There's only about 100 million other people who think man-made global warming is a colossal hoax (including countless credentialed, if cancelled, scientists). Also, the theory that HIV causes AIDS is questioned by many credible people. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has at least two chapters of "The Real Anthony Fauci" on the backstory of the "s…
There's only about 100 million other people who think man-made global warming is a colossal hoax (including countless credentialed, if cancelled, scientists). Also, the theory that HIV causes AIDS is questioned by many credible people. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has at least two chapters of "The Real Anthony Fauci" on the backstory of the "settled science" about AIDS. Bottom-line: That science was never settled.
Why can't someone do an interview on Alex Jones's show? Are you for free speech for some, but not everyone?
Alex Jones is a bigot who peddles bullshit as easily as breathing and anyone who claims that he’s a good faith actor is either unbelievably credulous to the point I’m surprised they remember to breathe or just as much of a fraud as he is
He wrote two chapters, but each chapter has 75 footnotes, citing numerous studies ... of scientists. So you could read RFK's two chapters and 150 other studies and articles written by 100 other scientists and experts. And some of these citations were other BOOKS on the topic - so you could then go read 400 pages by someone who devoted two years of their life writing a book on the topic. Celia Farber, a well-known freelance journalist, is one such author who wrote a book on this topic.
So, yes, from RFK's book, you can tell the science on HIV/AIDS is not settled. The book also develops that it was AIDS funding that allowed Fauci to massively grow the budget and influence of the NIAID. Fauci's flip flops on AIDS/HIV are also fascinating to learn.
I recommend the book for any fair-minded person who might want some view that is not the orthodoxy of Fauci or Pfizer or Merck or the Department of Defense.
For those who may be interested in the scientist who postulated the narrative-challenging hypothesis that HIV doesn't caused the disease AIDS, Substacker and well-known freelance journalist and author Ceilia Farber just re-published this fascinating article. It does NOT pay to challenge the Science Industrial Complex.
Here's the Cliff Note's version: In the early days of AIDS, when Fauci had just been appointed director of the NIAID, he was saying this was a disease caused by promiscuous gay sex. This caused an uproar among many gay activists. Fauci was their enemy and he was being seriously attacked. Soon enough though, Fauci flipped the narrative, which became "AIDS is a threat to everyone" and not just gay men. Fauci was not only off the chopping block, he found a way to get a massive increase in funding for his obscure little science agency..
For 40 years, he's been trying to create a "vaccine" for HIV/AIDS. That never worked. He did recycle a failed and toxic drug (AZT) for AIDS treatment.
Solving the AIDS/HIV crisis in Africa also became a massive boondoggle and a great place to test drugs and vaccines on people who could die in large numbers with nobody raising much of a fuss.
Even today, nobody knows why AIDS is a hetoresexual disease in Africa, but largely restricted to the gay community in America. I think this is one of those questions we're not supposed to ask. It's like today we're not supposed to ask, "Why are 10 to 20 percent" more people dying each year than they were five years ago?
I think they actually are. That Virality Project (from Stanford) is an effort to keep dissenting opinions like Weinstein's from ever going viral. And to bully and intimidate him and others who might also have the courage to challenge any of the "settled" science.
You're probably okay, because you probably only post "authorized" commentary. I've been banned and shadow-banned over and over at several social media sites.
I think Alex Jones has apologized profusely for his (admittedly) crazy views on the Sandy Hook school shooting. He also was found liable in a civil judgement and I think had to declare bankruptcy because of that. This said, I think he's been proven right with many of his contrarian views.
If the standard is someone that was spectacularly and embarrassingly wrong on some big issue can no longer have a talk show, I'd argue that every talk show host in the world who preached the "safe and effective" vaccine mantra (and bullied those who didn't do their civic duty by getting their shots), should also be banned from booking another guest. Their wrong views actually contributed to countless future deaths. Alex Jones' remarks might have offended many people, but he didn't kill anyone.
He absolutely has not apologized for everything he put those families through. Had he done so, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been hit with the biggest defamation judgment in American history. He’s a monster
How much is an apology worth anyway after he motivated hordes of his deranged followers to harass these grieving parents, forcing some to move from their homes? There ARE unforgivable acts for which an “apology” serves only as an added insult.
