Information, censorship, media debate: where's the truth?

[Robob]

@robob

When you say "A stranger who believes debunker in 2 tweets a scientific study trying to explain the possible mechanism of in vitro IVM on sars-cov2"It's called reversing the burden of proof.

It's the opposite: a study published by a team of scientists is criticized in 2 tweets by an unknown person. It is indeed this badger that you support, who comes to criticize a study on twitter. If it is a scientist and researcher having the possibility of criticizing the study so that it is retracted, that it does it but not on tweeter with an audience which understands nothing about it.

blabla... So we need a consensus of scientists...blabla

A teletoubib consensus?

Why don't you speak in the same way of a "scientist who believes he has proven in a scientific study a possible mechanism of in vitro IVM on sars-cov2 contrary to what others say or that others would not have not seen" ?! Your bias is disturbing.

Several studies show the effectiveness of IVM, but as soon as scientists manage to publish (which seems complicated to say the least) the beginning of any scientific explanation for how it works, a horde of fact-checkers paid by one wonders who, pull out 3 tweets from the bottom of their garage to demolish the job. Your bias is worrying.

When you say "You can imagine that throwing all this out in public is to take enormous risks given the forces to which France Soir, Alzabert and Aberkane oppose", is that telling us that these sites can't lie because they would run risks?! And don't you realize the nullity of this pseudo-argument?!

The proof that not: 1 week after the unpacking in a public place, France evening loses its approval.
And the accusations made, if they are false, are extremely serious: AFP, an LREM deputy, the RG are implicated.
But for you, all this is totally bogus, FS and the authors publish fakes, make defamation which can put them in jail, just to make the conspiracies fachos of service. And you do not realize the nullity of this pseudo-argument?!

...blablablabla...

Tired of hearing this nonsense when all the world statistics show the total failure of vaccines.
Tired of hearing his bullshit, while countries one by one abandon the vaccine strategy.
You better start respecting my opinion and that of France Soir or Aberkane, given the facts, and stop using easy insults like fascists or useful idiots.

[Robob]

Here is one more thing that will advance the charming western democracies dear to Exnihiloest, izy and others.
Of course, all these people who talk nonsense are far-right fascist conspirators: it is not possible that the world's leading power is in the hands of a mafia family.


Ha yes by the way, Musk was rather a Democrat (in the past).

[izentrop]

Several studies show the effectiveness of IVM, but as soon as scientists manage to publish (which seems complicated to say the least) the beginning of any scientific explanation for how it works, a horde of fact-checkers paid by one wonders who, pull out 3 tweets from the bottom of their garage to demolish the job. Your bias is worrying.

Cite these studies so that we can judge in good faith.

[Christophe]

...
I haven't changed, it was you who didn't understand me well... I BELIEVE!
...

Let's say you know how to take breaks. To be frank, I'm a bit pessimistic about their duration. We'll see.

2 + 1 = 3

society-and-philosophy/the-carbon-co2-climate-pass-is-coming-t17349.html#p517498

[Obamot]

in good faith.

These words expressed by you, it's uh how to say... put the word "science” in all your posts, we still didn't care since science belongs to everyone (although you acted as if you had a monopoly on it...) But pffffffff... "sincerity" Dude, you hardly have any. Your posts stink of provocation from miles away and your sources are generally from the gutter...

So stop kidding yourself about your perv case. narcissus: you had already announced the color, so it's done in advance.

[Janic]

izmentrop wrote:

in good faith.

He likes to use words whose meaning he completely ignores!

[Christophe]

[izentrop]

A newspaper that puts the "complosphere" back in place has a lot of courage and deserves to be supported.

[Exnihiloest]

@robob

When you say "A stranger who believes debunker in 2 tweets a scientific study trying to explain the possible mechanism of in vitro IVM on sars-cov2"It's called reversing the burden of proof.

It's the opposite: a study published by a team of scientists is criticized in 2 tweets by an unknown person. It is indeed this badger that you support, who comes to criticize a study on twitter. If it is a scientist and researcher having the possibility of criticizing the study so that it is retracted, that it does it but not on tweeter with an audience which understands nothing about it.

...
Tired of hearing this nonsense when all the world statistics show the total failure of vaccines...

It's wrong. And you repeat yourself, obviously you didn't understand my answer.
A study alone does not prove anything, it has no more value than the 2-tweet review you mention, but the burden of proof is on the authors of the study. Until they are confirmed by their peers, the study cannot be taken as a valid scientific reference.
So calm down and try to understand before saying anything.

[Exnihiloest]

A newspaper that puts the "complosphere" back in place has a lot of courage and deserves to be supported.

"They present themselves as people who think “differently”, who “open their minds” to escape the mainstream imposed by the big media and economic interests. In truth, the members of what must be called the "complosphere" do not support any criticism, any speech contrary to theirs and attack in packs as soon as they are caught in the wrong: there is something totalitarian in their way to act in the public arena."

It couldn't be better summed up, we have a sad little skewer of them here, these "gutter rednecks"of which I spoke recently in the most flattering terms .

I think there is no point in trying to reason with them, they are either too stupid or in too bad faith. Democracy has reached its limits, those where the right to express oneself left to everyone is exploited against it by the last of the imbeciles and the vindictive to replace it with a fascism based on their subjective, which takes the place of their motive, and the denial of reason, of which they are devoid. The only thing to do is to deny what they say according to the Euclidean method "what is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof", and to crush them before they sink the whole society into arbitrariness, intolerance and lies.