Comment by dustinmoris | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustinmoris | Hacker News Reader

A lot of what was said in this thread is very inconsistent with reality.

For example:

> Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic because the "debate" included ...

> massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world - e.g. harrassment of public officials and doctors, racially-motivated crimes, etc.

This is not true.

Any message, irrespective if EVERYONE KNEW it was true, for example that COVID-19 is statistically less of a risk to children than the flu, was censored and labelled as fake news or even taken down. Free speech is dead in its current form where social media companies are peddling the fake news by our Western governments to control our thinking. They will make you believe that Iraq has mass destruction weapons if they want a war and they will make you believe that a minor cough virus will kill your child if they want to control your life.

I think it's important to take a step back here.

I saw plenty of people saying "Covid is less severe in Children" without any issue. The people who had tweets taken down were saying things like "Children can't die from Covid, open the schools, there's no risk at all" but ignoring that:

a) Children did in fact die b) Children did in fact bring Covid home from school which infected potentially at risk parents/other family members.

See also the lab leak hypthesis (and a good example when people talk about "banning ideas!") - if someone said "Hey, we can't rule out the lab leak hypothesis", that's presenting an idea, not claiming something that hasn't been proven is true and I saw MANY people posting that without issue.

When people said "It was engineered in a lab to be more deadly to humans, and it leaked out" that's stating something as fact that had no definitive evidence, and would likely result in a "This may be untrue" labels.

Literally just now as I was watching BBC Breakfast this is what was said on TV by two scientists who were interviewed almost daily for the last two years and portrayed as fact checkers and our sources of truth:

The Valneva vaccine was approved in the UK and might be very important because it trains our body against all proteins of the virus as opposed to just the spike protein which is what the AZ and Moderna/Pfizer vaccines were doing so far, so probably giving us better protection against future variants.

Cool... that sounds great and very logical. Body learns about the entirety of the virus and therefore will be better to fend off new variations of it in the future.

But that doesn't sound like some profound new scientific discovery we have made. This sounds like science 101 to me, so WHY did the same two scientists vehemently refuse to acknowledge in any shape or form that people who have had COVID-19 and therefore had been exposed to a huge viral load of the ENTIRE virus with all its proteins might have also acquired a better immune response than a vaccine which only trains your body against a single spike protein? It's the same principle, but because it was not WOKE to say the truth.

It's plain simple, we are all being brain washed with selective reporting and fake news and its enforced by social media so that critically thinking minds cannot undermine our increasingly more authoritarian governments which try to control our thinking in order to control our lives and get what they want - more powers in their favour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com