He “apologized” in the most perfunctory ass-covering way (which turned out to be far far too late legally speaking) and since then when asked about it has continued to say he has “questions” about the Sandy Hook shooting, which to everyone other than his brain dead followers clearly indicates he still believes all the bullshit that has him on the hook for over $1 billion
If he apologizes, he's attacked for his apology being too-little-too-late (or insincere) and if he doesn't apologize, he's probably still attacked for not apologizing ... so what's he supposed to do on the apology question? It seems to me it doesn't matter if he apologizes or not. The solution is to be able to sue people who caused harm to others in a court of law - which happened.
But I can't sue anyone who forced me to get a vaccine shot I didn't want and that may kill me or harm me ... or cause me to lose my job or not be able to go to a restaurant or play. Can I sue the government .... or Pfizer or Moderna? No. On Facebook, I can't even say what I think about dangerous shots and unconstitutional mandates ... I can't sue Facebook and they ignore my "appeals' of my posting bans.
He didn’t apologize Bill. Not for what he actually did. He’s a bullshiter addicted to spewing bullshit (among other, more chemical addictions) and so at one point in his firehouse of nonsense he may have uttered something like “I’m sorry to the families at Sandy Hook,” but that’s nothing compared to his continued actions. It’s like Kanye going around saying heinous things about Jewish people, then when he has an album coming out dropping the blandest, most perfunctory apology statement on Instagram and then proceeding to keep saying insane things about Jewish folks. If you accept their “apologies” in either case, you need your head examined or your reasoning is motivated (i.e. you’re just a big fan of the guy)
I'd argue the system or free market worked as well as it could in the Sandy Hook/Jones story. Someone like Alex Jones would now have to be really crazy to advance some narrative about a school shooting or mass murder they claim didn't happen. We now see if this happens, such a media person is going to have to pay huge legal defense bills, will be widely discredited and will be forced to pay judgements that cause them to declare bankruptcy. If you want to advance these theories and are glad to take on all this professional and personal blowback/consequences, you are a nutcase.
My one concern about the judgement is the possible slippery-slope logic that a media personality will be held liable for the actions of his/her listeners/readers. If I understand the case (which I didn't follow closely), the argument is that many of Jones' listeners later harassed and upset the families of the victims (which I'm sure happened).
So it seems that any person (myself included) could be blamed if one of my readers "harassed" some group of people based on some (probably false) interpretation of one of my articles.
The argument is you are encouraging dangerous "extremists" and thus should be censored (or sued). If this new legal standard takes hold, it will have a silencing effect on fair and vital criticism of all possible false narratives. In fact, I think this is the goal of those who created and are now expanding the Censorship Industrial Complex.
They are labeling fair criticism, "extremist" or "disinformation" content ... which can be censored ... even in the supposed "land of the free." Basically, are we free to say what we think or not? Or: We can say what we want ... if our views are "approved" by some self-appointed arbiter of the truth.
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
Why does AIDS/HIV affect only gay men and IV drug users in American and the Western world, but it's supposedly an epidemic among heterosexuals, females and children on the continent of Africa? Why is this virus different in different places?
One of the great (taboo) AIDS scandals was the administration of AZT to tens of thousands of alleged AIDS patients (or people who allegedly had the virus HIV) .... and the drug killed untold thousands of said patients. The same thing has happened with remdesivir as an FDA-approved Covid treatment.
Anthony Fauci pushed both protocols.
In my view, it's okay to question the "settled" science. That's what you are supposed to do in science. If the only place you can do this is shows like Alex Jones or Joe Rogan's ... then you book an appearance on those shows. It's not like CNN is going to book you and let you talk about these topics on their airwaves.
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is the classic example of a dishonest loaded question, one that can't be answered with a straight yes or no because it either of those responses takes the assumption in the question for granted.
Bear in mind that since it is *you* who asserted "AIDS/HIV affect[s] only gay men and IV drug users in American and the Western world", the burden of proof is on you to explain how Arthur Ashe was secretly gay, an IV drug user, or didn't die of complications from AIDS. You also would need to to explain how all the women and children with HIV in this country got it from IV drug use rather than sex or blood transfusion. If you can do that without looking like the Pepe Silvia guy, you should get a medal.
