On a whim, I decided to peek at the InfoWars homepage. At this moment, I cannot determine which of the headlines are genuine InfoWars content and which are the product of Onion writers. (I assume it's genuine due to the recency of the sale closing?)
InfoWars audience is loyal only to Jones himself and will never visit InfoWars again. Jones will go elsewhere, 100% of his audience will follow, and the Onion is in for a big letdown. If you are dreaming about reprogramming Jone's followers by taking over InfoWars, it just shows that you know nothing about the typical InfoWars consumer.
This my view, in fact the whole thing completely puzzles me, Jones is free to publish his vile views elsewhere and his followers will find him. Infowars "onion-style" would have to be pretty dammed subtle to "trick" Jonesites into consuming it sincerely.
How the parents of the Sandy Hook victims use their compensation is their business but I feel supporting advocacy for better mental health facilities in the USA would be a better use of the money.
I will never cease to by amused by the idea that Jones' fans value the InfoWars brand and website above Jones himself. He is a celebrity among his fans. Exactly 0 of them will pay any attention to InfoWars the minute Jones is no longer associated with the brand.
I don’t think they expected anything different. I think they saw the brand for sale at firesale prices, and decided they could use it. In fact, they’re one of the only ’mainstream’ outlets that can use the InfoWars brand, since it’s funny. Perhaps they will set up a ‘competing’ ‘right-wing’ satire site ala Colbert Report vs Daily Show.
The difficulty with this is that anything that isn’t a hard 180 involves continuing to publish approximately the same type of content for a while, which is probably unpalatable to The Onion. Anything that is a small enough course correction to retain its audience is too small a shift to get away from that hateful nonsense. It’s a nice idea to try to steer people away, but you have to start off by driving in the same direction, which nobody wants to do.
> The trick is to lie to them to get them away from their hateful and conspiracy theories
I can't articulate what you're admitting to exactly, but it's an interesting admission.
On a more serious note, most of the readers of these kinds of outlets aren't stupid in this specific sense. They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
> They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
This applies to most readers of most things, not just fringe content on the Left or the Right.
Most people are stuck in their confirmation biases, and few make an intellectual effort to look at topics from multiple angles and via multiple media outlets on various sides of the political spectrum.
whoops, looks like you let the mask slip! I see you started this thread debating the merits of trust in the court system, I'm relieved we've finally got to the crux of it. You consume and identify with the kind of crank material Infowars publishes. Thank you for letting us know.
> Alex Jones was declared to be in default for failing to provide a document that never existed in the first place.
You've said this numerous times. It isn't true.
> In her ruling, Bellis criticized Jones’ attorney for providing only “sanitized, inaccurate” financial records and showed “callous disregard” for her repeated rulings to provide complete analytics data. She found Jones’ attorneys actions “were not just careful” but constituted “a pattern of obstructive conduct” requiring the most severe sanction of default, what she called a “last resort,” as reported by the Hartford Courant.
It was for a pattern of behavior, not any single document. Speaking of patterns of behavior, you've now left three increasingly unhinged replies to my single comment. Whatever impression it is you're trying to create, I don't think it's working.
>>Lol... someone apparently accepted the mRNA injections.
It just boggles my mind that one of the greatest medical achievements of this century(so far anyway) is being ridiculed on the internet. It's honestly the same as someone going in the comments section and saying that the earth is flat, after all just LOOK OUTSIDE SHEEPLE.
Someone sets a tree on fire. The fire brigade comes and puts it out with a couple of buckets of water. Wow, isn't water great?
The arsonists come back and douse the tree in petrol and set it on fire again. Now the water is less effective. Do you now think the water didn't help with the first fire?
>>This "greatest medical achievement" was touted by the "mainstream" media as 100% safe and effective.
It can still be the greatest medical achievement of our century and the media could have been lying about how safe it is. Penicillin was the greatest medical achievement of its time yet it isn't 100% safe to use. Nothing really is.
What is stupid is people dismissing mRNA vaccines wholesale because they read how some articles written at the time of the pandemic weren't entirely true.
>>this is why it is ridiculed, because it is and always was total bullshit.
Just so we're clear, what do you mean as "total bullshit"?
