Meet Tony “I have no evidence and I’ve just said the opposite, but I’m saying it anyway and media gonna amplify it” Fauci. I have a Nobel Prize and a cohort of top experts to back me up when I say he’s a fraud, I have the receipts, I have Fauci himself, what does YouTube and the Silly Valley have, besides Stalinism and a massive oxyneurodeficience?
Is your IQ positive? 8min test: How many times did Fauci admit making shit up without any evidence?
UPDATE:
… AND THEN…
AND EVEN MORE SO…
I am proud of this one…
… and of this one
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The testimonies may be only implicit, but they can’t be any more solid and legit.
Let’s play in a paradigm where we and YTFT (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) recognize same figures as authoritative.
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG
What would happen if I made a video claiming no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus, like this Twit above, which is still live on many platforms? What if I’d be just genuinely naive (like they assume we all are) and I’d bump into this Twit without following up for updates and retractions? And then I’d spread that claim around? I’d go straight to internet jail, maybe even offline jail. Unlike other people.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcocki says users are using the platform during the coronavirus crisis.
It started with basic information but now users “want to know about life under quarantine… like exercise at home. How do I fix my freezer? How do I give myself a haircut.” pic.twitter.com/p8jxTUBRte
Don’t trust us, verify and consider the following facts:
Each and every medical organization on the planet has retracted or adjusted medical information, since 2020 more than ever. Thus, they admitted the initial publications were actually wrong aka “misinformation”. It’s part and parcel of sciencing and that’s not the issue here, that’s the point: errors are scientist’s best teachers.
YTFT has actively promoted this admitted misinformation, its terms and policies did nothing to stop it, proving they can’t arbiter jack shit.
This misinformation has not been retracted from YouTube, persists there to this day. In fact, most of the science believed to be true today has been retracted
Users who argued this misinformation have been deplatformed and their content has been erased, while the misinformation persists on all platforms.
YTFT are not independent from, but massive investors in medical business.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that has been abhorred by most science icons ever and only denotes scientific illiteracy.
Therefore, YTFT’s claim that they are in position to arbiter what is medical information is not only a blatant con job and misinformation, as proven by everything they do, it’s utterly insane. Anyone supporting it is accomplice in all their crimes. They can’t do better than the authorities they subject to, which have admitted to failure. Which makes YTFT a huge threat to the global public health and security, given their immense global reach.
What happened to HCQ supporters on YTFT?
Bonus: Where is risk, there has to be freedom of choice, where is risky speech there has to be freedom of choice for speech (free speech, in short).
And if you needed me to explain such super-basic logic, you’re not intellectually equipped for survival and most likely you don’t have anymore time to catch up because the mental lazies stole the horizon from everyone. You are the virus, in fact. We’re better off if you go get a vaccine! If you did figure this out by yourself, in your own terms, we need you to put some daily effort into spreading the truth and making our objection more powerful, it’s the only antidote to lies. You know what you have to do, thank you! Ah, and also this:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The best doctor is the one that prescribes the least medicine
popular wisdom
Where does that come from and what does it mean for health-related businesses?
Actual old Nye post
Before admitting pharmaceuticals and medical treatments for quality assessment, before assessing manufacturers’ expertise, before giving them any attention at all, first and foremost we have to consider that:
Sheep don’t benefit wolf’s expertise. Same for sheeple and their predators.
So we have to make sure we’re from the same side of the fence. If I am to be a sheep, I can only count on sheep support. The best way to clear that out is by looking at two things:
Incentives
History
You don’t judge Mafia by Mafia laws, only mobsters do that. Same for Pharmafia.
1. Incentives
“Freakonomics”, a global best-selling book which shaped a generation, has dedicated a solid chapter to experts and their incentives, which obviously dictate how the expertise is used.
An incentive is a bullet, a key: an often tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation
Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
In “for-profit healthcare”, the main incentive is in the name. “For-profit”. What drives profit up? Diseases. What drives profit down? Health.
Disease is demand for health, the demand needs to be maintained above the offer, insatiable. Selling health lowers the demand, cures kill it. Imagine if Coca-Cola cured thirst for good, instead of boosting it and being addictive. There would be no Coca-Cola today. So selling health and cures is a cannibalistic unsustainable business model. As admitted by Goldman-Sachs experts in a letter to a bio-tech client:
The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies… While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.
Goldman-Sachs analyst Salveen Richter cited by CNBC
Drug-addicted mainstream-media tried to spin it and inject doubt. As you can see from the actual quote, the analyst didn’t ask a thing, he stated.