You can also get AIDS from a blood transfusion, which is how Ash might have contracted the disease. RFK, Jr. and, I think, many others, speculate Ash didn't die because of AIDS but because he was given AZT.
I'll qualify my statement: 99 percent of AIDS victims in America who died got the virus from sexual intercourse or sharing contaminated needles (heroin drug addicts).
Am I correct in stating that most of the HIV/AIDS patients in Africa are NOT homosexual males or IV drug users?
Am I correct in saying the vast majority of AIDS victims in America ARE in these two groups?
I don't understand why the different outcomes and results in two different continents. This question makes me think the "science" on AIDS and HIV is not settled. A virus should affect people the same way regardless of where they live.
I started this thread only to dispute the author's apparent position that anyone who questions the HIV/AIDs theory should be cancelled or dismissed as some kind of kook.
Is the virus that causes Covid different in Europe than America?
Do you mean affect people the same way, or do you mean have the same demographics regarding infection? There's been a lot of research into the demographics aspect over the years. This one was from 24 years ago: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.288.5474.2153
I guess the different demographics who are "infected."
Why isn't HIV/AIDS a mortality risk to Americans who don't engage in homosexual sex or share used needles?
In the mid-1980s, the narrative was that AIDS was going to be a huge risk to every American. This did not turn out to be the case.
I compare it to the narrative that Covid was a mortality risk to "everyone." This clearly did not turn out to be the case. The average age of a Covid victim is 79 to 82 depending on the country's data you look at.
It's hard to find an example of a healthy person under 40 who definitively died "from" Covid.
I personally knew three people who were said to have died from Covid. They were 70, 80 and 81. That's in four years. So I personally knew/know nobody under the age of 70 who died from Covid.
That tells me Covid was NOT a real mortality risk to people under the age of 70. That's why I question the authorized narratives.
All things being equal, PIV is lower risk in terms of infection than anal, most gay men aren't also having sex with women, untreated STDs in areas with poor heathcare coverage up the risk across the board, and public health messaging in the US was a huge help in keeping the epidemic from completely breaking containment. (Ah, the joys of Gen X sex education and spending your teens being scared that if the nukes didn't get you killed, sex would! Not that it stopped us.)
I know some people under 40 without preexisting conditions who have post-viral issues because of COVID infections, especially those who caught it in 2020 when we were all immunologically naïve, so there are risks (overblown by many on the left, but not trivial) beyond just mortality.
That said, I strongly wish that the public health messaging had been more flexible/honest (just tell us when you don't know enough yet to know and update when you have better information, damn it) and that it hadn't become a political football, which I think happened at least in part because of the boneheaded decision to treat the protests about police brutality as if they were somehow a different risk level than mask protests were. (I ranted at length about this to my spouse at the time. It was such a stupid decision and undermined so much public trust, which was limited as hell in the first place here.)
No. In fact I think a really good metric to deduce the truth value of just about any claim would be to see what Alex Jones says about it and comfortably assume that the opposite is true in nearly every case.
Yeah. They’re generally safe and effective, which is what almost every credible scientist on earth has indicated when asked about the topic.
And there are plenty of reasons people aren’t getting boosters - I’d chalk it up to general fatigue and a feeling that after getting the initial vaccine they’re probably protected enough to where the virus won’t make them seriously ill or kill them. I’m serenely confident that “hundreds of millions” of people don’t agree with the “gay frogs” guy
I guess I can reply to Gavin. I agree that's the consensus CDC/Fauci-approved narrative on AZT. I just note that no small number of people dispute this conclusion. I'm probably different than most readers of this newsletter in that I don't automatically accept the pronouncements of the Science Establishment or Big Pharma as infallible truths. The same sources also say the Covid vaccines are incredibly safe, which I think is a mind-blowing assertion. Hasn't anyone noticed that all-cause deaths have exploded since the roll-out of the vaccines? The deaths can't be explained by Covid as the same experts say the shots are 95 percent effective at preventing death ... and 80 percent of the world was vaccinated.
I also think remdesivr has killed thousands of people and that drug's no doubt considered incredibly safe or it wouldn't have been approved by the FDA.
