function research.

"Coronaviruses — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily," he said. "Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can get more predictive when you find a sequence. You’ve got this diversity. Now the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s insert some of these other things and get a better vaccine."

Published emails this week showed Daszak thankingFauci in April 2020 for dispelling the lab-leak theory.

"I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab from the Wuhan Insitute of Virology," he wrote.

That same month, Daszak told CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "It may be that we'll never really know the answers to where this virus actually originated," while adding he still believed the pandemic originated in nature.

The true origin of the virus that has killed millions around the globe remains unknown.

 
Sometimes you see something related to politics that is just so perfect it has to be shared. A USA Today fact-check that dropped yesterday is one of those things, and keep reading because it’ll become very obvious why in a moment.

Daniel Funke, who describes himself as “checking facts + covering misinfo” on Twitter decided to take on those who said that Joe Biden checked his watch during the dignified transfer of the 13 US servicemembers last week. That tragedy occurred at the hands of an ISIS suicide bomber after the Biden administration outsourced security to the Taliban.

Funke’s resume includes a stop at Politifact if that gives you an idea of how this is going to go. He also lists his pronouns in his bio because of course, he does.

New fact check: A viral photo makes it look like President Biden checked his watch during a ceremony honoring U.S. service members killed in Kabul. But that's misleading. https://t.co/F6bjQFYVbC

— Daniel Funke (@dpfunke) September 1, 2021

As fact-checks go, Funke’s write-up wasn’t remarkable. It had the typical mix of unearned arrogance, obtuseness, and obfuscation that the fact-checking industry has made their staple, led by such brilliant minds as Glenn Kessler and Daniel Dale. In the end, Funke conceded that Biden had checked his watch, but only after the dignified transfer was over. He even challenged people to “watch the video for yourself.”

Had that been the end of it, Funke’s partisan hackery wouldn’t have even been worthy of a write-up. If I wrote on every instance of media bias, I’d literally never stop writing, after all. But that wasn’t the end of it.

Today, a correction dropped on his “fact-check,” and it’s in the running for the greatest correction I’ve ever seen. Truly, it’s one for the ages.

A two part story courtesy of the "fact checkers" in the media. pic.twitter.com/DyBFCBJH2g

— The First (@TheFirstonTV) September 3, 2021

Here’s what it says now at the top of the article.

Corrections and Clarifications: This story was updated Sept. 2 to note that Biden checked his watch multiple times at the dignified transfer event, including during the ceremony itself. The rating on this claim has been changed from partly false to missing context.

Hilariously, Funke’s fact-check, which literally was written to check the facts, got the facts completely wrong in an ill-fated attempt to dunk on Republicans for pointing out Biden checked his watch. Much of the article itself has been rewritten as well. Even still, the idea that the claim that Biden checked his watch is “missing context” is laughably false, but hey, small victories I guess.

In short, the fact-checking industry is a joke. The only reason it exists is to serve as a facade for partisan hacks to appear as if they operate from a place of authority. Funke is doing his best to make a name for himself as part of that club, but he’s got a lot of competition.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/03/a-fact-check-on-joe-biden-checking-his-watch-leads-to-a-correction-for-the-ages-n437439

 
Yep. That’s about dead right. They op-ed in the fact checks. 
 

and your fact-checkers, too. 
 

<————————————— chess, baby

 
So ... truth can't be known, or even approached, really. All is absurdity.


The Democrat Party, the MSM and the Fact Checkers are all in collusion.  The Democrats spout lies, the MSM blares those lies 24/7 in a mass attempt at brain washing the masses and the fact-checkers then "fact-check" those lies as true, thereby reinforcing them to the masses they are trying to brainwash.

It's as incestuous as it is corrupt.

 
So ... truth can't be known, or even approached, really. All is absurdity.
If they were really checking facts, that would be one thing. Since they editorialize and obfuscate, no. The modern fact-checkers impose their opinions on that which they purport to bring to a truth value. The original Nietzscheans, those that played fast and loose with modern narrative, got caught and now they resort to personal prejudices to purport to tell you what are the "facts."