For as long as humanity has been mentally functional and intelligence has been a successful adaptation tool, common sense (seen as natural logic based on personal and peer experience) used to determine our actions. Common sense guided our species’ survival just until corporate education and propaganda took over our minds. Common sense helped us realize that the better the healer, the less you need to see him.
As opposed to most other businesses and occupations, healthcare has a particularity: Its success kills its demand. The better the medicine, the less you need to take it. The perfect medicine would end the need for medicine.
SELLING HEALTH IS COMMERCIAL SUICIDE
So what’s a businessman supposed to do in the commercial-suicide business?
“If they’re selling glass and the business is slow, they grab some bricks and break some windows”
Popular wisdom
Which, in medical business terms, translates as:
YOU CAN PROFIT SELLING HEALTH ONLY IF YOU SPREAD MORE DISEASE THAN HEALTH
There’s no other way to maintain a “health-care” business.
The biggest profit is always in returning customers, which, for a health-care business, identify as people with real or imaginary diseases who can live with them (and spread them, preferably) so they can buy products and services for long enough. The diseased and the hypochondriacs are the market. The market needs perpetually expanded. Of course, if a disease is killing the customers too quickly, you can jack up some prices so you can milk same money or more in a shorter time span. Or life span. See the cancer industry. Better health makes customers return less, unless it’s on subscription. And “a patient cured is a customer lost”.
So spread a bit of health for public image and marketing purposes, spread as much illness and fear as you possibly can without fully destroying your market, and you’re set for an unlimited cash-flow. Worked every time. Success depends only on how you balance the health and the disease you put out. Bonus: this way you also get to control population development, which is a very marketable service too.
The fear created by commercial experts may not quite rival the fear created by terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan, but the principle is the same.
– Steven D. Levitt, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”
This business model has been already successfully implemented by every ideology ever. Ideologists sell fear of fictitious dangers and suffering, usually from an imaginary future, demanding actual present tangible benefits as protection tax. The climate industry is booming on the same principles. This sort of mental racketeering is actually the core of our society, it fuels politics, business, religion, and even science.
And that puts the healthcare customer on the other side of the fence from the healthcare business.
In healthcare business, the customer and the seller are in a conflict of interests
2. History
An expert with good intentions and good methods should have a history to vouch for him. According to the officially registered and reported history, every Pharma giant is a felon with multiple convictions for false, fraud, bribery, and other forms of deceit and corruption. Don’t believe what I say, research what I say, just look up whatever your favorite sources are, they all reported the crimes, “the truth is not hidden, people are hiding from it”.
That’s all there is to this chapter, and below is what common-sense should’ve already dictated (and what made my most successful meme to date):
There is no long-term profit in selling health and taking health advice from disease-profiteers is a suicidal policy. They employ experts capable to make you their returning customer, aka perennial patient. The better they get at it, the sicker you get.
The original classic by yours truly
Thus we have shown that the race for profit turns healthcare businesses into expert predators, not helpers. I chose not to become their pray. You?
</debate>
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Most (if not all) ground-breaking discoveries came from people who defied consensus, otherwise you would still spray DDT on kids and have nurses selling you cigarettes to smoke in hospital rooms. Consensus is the ground in “ground-breaking”. Scientific consensus is a logical fallacy that you need to avoid in order to achieve science.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Is your info on issues like “global warming” coming from people who can believe 99% consensus is possible among scientists (or any large groups of people), and that’s a good thing for science? Are all arguments for global warming as imbecile as consensus = truth? As fake as 99% consensus? That would make Stalin proud… You know the only other “thing” on the planet that gets 99% consensus? Kim Jong Un. As far as I dug, these have been the only two methods for reaching 99% consensus in all human experience: 1. Tyrannically silencing anyone who disagrees. 2. Polling an insignificantly small group that you control.
What is the difference between how the global warming “consensus” is obtained and how Kim obtains his? You can’t even poll 100% of scientists, you can’t merely determine accurately who are all the people who deserve to be polled, are you kidding yourself?!! The only claim that has obtained 99% consensus in science so far appears to be “we have to please our financiers!”. Do you know who finances this stuff?
Besides, bandwagoning and appealing to authority are not arguments, they are basic logical fallacies. If you can’t spot obvious traps like these, you have no hope or chance to avoid being duped by people who have a long experience in trapping the ignoramus.
Functional literates be like:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. (…) Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” – Michael Crichton
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” – Stephen Hawking
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” – Richard Feynman
If you enjoy any of my work, remember that most of what I do is made freely available to the general public and I rely on your support for keeping it that way, so buy me a coffee if you feel like it, thank you!
! My articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 