For alternative views on AZT, I'd recommend reading "The Real Anthony Fauci." Now I understand the author of that book has been officially labeled a kook and cancelled, but the book does include more than 2,300 citations and footnotes - so Kennedy is trying to back-up his claims with studies and evidence.
I read a book review of Deborah Birx's book (she's a Covid expert). The reviewer said her book didn't have one footnote in it. I thought that was a tell.
You have no understanding of virology or epidemiology. None.
Epidemics ARE different in different places, because of human behaviour and ACCESS TO MEDICINE, you absolute bore. Why is a cholera epidemic different in a country with no sanitation, compared to one that has sewers and flushing toilets?? Gee, that’s a tough one. Why is malaria more devastating in Africa than it it is in Greece? What a fucking conundrum! Someone call Sherlock Holmes.
You need to stop writing and start reading people who know what the fuck they are talking about. Then come back. Your lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS should HUMBLE you, but of course, it won’t.
In Africa, HIV kills everyone because of poor sanitation and poor quality water. In America, the same virus doesn't kill everyone because our sanitation and water are better ... but it still kills gay men and IV drug users .... although, presumably, their sanitation and water systems are exactly the same as straight people and non-drug users. So I still don't get it.
There's only about 100 million other people who think man-made global warming is a colossal hoax (including countless credentialed, if cancelled, scientists). Also, the theory that HIV causes AIDS is questioned by many credible people. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has at least two chapters of "The Real Anthony Fauci" on the backstory of the "settled science" about AIDS. Bottom-line: That science was never settled.
Why can't someone do an interview on Alex Jones's show? Are you for free speech for some, but not everyone?
Alex Jones is a bigot who peddles bullshit as easily as breathing and anyone who claims that he’s a good faith actor is either unbelievably credulous to the point I’m surprised they remember to breathe or just as much of a fraud as he is
Oh shit, RFK wrote at least two chapters on that? The science CANT be settled!
He wrote two chapters, but each chapter has 75 footnotes, citing numerous studies ... of scientists. So you could read RFK's two chapters and 150 other studies and articles written by 100 other scientists and experts. And some of these citations were other BOOKS on the topic - so you could then go read 400 pages by someone who devoted two years of their life writing a book on the topic. Celia Farber, a well-known freelance journalist, is one such author who wrote a book on this topic.
So, yes, from RFK's book, you can tell the science on HIV/AIDS is not settled. The book also develops that it was AIDS funding that allowed Fauci to massively grow the budget and influence of the NIAID. Fauci's flip flops on AIDS/HIV are also fascinating to learn.
I recommend the book for any fair-minded person who might want some view that is not the orthodoxy of Fauci or Pfizer or Merck or the Department of Defense.
For those who may be interested in the scientist who postulated the narrative-challenging hypothesis that HIV doesn't caused the disease AIDS, Substacker and well-known freelance journalist and author Ceilia Farber just re-published this fascinating article. It does NOT pay to challenge the Science Industrial Complex.
https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-passion-of-peter-duesberg?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2FThe%2520Passion%2520Of%2520Peter%2520Duesberg&utm_medium=reader2
Also, this update on Dr. Duesberg:
https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/i-have-a-surprise-for-you-peter-duesberg
I don''t care about Fauci's flip flops, I am strictly a teva kinda dude
Here's the Cliff Note's version: In the early days of AIDS, when Fauci had just been appointed director of the NIAID, he was saying this was a disease caused by promiscuous gay sex. This caused an uproar among many gay activists. Fauci was their enemy and he was being seriously attacked. Soon enough though, Fauci flipped the narrative, which became "AIDS is a threat to everyone" and not just gay men. Fauci was not only off the chopping block, he found a way to get a massive increase in funding for his obscure little science agency..
For 40 years, he's been trying to create a "vaccine" for HIV/AIDS. That never worked. He did recycle a failed and toxic drug (AZT) for AIDS treatment.
Solving the AIDS/HIV crisis in Africa also became a massive boondoggle and a great place to test drugs and vaccines on people who could die in large numbers with nobody raising much of a fuss.
Even today, nobody knows why AIDS is a hetoresexual disease in Africa, but largely restricted to the gay community in America. I think this is one of those questions we're not supposed to ask. It's like today we're not supposed to ask, "Why are 10 to 20 percent" more people dying each year than they were five years ago?
