Dr Malhotra: Facebook is an enemy of Democracy!!!

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Doctor Malhotra seemed happy to use facebook right up until they acted in a way that affected him personally.

Yeah, that's how things work. You seem happy with your choices until you are proven wrong. Your brother dies 3 days after the vaccine you suggested he get. It either wakes you up or you lie to yourself. When people learn new information they are able to change their opinions about things. Unlike you who never ever changes their mind no matter what you're shown.

It's indeed a shock but it wakes you up to the reality of the situation which is disturbing.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's not actually true either though is it.

Its a bit rich you of all people talking about new information and changing view points.

You decided a few years ago that covid vaccines are "bad" and have been desperately trying to find things to prove you are right ever since.

Scraping the barrel is going to become more and more commonplace the longer time goes on.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are trying to speak for everyone again aren't you?

Remember how we talked about how you only speak for yourself and everyone else does the same here?

Doctor Malhotra seemed happy to use facebook right up until they acted in a way that affected him personally.

It seems that facebook and democracy have little to do with this and its more about him getting pulled up again for spouting his baseless claims.

Keep on defending these people if you choose to but don't act surprised when the rest of the world calls them out for being what they are.

I don't speak for everyone. That's a another strawman.

But most people here agree with me as they are using their common sense. They are not vaccine apologists or denialists of truth and reality.

Dr Malhotra was 'happy' to use FB until he got censored. Everyone will feel the same when they are censored by uneducated fact checkers who try to preserve a narrative and the policies of their employer. These fact-checkers already criticised by the BMJ editorial team and were branded incompetent long time ago.

FB is a not on the right track. The company has been derailed.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's not actually true either though is it.

Its a bit rich you of all people talking about new information and changing view points.

You decided a few years ago that covid vaccines are "bad" and have been desperately trying to find things to prove you are right ever since.

Scraping the barrel is going to become more and more commonplace the longer time goes on.

I think you are drifting from the point.
Yes the Covid vaccines haven't been the best achievement of science. But I forgot... The scientists at Pfizer were moving at the speed of science and didn't have to check..things...

FB seems to be supporting the narrative and they have to be called out and cancelled.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The whole story is a big bag of nothing at the end of the day.

A doctor writes a paper that's sketchy at best and then publishes it in a fringe publication that he just happens to be on the editorial board of.

Then he puts it on facebook and facebook gives him a 3 day posting ban for posting nonsense.

Doctor then claims facebook is evil.

Its a one way ticket to yawn city, what did he expect would happen when he started making stuff up and trying to pass it off as science?

His reputation is destroyed.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The whole story is a big bag of nothing at the end of the day.

A doctor writes a paper that's sketchy at best and then publishes it in a fringe publication that he just happens to be on the editorial board of.

Then he puts it on facebook and facebook gives him a 3 day posting ban for posting nonsense.

Doctor then claims facebook is evil.

Its a one way ticket to yawn city, what did he expect would happen when he started making stuff up and trying to pass it off as science?

His reputation is destroyed.

I am afraid you are very wrong on this one.
It's the reputation of FB that had been damaged irreversibly. And not only due to this specific event.

I know there are attempts to destroy the reputation of Dr Malhotra but they are futile.

When did he make up 'stuff'??

The nonsense you are referring to is the new guidance through the Department of Health in Florida which advises 18-39 year old males not to use the mRNA products. That's a fact! Accompanied by their own evidence showing high increase in cardiac deaths.

The other post was a reference to his own peer-reviewed paper. That's another fact.

So no, you are mistaken for once more.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Facebook doesn't care about the feelings of one doctor. Its not going anywhere anytime soon and certainly not because of the doctor and his upset over a 3 day posting ban. when it does go it will just be replaced by something similar anyways.

His reputation was destroyed when he used a publication he is on the editorial board on to pass off his paper as legitimate when it was in fact riddled with inconstancy and bias.

The only people putting any stead in this paper and this doctor are the ones like yourself who are desperately looking for anything that supports the beliefs you hold.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's not actually true either though is it.

Its a bit rich you of all people talking about new information and changing view points.

You decided a few years ago that covid vaccines are "bad" and have been desperately trying to find things to prove you are right ever since.

Scraping the barrel is going to become more and more commonplace the longer time goes on.

First and foremost, we decided the vaccines were "bad" for our own personal health and were persecuted for not getting them, at least where I live in canada. That says to me that it is critically important to be looking into why these shots are being pushed so hard, why billions have been spent on advertising and propaganda.

What I'm curious about is why you, and a few others, are desperate to prove us wrong. All I can think of is a passionate connection to science that is blind to the nuances of gathering information until enough evidence shows a pattern.

Why do you even care if it's our hobby to dig dirt on the shots if you think we are on a path that leads nowhere?

It's like not believing in aliens but feeling a personal responsibility to be in every alien thread to debunk it and make others see the errors of their ways, according to your view.

