If Bret and his followers say or imply notA, the burden of proof is on them. In the case of IVM, the IDSA makes their case. Haven't checked, but I'd bet WHO and NIH do as well.
Not clear you understand a straw man argument.
But glad you tacitly agree with the rest of my comments.
If Bret and his followers say or imply notA, the burden of proof is on them. In the case of IVM, the IDSA makes their case. Haven't checked, but I'd bet WHO and NIH do as well.
Not clear you understand a straw man argument.
But glad you tacitly agree with the rest of my comments.
Why don't you challenge their sources, not engage in ad hominems and (weak) guilt by association? The IDSA cites sources. Bret is mistaken about vaccines and IVM. Sorry.
Since when is it "ad hominem", to be suspicious, of an author's propensity to cherry-pick/ misrepresent sources (e.g. in his/ her implied claim, that s/he was faithfully representing the totality what those sources actually say)?
тАЬThe IDSA cites sources.тАЭ
So did Dr. Goebbels.
But, when his students "cite sources", you're damn right I'm going to voice suspicion of these citations (esp. if I lack the expertise, to assess the context from which the quotes were drawn, or the time to meticulously scrutinize every single quote).
Until we have Goebbels under oath (he at risk of prosecution for perjury), I'll demand the right to deploy what you call "ad hominem".
And, I'm sure that (if you stay consistent with youтАЩre here-espoused conception of "ad hominem") his students would have a gas, cramming your conception of "ad hominem" down your throat (to protect his studentsтАЩ shrewd agitProp from legit scrutiny).
All forms of *testimony* (incl. about тАЬresearched factsтАЭ, by High-Social-Status тАЬacademiciansтАЭ) are *always* fair game for sharp scrutiny.
Only if I were to dispute the *logic* of a *particular* line of argument, would the charge of ad hominem apply here.
(E.g., тАЬIf Adolf claimed that 2=2=4, then 2=2=4 is now so much more suspectтАЭ *is* an ad hominem.)
"Ad hominem" is one of the most abused of Latinisms, esp. by today's slew of pseudo-educated.
All of us *always* have the right, to be suspicious, of anyone styling themselves to speak with authority (esp. when we know that they have so much institutional power at their backs).
I quite hope that, if readers get nothing else out of this thread, it will get them to think deeply on what тАЬad hominemтАЭ is, vs. what it is at times purported to be.
(It is not for *you * to *interrogate* what I do, until you manage to get [Big Pharma-owned?] FedтАЩl agencies to point guns at my head.)
"under the boots of the CCP, Collins etc"; you compare me and the IDSA to Nazis, elsewhere you accuse interlocutors of being shills.
As it happens, I'm an MD. I've been following issues around bias, conflicts of interest and poor, inaccurate research for the past 10-15 years. I'm not an academic but I've more expertise and experience than you or Weinstein. I defer to trusted experts like the IDSA. Of the FDA approved treatments one is very cheap; all show effectiveness only in limited circumstances. None are wonder drugs.
By your argument, any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.
The central question is why aren't you suspicious of Bret? He styles himself as speaking with authority which he does not have.
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
тАЬyou compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I donтАЩt.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on тАЬad hominemтАЭ warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
тАЬyou accuse interlocutors of being shillsтАЭ.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
тАЬgenerating paranoia with conspiracy theoriesтАЭ.
ItтАЩs standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being тАЬconspiracy theoristsтАЭ, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
тАЬany deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.тАЭ
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
тАЬwhy aren't you suspicious of Bret?тАЭ
You donтАЩt know that IтАЩm not.
(You know only that) IтАЩve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. JohnsonтАЩs dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more тАЬqualifiedтАЭ than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
тАЬauthority which he does not have.тАЭ
I donтАЩt see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readersтАЩ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are тАЬanti-scienceтАЭ.
As long as they continue on that road, IтАЩll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.
тАЬbut I've more expertise and experience than youтАЭтАж.
You know *nothing of that* sort.
For all you know, I mayтАЩve had the good fortune, of having c. 50 years of expertise and experience (often rather intense) dealing (incl. personally/ intellectually) with folks from various walks of life, incl. lawyers, cops, reporters, handymen, small businessmen, IT Dept. wheels, professors, political hacks/ activists, shrinks, and MDs (and their families), here and there across the US, and across the globe (esp. w/ Brits, Germans, Israelis, Argentinians, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, & Persians).