The "fact-checkers" were wrong about the Wuhan labs. They were wrong about the speed of the vaccine. They were wrong about masks. When there was unsettled science, they waded in with "facts." This is your specialty on the board, Doug, you should know how bad the "fact" checkers were with COVID. Imagine things more nuanced and away from the public eye.

Then you have how full of #### they really are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rolling Stone forced to issue an 'update' after viral hospital ivermectin story turns out to be false

The Northeastern Hospital System released a statement contradicting the story

Rolling Stone was forced to issue an update to its viral story about Oklahoma hospitals being overwhelmed by patients who overdosed on the drug ivermectin after the doctor it cited was contradicted by the hospitals he referenced.

On Friday, the liberal magazine published testimony from Dr. Jason McElyea, who told a local news station that hospitals were being overrun from patients overdosing on ivermectin which resulted in other patients waiting for treatment. McElyea claimed the situation was so bad that gunshot victims were being neglected.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated," McElyea said.

The story, which originally appeared in Oklahoma's KFOR-TV news, was widely shared by reporters, including MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.

Fellow MSNBC left-wing anchor Joy Reid also promoted the story during her show on Friday, repeating McElyea's claims.

"An emergency in one rural Oklahoma town is being overwhelmed by people overdosing on ivermectin, the horse deworming medication. It's gotten so bad that gunshot victims, gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated," she said.

The story was also shared by New York Daily News, Newsweek, The Guardian and Insider.

However, the Northeastern Hospital System, which McElyea works for, issued a statement regarding his association with the hospitals reported in the story. The NHS revealed while McElyea "is affiliated" with a medial staffing group, he has not worked at the location in question for 2 months nor has he treated any ivermectin overdoses. 

"Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose," the statement reads.

Furthermore, the NHS insisted that patients are not being turned any for emergency care in contrast to the recent reports.

"All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate," NHS said. "Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care. We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support."

Rolling Stone later published an "update" to the top of the story which repeats NHS' statement. 

Critics slammed the magazine for publishing what appears to be a false story.

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "The only reason Rolling Stone is calling this an ‘UPDATE’ as opposed to what it so plainly is -- a RETRACTION -- is because liberal outlets know that their readers don't care at all if they publish fake news as long as it's done with the right political motives and goals."

"Rolling Stone misspells ‘CORRECTION’ or ‘RETRACTION,'" Fox News contributor Joe Concha tweeted.

"Rolling Stone proving it did not learn its lesson from the UVA rape hoax disaster," Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross wrote

Ivermectin is most notably used as a cost-effective treatment for malaria and head lice as well as heartworm in domesticated dogs and cats. The FDA warns against the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19, noting that "taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm." The FDA also warned against ingesting the derivative form usually meant for dogs or horses.

"The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea," the FDA website states. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false
Zero facts.  How do they get it so wrong?

 
Because of their own confirmation bias. It's the most pressing problem in journalism today. 
Anybody who follows Rolling Stone for news after Duke lacrosse and the UVA "story" isn't paying any attention to "news" at all.

Layers upon layers of no fact checkers for a fact-free story.

But RS isn't what this thread is about. It's about the opinion pages coming to "fact-checkers" everywhere, not the fabulists of the world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody who follows Rolling Stone for news after Duke lacrosse and the UVA "story" isn't paying any attention to "news" at all.

Layers upon layers of no fact checkers for a fact-free story.

But RS isn't what this thread is about. It's about the opinion pages coming to "fact-checkers" everywhere, not the fabulists of the world.
It was more a media criticism story, but had some no facts crossover. It's all about running with a narrative anyway.

I was also being lazy and didnt want to search for a buried thread.

 
It was more a media criticism story, but had some no facts crossover. It's all about running with a narrative anyway.

I was also being lazy and didnt want to search for a buried thread.
Max, I wasn't criticizing you for posting that. Just trying to maintain focus. Post away.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top