Handy excuse list for ignoring the "misinformation spreaders"

substack.com ^ | 2/19/2022 | Steve Kirsch

[ransomnote]

It's asymmetrical: we are happy to listen to and refute their statements, but they are not happy to listen to and refute our statements. Here are the excuses they use.

Steve Kirsch

 

Here’s my list of excuses used by people for not believing people and/or data that goes against the official narrative (collected over the past 6 months from multiple sources):

Generic excuses

1. I don’t want to read it.

2. I don’t have time to read it.

3. It was too long to read.

4. There was a typo in the 3rd paragraph so obviously this is a low quality paper and not worth reading.

5. I saw the list of 10 reasons for xxx but I disagreed with the first one, so I didn’t bother to read the rest of them.

6. The author isn’t credible and doesn’t have a background in this area. Only doctors and other professionals can have valid opinions on the data.

7. The author was discredited on Wikipedia and banned from Twitter so he’s spreading misinformation.

8. I don’t believe it.

9. It wasn’t peer-reviewed.

10. It’s a waste of my time to debate them.

11. I can’t take it seriously unless it is verified and the data is public.

12. Just because that person is one of the world’s top experts in his field doesn’t mean what they are saying is true.

13. Oh, that anecdote was verified by 10 other people who saw the same thing? How do you know they were independent?

14. If that was true, why didn’t he write a paper on it and have it published in a peer reviewed journal?

15. There’s probably a confounder or bias that explains that.

16. If the paper was wrong, why didn’t you write a letter to the editor of the journal to have it corrected?
    
    MORE AT THE LINK: Handy excuse list for ignoring the "misinformation spreaders" (substack.com)

[Steve_Seattle]

Many of those arguments are often used here on FR.

[ransomnote]

PING

[Jane Long]

Typical $hot $hill excuses.

[Gaffer]

Peer review. Yeah, I remember that. I remember waaaay back on AGW where Michael Mann of PSU, Phil Jones of UEA’s CRU and NASA’s Hansen colluded to keep climate scare detractors out of established environmental journals. The emails between them read like spy novels, IMO. Remember “Hide the Decline?”

[kearnyirish2]

Yes, and doctors wonder why people use WebMD or other internet resources so much. If they aren’t skewed (and you have countless options to peruse), I’d think they have less bias than many doctors. For example, I have yet to meet a doctor who hasn’t pimped the “vaccines” - and none of them acknowledged any potential problems/side effects from them.

[jonrick46]

[Robert A Cook PE]

A keeper! Thank you.

[Steely Tom]

Steve Kirsch, Founder & Executive Director

Steve is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist who founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) at the beginning of the pandemic. Steve and CETF funded the research that showed promising results of fluvoxamine as an early treatment of COVID-19. The study was also featured on 60 Minutes. Recently Steve founded the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, where he is working with over 20 scientists, doctors and statisticians researching the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

(from the “Vaccine Safety Research Foundation” website)

[metmom]

It’s not peer reviewed and published.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks RACPE.

[sauropod]

Mark

[Jane Long]

What I've been saying, for months....and, keeping my 👀 on....

Funeral Homes…a picture is worth a thousand words.

From $SCI 10K…notice the acceleration in stock returns starting in 2021 (vax rollout began). Both $SCI & peer group were up more than +40% versus $SPX +26%.

Case closed IMHO pic.twitter.com/sUMKNk8tof— Ed ☯️Free Thinker & Oracle (@DowdEdward) February 17, 2022