Is there any connection with the vaccine for HIV/AIDS and an acute inability to read a room?
Are you saying my theory isn't going over well in this particular room?
I'm used to this. It's my outreach effort. If I can change one mind, etc.
The goal of our rulers is to make sure contrarians like me don't get to ever make posts like this anywhere in the future. Thank Goodness for Substack.
lmao - im sure our 'rulers' are terrified of Brett Weinstein and his cadre of substack superfans
I think they actually are. That Virality Project (from Stanford) is an effort to keep dissenting opinions like Weinstein's from ever going viral. And to bully and intimidate him and others who might also have the courage to challenge any of the "settled" science.
Well then I have to end our communique for I fear the wrath of our overlords.
You're probably okay, because you probably only post "authorized" commentary. I've been banned and shadow-banned over and over at several social media sites.
I appreciate your effort.
I think Alex Jones has apologized profusely for his (admittedly) crazy views on the Sandy Hook school shooting. He also was found liable in a civil judgement and I think had to declare bankruptcy because of that. This said, I think he's been proven right with many of his contrarian views.
If the standard is someone that was spectacularly and embarrassingly wrong on some big issue can no longer have a talk show, I'd argue that every talk show host in the world who preached the "safe and effective" vaccine mantra (and bullied those who didn't do their civic duty by getting their shots), should also be banned from booking another guest. Their wrong views actually contributed to countless future deaths. Alex Jones' remarks might have offended many people, but he didn't kill anyone.
He absolutely has not apologized for everything he put those families through. Had he done so, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been hit with the biggest defamation judgment in American history. He’s a monster
How much is an apology worth anyway after he motivated hordes of his deranged followers to harass these grieving parents, forcing some to move from their homes? There ARE unforgivable acts for which an “apology” serves only as an added insult.
He “apologized” in the most perfunctory ass-covering way (which turned out to be far far too late legally speaking) and since then when asked about it has continued to say he has “questions” about the Sandy Hook shooting, which to everyone other than his brain dead followers clearly indicates he still believes all the bullshit that has him on the hook for over $1 billion
If he apologizes, he's attacked for his apology being too-little-too-late (or insincere) and if he doesn't apologize, he's probably still attacked for not apologizing ... so what's he supposed to do on the apology question? It seems to me it doesn't matter if he apologizes or not. The solution is to be able to sue people who caused harm to others in a court of law - which happened.
But I can't sue anyone who forced me to get a vaccine shot I didn't want and that may kill me or harm me ... or cause me to lose my job or not be able to go to a restaurant or play. Can I sue the government .... or Pfizer or Moderna? No. On Facebook, I can't even say what I think about dangerous shots and unconstitutional mandates ... I can't sue Facebook and they ignore my "appeals' of my posting bans.
He didn’t apologize Bill. Not for what he actually did. He’s a bullshiter addicted to spewing bullshit (among other, more chemical addictions) and so at one point in his firehouse of nonsense he may have uttered something like “I’m sorry to the families at Sandy Hook,” but that’s nothing compared to his continued actions. It’s like Kanye going around saying heinous things about Jewish people, then when he has an album coming out dropping the blandest, most perfunctory apology statement on Instagram and then proceeding to keep saying insane things about Jewish folks. If you accept their “apologies” in either case, you need your head examined or your reasoning is motivated (i.e. you’re just a big fan of the guy)
I'd argue the system or free market worked as well as it could in the Sandy Hook/Jones story. Someone like Alex Jones would now have to be really crazy to advance some narrative about a school shooting or mass murder they claim didn't happen. We now see if this happens, such a media person is going to have to pay huge legal defense bills, will be widely discredited and will be forced to pay judgements that cause them to declare bankruptcy. If you want to advance these theories and are glad to take on all this professional and personal blowback/consequences, you are a nutcase.
My one concern about the judgement is the possible slippery-slope logic that a media personality will be held liable for the actions of his/her listeners/readers. If I understand the case (which I didn't follow closely), the argument is that many of Jones' listeners later harassed and upset the families of the victims (which I'm sure happened).
So it seems that any person (myself included) could be blamed if one of my readers "harassed" some group of people based on some (probably false) interpretation of one of my articles.