>>Why did they later tout it as 90% effective? Then 80% effective, then 70% effective, then 60% effective
">>and that they had an intended purpose different than what CNN/MSNBS etc would say they were for
So what were they for? Admittedly I don't know what CNN said as I'm not american.
>>which you will find has been 100% admitted by the "legitimate" voices if you bother to look
Again, no offence, but this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor who works out of this hut in the woods, he really knows the truth about everything, everyone is lying". Just smells wrong if you know what I mean. The fact that you keep putting "legitimate" in quotes suggests they are anything but.
>>In case you missed it, the "authoritative" voices have admitted that the mRNA injections did not prevent infection and did not prevent spread.
But you know what, I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
Also, I want to add one more thing - specifically Covid vaccines are one thing, we can keep debating them, but you seemed to make fun out of all mRNA vaccines, which to me is the crazy part. mRNA as a technology absolutely works and again, is a miracle of science(or you know....just science).
"The mRNA injections" referred to the ones marketed for covid specifically.
I did not, and would not, dismiss the use of mRNA gene therapies (that's what it is), categorically.
> this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor
By "legitimate" / "authoritative" voices, I am referring to "mainstream" media. I put "mainstream" in quotes because long-form podcasts and even Alex Jones himself have a larger audience than CNN/MSNBS etc.
> I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
I respect this sincere pursuit of truth, very much so. I will leave this thread open in a tab and bring resources I am aware of to you in the near future.
> They are vaccines. > Okay they aren't vaccines they are mRNA, but we changed the definition of vaccine.
There's many different types of vaccines, you can invent new ones without changing the definition.
> They prevent you from contracting and spreading the virus. > Okay they don't prevent you from contracting the virus but they prevent you from spreading. > Okay they don't prevent you from spreading but they reduce symptoms.
They work on a specific strain of the virus, they're not effective against other strains. The whole point about quarantining, social distancing, masks, etc, is to lower the spread of a strain before it has a chance to mutate into a new one so a vaccine that targets it can be administrated to enough of the population so it can actually be effective in stopping its spread.
Did you happen to have a brain worm by any chance?
It's not gene therapy. Gene therapy changes DNA. The vaccine causes some proteins to be produced temporarily and then it goes away.
And those proteins make the immune system react to build immunity to them. The second half of that sentence is the definition of a vaccine. What do you think a vaccine is?
And nothing is ever literally 100% safe, but people exaggerate. It's ridiculous to reject something because it got exaggerated about at some point.
"COVID-19 vaccination of the index case reduced infectiousness by 44% (95% CI, 27-57%), vaccination of the close contact reduced susceptibility by 69% (95% CI, 65-73%), and vaccination of both reduced transmissibility by 74% (95% CI, 70-78%) in social settings, suggesting some synergy of effects."
"Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduces infectiousness and susceptibility; however, these effects are insufficient for complete control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially in older people and household setting."
Overall, I think the dominant phenomenon here is people wanted to typecast floating-point data to boolean answers, the media did their best to accomodate that want, and almost nobody reads primary sources.
You'd have to ask the Pfizer / BioNTech press staff, since they were the source.
Later down in this article, they clarify with some hard numbers: "Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine. The data has yet to be peer reviewed."
So Pfizer/BioNTech is reporting 100% efficacy on a non-peer-reviewed study where 1.5% of the control group contracted the disease (news article doesn't say how "contraction of disease" was identified, whether that was antibody presence or symptoms).
News has a bad habit of reducing complex circumstances to headlines that appear yes-or-no.
It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced, long unlicensed (pre pandemic) physician and anti-vax grifter, a quack.
Quite telling he still claims affiliation with an institution he was terminated from nearly a decade ago.
He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist. Real piece of work.
Glancing at this article you have posted, I am genuinely intrigued and look forward to reading it today or tomorrow.
The thing about the IgG4 topic overall, is it's not just a small handful of papers that are discussing it, along with other immune issues that have resulted from the mRNA shots.
> It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced
Can you give us a solid citation on exactly how? I would like to see this.
> He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist.
This means he had a front row seat to how cancer develops in patients, how cancer is successfully neutralized (or not) in patients, and also the internal politics and realpolitik imperatives of such a place. Given that cancer is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, and a patient cured or prevented from having the disease in the first place is not profitable, unironically his work history could provide insight into how institutions that employ fleets of oncologists actually operate.
