I didn't find the widely-shared interview with two moderately anti-lockdown California ER doctors all that persuasive, but I'm getting pretty tired of being protected from information that people think is too dangerous for me to hear. So although I didn't link to the interview to begin with, I'm happy to link to it now, while it's still possible.
And the fact-checkers and community-standards police can bite me. I'll decide what's misinformation and what's not, thank you. I'd have a lot more patience with this approach if half of the garbage I see on "respectable" news sites didn't clearly fit my own definition of misinformation.
2 comments:
Here's another example of our Betters protecting us from information that will damage The Narrative:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-experimental-ultraviolet-light-treatment-for-covid-19-takes-political-heat-11588005938?mod=opinion_lead_pos10
Eric Hines
I thought they had a lot of good questions and a fair amount of good data and some reasonable extrapolations from that data. I also thought they started reaching and stretching that extrapolation to fit things it really didn't, because they were really executing a counter-propaganda effort. They weren't strictly interested in the truth. People like that are awfully hard to find these days.
Post a Comment