(As it happens, I have had that good fortune. ItтАЩs been, at times, wild!)
тАЬI defer to *trusted* experts like the IDSA.тАЭ
I donтАЩt, esp. in light of my intimate knowledge, of how so many тАЬexpertsтАЭ cut corners, cover their asses (often much at othersтАЩ expense), and play the (often brutally superficial) media, to gin-up a rep for тАЬexpertiseтАЭ.
Alas, as one of my quite knowledgeable mentors put it, the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen (i.e., the BSers).
More later, on others of your specific assertions.
More on, that the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen:
Among veteran lawyers, cops etc., an aphorism goes
"believe nothing of what you hear, and *only* 1/2 of what you see."
To modify this a bit, I say
"believe c. 1/4 of what you hear, and only 3/4 of what you see."
As for those of you, who've never been exposed to, or taken seriously, this line of thinking, I say: please spare me any pontificating, about how well-educated you are.
Also, IтАЩve been *quite* close, to folks who were close to very major players, in the Admins of Nixon, Ford, Carter, & Dubya, e.g. Budget Director or SecDef., at least one of whom was outright world-famous.
And, I had a sort of substantive interaction with the Big Dog, in his тАЩ92 campaign.
And, c. 20 years before, I had substantial personal/ intellectual interaction with a (influential?) Brig. General, for a good year or so.
And, IтАЩve dealt face-to face, one-on-one, not just in passing, with at least a few famous/ notorious figures in journalism, historiography, etc.
But donтАЩt worry, I never was (to my knowledge) eligible for a Clearance. I personally was (always?) too far тАЬon the outskirtsтАЭ.
If Bret and his followers say or imply notA, the burden of proof is on them. In the case of IVM, the IDSA makes their case. Haven't checked, but I'd bet WHO and NIH do as well.
Not clear you understand a straw man argument.
But glad you tacitly agree with the rest of my comments.
"the burden of proof is on them."
No it isn't.
I too will bet, that "WHO and NIH do as well", seeing that they're under the boots of the CCP, Collins etc.
You have no basis, other than wishful thinking, to assume that I tacitly agree with the rest of your comments.
Why don't you challenge their sources, not engage in ad hominems and (weak) guilt by association? The IDSA cites sources. Bret is mistaken about vaccines and IVM. Sorry.
Since when is it "ad hominem", to be suspicious, of an author's propensity to cherry-pick/ misrepresent sources (e.g. in his/ her implied claim, that s/he was faithfully representing the totality what those sources actually say)?
тАЬThe IDSA cites sources.тАЭ
So did Dr. Goebbels.
But, when his students "cite sources", you're damn right I'm going to voice suspicion of these citations (esp. if I lack the expertise, to assess the context from which the quotes were drawn, or the time to meticulously scrutinize every single quote).
Until we have Goebbels under oath (he at risk of prosecution for perjury), I'll demand the right to deploy what you call "ad hominem".
And, I'm sure that (if you stay consistent with youтАЩre here-espoused conception of "ad hominem") his students would have a gas, cramming your conception of "ad hominem" down your throat (to protect his studentsтАЩ shrewd agitProp from legit scrutiny).
All forms of *testimony* (incl. about тАЬresearched factsтАЭ, by High-Social-Status тАЬacademiciansтАЭ) are *always* fair game for sharp scrutiny.
Only if I were to dispute the *logic* of a *particular* line of argument, would the charge of ad hominem apply here.
(E.g., тАЬIf Adolf claimed that 2=2=4, then 2=2=4 is now so much more suspectтАЭ *is* an ad hominem.)
"Ad hominem" is one of the most abused of Latinisms, esp. by today's slew of pseudo-educated.
All of us *always* have the right, to be suspicious, of anyone styling themselves to speak with authority (esp. when we know that they have so much institutional power at their backs).
I quite hope that, if readers get nothing else out of this thread, it will get them to think deeply on what тАЬad hominemтАЭ is, vs. what it is at times purported to be.
