Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpadkins | Hacker News Reader

mRNA COVID treatment is a great example in the loss of trust in media, institutions, and each other. By suppressing and censoring information, I believe we have lost so much trust and good will. I know I have lost a lot of trust in medical authorities.

We would have been a lot better off allowing all parties to publish data and analysis, and stress critical thinking skills to the public. Suppression and censorship lead to mistrust.

Yes this means people will form their own opinions and we won't have uniform decision making. But what public policies actually need 90% compliance to be effective? I can only think of a few extreme examples.

View on HN

> I know I have lost a lot of trust in medical authorities.

If you do some introspection, you ll find that you originally had no reason to trust them in the first place.

You trusted them because you assigned attributes such as conscience, morality etc that can be reasonabily attributed to one human being. But these authorities are mobs, a group of humans, and you cannot never expect a mob to have a conscience.

The weirdest thing I always find with posts by skeptics is that I almost always notice a history of defending treatments like Ivermectin and yet seemingly never follow-ups losing faith in the charlatans or institutions that were falsely pushing said treatments. It's always very specifically the one treatment that's been confirmed to work.

Parties did publish data and every single treatment pushed by skeptics fell apart because none of it had any real scientific basis behind it. The 'censorship' occurred because people started buying into false treatments opening up companies to serious liability when people start drinking bleach as a COVID cure because some popular influencer on YouTube marketed it as a miracle cure.

> and yet seemingly never follow-ups

What do you mean?

> But what public policies actually need 90% compliance to be effective? I can only think of a few extreme examples.

I can think of one: a pandemic.

According to Dr. Fauci, you only need 70%. Are you questioning his expert knowledge?

Well.. 70% was the absolute minimum to get ANY herd immunity. But 90% would have been much much better!

Yes, a pandemic with a high IFR and a treatment that prevents transmission. We had neither this last pandemic.

Yes. We did.

As a biologist a lot of the informations that people have complained about being censored isn't just differences of opinion, but statements that have no basis in reality, e.g. the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. And large misunderstandings of things like TBA/VAERS adverse event reporting.

What exactly is the information "censored and suppressed" with regard to the mRNA COVID vaccines?

Side effects of these vaccines is a big one. Their necessity is the other one.

Sauce, source, sawce, s0rce,

I'm out of variations but if you make a claim post a source. The previous commenter has been downvoted for (rightfully) asking for evidence to accompany its claims, you double down on providing no evidence and making even larger claims.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but if you make a claim and don't provide evidence you have presented a non-argument.

My observations is the source.

Frankly, your (or any individuals) observation is utterly worthless to this discussion unless you can demonstrate some type of relevant expertise.

Only if I choose to play by your rules and bow to your "expertise" deity.

Oh boy.

I think its self evident why that is a poor approach to understanding anything other than your own opinion so I wont bother explaining why to you, I don't think you'd care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com