The argument is you are encouraging dangerous "extremists" and thus should be censored (or sued). If this new legal standard takes hold, it will have a silencing effect on fair and vital criticism of all possible false narratives. In fact, I think this is the goal of those who created and are now expanding the Censorship Industrial Complex.
They are labeling fair criticism, "extremist" or "disinformation" content ... which can be censored ... even in the supposed "land of the free." Basically, are we free to say what we think or not? Or: We can say what we want ... if our views are "approved" by some self-appointed arbiter of the truth.
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
It is "whataboutism" but sometimes the "what about?" questions are germane to the topic. It is here (imo).
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
Re: The settled science about AIDS/HIV ....
Why does AIDS/HIV affect only gay men and IV drug users in American and the Western world, but it's supposedly an epidemic among heterosexuals, females and children on the continent of Africa? Why is this virus different in different places?
One of the great (taboo) AIDS scandals was the administration of AZT to tens of thousands of alleged AIDS patients (or people who allegedly had the virus HIV) .... and the drug killed untold thousands of said patients. The same thing has happened with remdesivir as an FDA-approved Covid treatment.
Anthony Fauci pushed both protocols.
In my view, it's okay to question the "settled" science. That's what you are supposed to do in science. If the only place you can do this is shows like Alex Jones or Joe Rogan's ... then you book an appearance on those shows. It's not like CNN is going to book you and let you talk about these topics on their airwaves.
"Why does AIDS/HIV affect only gay men and IV drug users in American and the Western world"
When did you stop beating your wife?
What's your answer to the question? Why the difference in AIDS/HIV victims in America and Africa? I don't get the snarky analogy.
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is the classic example of a dishonest loaded question, one that can't be answered with a straight yes or no because it either of those responses takes the assumption in the question for granted.
Bear in mind that since it is *you* who asserted "AIDS/HIV affect[s] only gay men and IV drug users in American and the Western world", the burden of proof is on you to explain how Arthur Ashe was secretly gay, an IV drug user, or didn't die of complications from AIDS. You also would need to to explain how all the women and children with HIV in this country got it from IV drug use rather than sex or blood transfusion. If you can do that without looking like the Pepe Silvia guy, you should get a medal.
You can also get AIDS from a blood transfusion, which is how Ash might have contracted the disease. RFK, Jr. and, I think, many others, speculate Ash didn't die because of AIDS but because he was given AZT.
I'll qualify my statement: 99 percent of AIDS victims in America who died got the virus from sexual intercourse or sharing contaminated needles (heroin drug addicts).
Am I correct in stating that most of the HIV/AIDS patients in Africa are NOT homosexual males or IV drug users?
Am I correct in saying the vast majority of AIDS victims in America ARE in these two groups?
I don't understand why the different outcomes and results in two different continents. This question makes me think the "science" on AIDS and HIV is not settled. A virus should affect people the same way regardless of where they live.
I started this thread only to dispute the author's apparent position that anyone who questions the HIV/AIDs theory should be cancelled or dismissed as some kind of kook.
Is the virus that causes Covid different in Europe than America?
Do you mean affect people the same way, or do you mean have the same demographics regarding infection? There's been a lot of research into the demographics aspect over the years. This one was from 24 years ago: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.288.5474.2153
I guess the different demographics who are "infected."
Why isn't HIV/AIDS a mortality risk to Americans who don't engage in homosexual sex or share used needles?
In the mid-1980s, the narrative was that AIDS was going to be a huge risk to every American. This did not turn out to be the case.
I compare it to the narrative that Covid was a mortality risk to "everyone." This clearly did not turn out to be the case. The average age of a Covid victim is 79 to 82 depending on the country's data you look at.
It's hard to find an example of a healthy person under 40 who definitively died "from" Covid.
I personally knew three people who were said to have died from Covid. They were 70, 80 and 81. That's in four years. So I personally knew/know nobody under the age of 70 who died from Covid.
That tells me Covid was NOT a real mortality risk to people under the age of 70. That's why I question the authorized narratives.
All things being equal, PIV is lower risk in terms of infection than anal, most gay men aren't also having sex with women, untreated STDs in areas with poor heathcare coverage up the risk across the board, and public health messaging in the US was a huge help in keeping the epidemic from completely breaking containment. (Ah, the joys of Gen X sex education and spending your teens being scared that if the nukes didn't get you killed, sex would! Not that it stopped us.)