It's your time and energy so I don't really care. We are all interested in this for our own reasons.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Facebook doesn't care about the feelings of one doctor.

"Dr." Fauci.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Facebook doesn't care about the feelings of one doctor. Its not going anywhere anytime soon and certainly not because of the doctor and his upset over a 3 day posting ban. when it does go it will just be replaced by something similar anyways.

His reputation was destroyed when he used a publication he is on the editorial board on to pass off his paper as legitimate when it was in fact riddled with inconstancy and bias.

The only people putting any stead in this paper and this doctor are the ones like yourself who are desperately looking for anything that supports the beliefs you hold.

You are mistaken again.

He didn't talk about his feelings but shared a post about something factual i.e the new guidance through the Department of Health in Florida which advises 18-39 year old females not to use the mRNA products.

He also made a reference to his own peer-reviewed paper on another post he shared.

No feelings are involved here.

I don't know how you have come up with the idea that his reputation was destroyed. If anything he has become even more famous.

You are again presenting arguments that are easily refuted. You talk about feelings when he posted and shared two papers, his own and the one from Dr Ladapo in Florida.

Try better. You are not very convincing.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Facebook doesn't care about the feelings of one doctor.

"Dr." Fauci.

Indeed!!

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Facebook doesn't care about the feelings of one doctor. Its not going anywhere anytime soon and certainly not because of the doctor and his upset over a 3 day posting ban. when it does go it will just be replaced by something similar anyways.

His reputation was destroyed when he used a publication he is on the editorial board on to pass off his paper as legitimate when it was in fact riddled with inconstancy and bias.

The only people putting any stead in this paper and this doctor are the ones like yourself who are desperately looking for anything that supports the beliefs you hold.

Do you think that FB did well for suspending him over something factual?

Or that he is a quack and a crackpot?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I really don't care enough to commit to one of our pointless back and forths on this today.

I don't care what Facebook does and I don't think his reputation as a doctor will survive the damage he has done with his "peer reviewed paper" and its glaring misrepresentation of facts.

But then what I think doesn't really matter anyway.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are trying to speak for everyone again aren't you?

Remember how we talked about how you only speak for yourself and everyone else does the same here?

Doctor Malhotra seemed happy to use facebook right up until they acted in a way that affected him personally.

It seems that facebook and democracy have little to do with this and its more about him getting pulled up again for spouting his baseless claims.

Keep on defending these people if you choose to but don't act surprised when the rest of the world calls them out for being what they are.

Dr Malhotra was 'happy' to use FB until he got censored. Everyone will feel the same when they are censored by uneducated fact checkers who try to preserve a narrative and the policies of their employer. These fact-checkers already criticised by the BMJ editorial team and were branded incompetent long time ago.

FB is a not on the right track. The company has been derailed.

I got censored on FB autumn of 2020 for asking among friends and family if anyone else thought the lockdowns and mandates would affect our children's futures. Now ex friends kindly guided me to all sorts of think tanks with articles titled along the lines of "what should we do about covid deniers" and "how to talk to family who don't take covid seriously" It took little more than minutes to find the corruption and funding behind all of them and that's how I knew this whole thing was intricately orchestrated. Always leads back to the money.

I was censored by no longer seeing other people's posts nor did anyone see mine except for a small group of five people, two of which were one of my sons and his lady. Around the time of the Ottawa trucker protests, I was up to eight people as I was allowed to connect with three locals. The catch here was all of these people shared the same views as I did so we were essentially corralled and speaking to the choir.

I only mention this because it isn't just three day and other very obvious bans. What this means is that many people were deliberately prevented from hearing any alternate information. Our media in canada shut down commentary for anything but covid fear/pro vax too so people were not able to do their due diligence and ultimately, give informed consent.

This is a little off topic but I feel that in democracy we should be allowed to speak freely and others allowed to redo our research, to prove or disprove, but if they are silenced it isn't democracy.

a reply to: igloo

I think thats a fair question so I will try and give you a proper answwer.

Taking the anaolgy of the existence of aliens then If you choose to belive in alien existence then I'm fine with that.

If you make a thread about the posibility that aliens exist then I have no issue with that either.

If you decide to make a post that claims that aliens are amongst us and 5G internet will mesmorise us all and make us submissive to them so they can harvest our organs for party food then I'm going to call you out on the absurdity of it.

Take this post as an example.

The Doctor in question has a "peer reviewed paper in a medical journal"

This paper makes some pretty non conventional claims and contains a lot of bias opinion presented as fact.

When you see that the paper has been peer reviewed and published in a rather obscure medical journal and on top of that the doctor that authored the paper is an editor of the publication you have to admit that red flags are raised.

But because some people are so desperate to find things that confirm their beliefs they will ignore the clear warning signs and believe anything any everything and become hostile to anyone who questions the sources they provide.