(It is not for *you * to *interrogate* what I do, until you manage to get [Big Pharma-owned?] FedтАЩl agencies to point guns at my head.)
"under the boots of the CCP, Collins etc"; you compare me and the IDSA to Nazis, elsewhere you accuse interlocutors of being shills.
As it happens, I'm an MD. I've been following issues around bias, conflicts of interest and poor, inaccurate research for the past 10-15 years. I'm not an academic but I've more expertise and experience than you or Weinstein. I defer to trusted experts like the IDSA. Of the FDA approved treatments one is very cheap; all show effectiveness only in limited circumstances. None are wonder drugs.
By your argument, any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.
The central question is why aren't you suspicious of Bret? He styles himself as speaking with authority which he does not have.
https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
тАЬyou compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I donтАЩt.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on тАЬad hominemтАЭ warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
тАЬyou accuse interlocutors of being shillsтАЭ.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
тАЬgenerating paranoia with conspiracy theoriesтАЭ.
ItтАЩs standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being тАЬconspiracy theoristsтАЭ, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
See e.g. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-fbis-strange-anthrax-investigation .)
тАЬany deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.тАЭ
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
тАЬwhy aren't you suspicious of Bret?тАЭ
You donтАЩt know that IтАЩm not.
(You know only that) IтАЩve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. JohnsonтАЩs dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more тАЬqualifiedтАЭ than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
тАЬauthority which he does not have.тАЭ
I donтАЩt see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readersтАЩ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are тАЬanti-scienceтАЭ.
As long as they continue on that road, IтАЩll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.
тАЬbut I've more expertise and experience than youтАЭтАж.
You know *nothing of that* sort.
For all you know, I mayтАЩve had the good fortune, of having c. 50 years of expertise and experience (often rather intense) dealing (incl. personally/ intellectually) with folks from various walks of life, incl. lawyers, cops, reporters, handymen, small businessmen, IT Dept. wheels, professors, political hacks/ activists, shrinks, and MDs (and their families), here and there across the US, and across the globe (esp. w/ Brits, Germans, Israelis, Argentinians, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, & Persians).
(As it happens, I have had that good fortune. ItтАЩs been, at times, wild!)
тАЬI defer to *trusted* experts like the IDSA.тАЭ
I donтАЩt, esp. in light of my intimate knowledge, of how so many тАЬexpertsтАЭ cut corners, cover their asses (often much at othersтАЩ expense), and play the (often brutally superficial) media, to gin-up a rep for тАЬexpertiseтАЭ.
Alas, as one of my quite knowledgeable mentors put it, the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen (i.e., the BSers).
More later, on others of your specific assertions.
More on, that the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen:
Among veteran lawyers, cops etc., an aphorism goes
"believe nothing of what you hear, and *only* 1/2 of what you see."
To modify this a bit, I say
"believe c. 1/4 of what you hear, and only 3/4 of what you see."
As for those of you, who've never been exposed to, or taken seriously, this line of thinking, I say: please spare me any pontificating, about how well-educated you are.
Also, IтАЩve been *quite* close, to folks who were close to very major players, in the Admins of Nixon, Ford, Carter, & Dubya, e.g. Budget Director or SecDef., at least one of whom was outright world-famous.
And, I had a sort of substantive interaction with the Big Dog, in his тАЩ92 campaign.
And, c. 20 years before, I had substantial personal/ intellectual interaction with a (influential?) Brig. General, for a good year or so.
And, IтАЩve dealt face-to face, one-on-one, not just in passing, with at least a few famous/ notorious figures in journalism, historiography, etc.
But donтАЩt worry, I never was (to my knowledge) eligible for a Clearance. I personally was (always?) too far тАЬon the outskirtsтАЭ.
And, to my first list, letтАЩs add bankers and published scientists, and (less intensely) Italians & Czechs
Regarding the Contacts on the above lists, I met all of them due to my activities in the private sector.
None of them were the direct result of my rather trivial niche in the public sector, which may be analogous to EinsteinтАЩs gig in the patent office.
This Mr. Carter hurled at me an Argument from Authority, and when I questioned these AuthoritiesтАЩ cred, he hurled тАЬad hominemтАЭ at me.
Quite worthy of Dr. Goebbels.
Or, of Saul Alinsky.