I know some people under 40 without preexisting conditions who have post-viral issues because of COVID infections, especially those who caught it in 2020 when we were all immunologically naïve, so there are risks (overblown by many on the left, but not trivial) beyond just mortality.
That said, I strongly wish that the public health messaging had been more flexible/honest (just tell us when you don't know enough yet to know and update when you have better information, damn it) and that it hadn't become a political football, which I think happened at least in part because of the boneheaded decision to treat the protests about police brutality as if they were somehow a different risk level than mask protests were. (I ranted at length about this to my spouse at the time. It was such a stupid decision and undermined so much public trust, which was limited as hell in the first place here.)
I take it there’s a lot that you don’t get
I get that you are one of those posters who don't answer specific questions.
Do you agree with Jones that the water is turning frogs gay?
What a ribbiting question! 😁
No. Do you agree with Jones that the Covid vaccines are NOT "safe and effective?"
No. In fact I think a really good metric to deduce the truth value of just about any claim would be to see what Alex Jones says about it and comfortably assume that the opposite is true in nearly every case.
So you think the vaccines DO prevent transmission and spread and that nobody has died or suffered a serious adverse event after receiving these shots?
Since we're using the Socratic Method: Why do you think 90 percent of the public no longer gets the booster shots the CDC is still recommending?
I think hundreds of millions of people, perhaps secretly, agree with Alex Jones.
Yeah. They’re generally safe and effective, which is what almost every credible scientist on earth has indicated when asked about the topic.
And there are plenty of reasons people aren’t getting boosters - I’d chalk it up to general fatigue and a feeling that after getting the initial vaccine they’re probably protected enough to where the virus won’t make them seriously ill or kill them. I’m serenely confident that “hundreds of millions” of people don’t agree with the “gay frogs” guy
Eazy E was neither gay nor shooting heroin.
"and the drug killed untold thousands of said patients"
Are you sure it wasn't, you know, the AIDS that killed them? AZT seems to be incredibly safe, if anything not strong enough.
I guess I can reply to Gavin. I agree that's the consensus CDC/Fauci-approved narrative on AZT. I just note that no small number of people dispute this conclusion. I'm probably different than most readers of this newsletter in that I don't automatically accept the pronouncements of the Science Establishment or Big Pharma as infallible truths. The same sources also say the Covid vaccines are incredibly safe, which I think is a mind-blowing assertion. Hasn't anyone noticed that all-cause deaths have exploded since the roll-out of the vaccines? The deaths can't be explained by Covid as the same experts say the shots are 95 percent effective at preventing death ... and 80 percent of the world was vaccinated.
I also think remdesivr has killed thousands of people and that drug's no doubt considered incredibly safe or it wouldn't have been approved by the FDA.
For alternative views on AZT, I'd recommend reading "The Real Anthony Fauci." Now I understand the author of that book has been officially labeled a kook and cancelled, but the book does include more than 2,300 citations and footnotes - so Kennedy is trying to back-up his claims with studies and evidence.
I read a book review of Deborah Birx's book (she's a Covid expert). The reviewer said her book didn't have one footnote in it. I thought that was a tell.
You have no understanding of virology or epidemiology. None.
Epidemics ARE different in different places, because of human behaviour and ACCESS TO MEDICINE, you absolute bore. Why is a cholera epidemic different in a country with no sanitation, compared to one that has sewers and flushing toilets?? Gee, that’s a tough one. Why is malaria more devastating in Africa than it it is in Greece? What a fucking conundrum! Someone call Sherlock Holmes.
You need to stop writing and start reading people who know what the fuck they are talking about. Then come back. Your lack of knowledge about HIV/AIDS should HUMBLE you, but of course, it won’t.
In Africa, HIV kills everyone because of poor sanitation and poor quality water. In America, the same virus doesn't kill everyone because our sanitation and water are better ... but it still kills gay men and IV drug users .... although, presumably, their sanitation and water systems are exactly the same as straight people and non-drug users. So I still don't get it.
Alex, I’ll take “Completely Ahistorical Posts” for $1000.
Yes and those 100 million people are wrong.
I'm glad we're turning to RFK Jr. for our evidence on AIDS.