I'm not pro vaccine I'm anti "stuff that is clearly not based on facts or made up entirely"

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: igloo


I'm not pro vaccine I'm anti "stuff that is clearly not based on facts or made up entirely"

I'd say the same for myself and though I'm not a scientist, I come at this from the angle of seeing propaganda everywhere and questioning that fundamentally, as that is what I have experience with. I must leave the more scientific areas to others, not because I don't understand but I simply can't keep up.

I appreciate your decent answer and I agree that Malhotra did himself a great disservice using a paper from a journal he edits. All we can do in these cases is take it with a grain of salt, put it on the back burner in case other sources make the same claims. Sorry about the cliches.

It has all but been impossible for people to stand up and say "not for me" with regards to these vaccines and that is what I am most bothered with. If Malhotra is a shoddy source, then that is all we will get (or be allowed) in this climate of extreme censorship. It certainly has gotten to the point where anyone who is willing to stand up and speak will gain attention. That isn't ideal but too many doctors and scientists have been afraid to speak even on the ethics of the mandates, journalists cannot report, and on it goes so we do not have the widest field to pick from.

The censorship and propaganda are inherently wrong, and it goes back decades not just these years.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I really don't care enough to commit to one of our pointless back and forths on this today.

I don't care what Facebook does and I don't think his reputation as a doctor will survive the damage he has done with his "peer reviewed paper" and its glaring misrepresentation of facts.

But then what I think doesn't really matter anyway.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

If you don't care so much then why you are taking part in this conversation? You may have noticed that this is a thread about online censorship and specifically censorship on Facebook.

Do you think that FB was right to suspend him over something factual? His peer-reviewed paper is indeed a factual piece of information and not fake news. So do the new guidance from the Department of Health in Florida.

Is Dr Malhotra a quack or a crackpot?

I know it's difficult to answer these questions as you have cornered yourself with these arguments of yours.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: igloo


I'm not pro vaccine I'm anti "stuff that is clearly not based on facts or made up entirely"

I'd say the same for myself and though I'm not a scientist, I come at this from the angle of seeing propaganda everywhere and questioning that fundamentally, as that is what I have experience with. I must leave the more scientific areas to others, not because I don't understand but I simply can't keep up.

I appreciate your decent answer and I agree that Malhotra did himself a great disservice using a paper from a journal he edits. All we can do in these cases is take it with a grain of salt, put it on the back burner in case other sources make the same claims. Sorry about the cliches.

It has all but been impossible for people to stand up and say "not for me" with regards to these vaccines and that is what I am most bothered with. If Malhotra is a shoddy source, then that is all we will get (or be allowed) in this climate of extreme censorship. It certainly has gotten to the point where anyone who is willing to stand up and speak will gain attention. That isn't ideal but too many doctors and scientists have been afraid to speak even on the ethics of the mandates, journalists cannot report, and on it goes so we do not have the widest field to pick from.

The censorship and propaganda are inherently wrong, and it goes back decades not just these years.

Not only the censorship and propaganda are wrong but you will find it difficult to publish in journals that don't want to hear anything else other than what the editors are willing to accept. That's how bad it has become.

I've said before.and in this thread that his "peer reviewed" paper is highly suspicious given that he is on the editorial board of the publication it was released in and that the publication is focused on a field that has nothing to do with the paper.

As our previous discussions have shown, peer review for publication is not outright proof that the paper is correct or infallible.

If Facebook chose to take action on it that's a decision that was made and not my concern.

Facebook is a private company so it's not censorship it's just restricting an individual from using a private platform.

The doctor has plenty of other outlets for his opinions to be voiced.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
I've said before.and in this thread that his "peer reviewed" paper is highly suspicious given that he is on the editorial board of the publication it was released in and that the publication is focused on a field that has nothing to do with the paper.

As our previous discussions have shown, peer review for publication is not outright proof that the paper is correct or infallible.

If Facebook chose to take action on it that's a decision that was made and not my concern.

Facebook is a private company so it's not censorship it's just restricting an individual from using a private platform.

The doctor has plenty of other outlets for his opinions to be voiced.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

What is highly suspicious is the speed of science with which Pfizer was moving and it's still moving as well as the partnership between Merck and FB to tackle vaccine misinformation online. Merck is well known to have committed fraud back in 2011 paying fines around $1bn for promoting a drug for arthritis and suppressing the data which showed increase risk of heart complications. As a result it is estimated that around 60,000 Americans died.

So FB not only censors whoever they want but they partner with known companies nobody can trust due to their fraud history in promoting bogus medication and branded as safe as effective.

The fact that FB is a private company by no means justify their decisions to ban Dr Malhotra or anyone else over something factual.

Did you say is not censorship?! What is it then?? What semantics are we using now?

Are you supporting FB?

Yes peer review doesn't guarantee the best quality and doesn't guarantee the truth. However you may want to apply this principle to the many peer reviewed publications which they have assured us that vaccines are safe and effective without knowing short, medium, and long term effects, and without knowing the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups.