Can we really trust what the media say about the coronavirus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s interesting that according to the statistics of the development of the epidemic, there is an evident pattern-the biggest quantity of virus covid 19 is among fundamentalists (no matter -Jewish, Muslims, Orthodox Christians. No matter Western world or Third world)
Looks like the fanatical foolishness and sin - punish themselves.
 
Last edited:
The media get their information from sources and the caliber and trustworthiness of sources may vary. thus, depending on the source, various media may give differing accounts.
Currently, there seems to be adjustments occuring in terms of what will be judged to be an official death due to corona virus.


some inconsistencies noted in the BBC article:

What are other states doing?​

"Since the start of March - before New York City reported its first death - the CDC asked local governments to record “assumed” coronavirus infections on death certificates.

But so far, the application has been inconsistent.

Municipalities in Connecticut, Ohio and Delaware have begun to recorded cases where the infection is assumed but not confirmed with a test, Dr Barbot told the New York Times, while officials in California and Seattle only count virus deaths if proven with a positive test."
 
What you mean like ‘Irish Catholics’ ‘Italian Catholics’ etc. etc. ? Want to look up how many times in just US history Catholics were cited as sources of diseases due to being poor and badly educated and how that led to violence against them.
[/quote]

And not just violence. All sorts of discrimination. Like, signs in the windows of companies looking to hire that read, “Irish need not apply.”

That’s why we now have EEOC and anti-discrimination laws – because of injustices like that. Legitimate job qualifications didn’t matter. It was one’s race, religion, gender, age, marital status, national origin, etc. that took precedent in hiring decisions. Sadly, that still happens today, despite being illegal. Companies that want to discriminate unfairly always find ways to get around it.

They know that most victims can’t afford lawyers.
 
Yes, media sources do get stuff wrong on occasion, and the ones with any integrity correct their mistakes. The ones without integrity fail to do so. Just like people. If someone won’t admit when they are wrong, it is kind of hard to believe what they say, or listen to them for any length of time.
Hi farronwolf,
I think that the attached article relates to your discussion here from an interesting angle. It’s a BBC article and looks at the ways in which political interests can lead governments to withhold information from the media.
The media cannot inform about that of which they are unaware.
From the article:
" Report ‘pulled’

Western officials say China is keen to play up its success in combating the virus and minimise any fallout from its role as the origin of the virus and early failures to be open. A report by the European External Action Service (EEAS) looking at the spread of disinformation was, according to one European official, pulled from publication because of concerns about Chinese reaction.

The report, which had already been circulated to member states and leaked to media, was reported to have said that China was running a global campaign to deflect blame for Covid-19 with the aim of improving the country’s international standing and said there had been both overt and covert activity.

The EEAS denied a report was due to be published, saying an internal report was leaked."

 
Well, there is a lot that isn’t known. I’d be wary of facile conclusions, because so much is still muddy. That doesn’t mean the information is wrong or dishonest, but it is premature to take conclusions that seem to present themselves as the final word because the information is incomplete. Expect our understanding to evolve. Anybody who says they know things definitely probably doesn’t understand.
 
Last edited:
I don’t trust what the MSM says in the U.S., especially those who cut off press conferences where leading immunologists are attempting to educate & update the public, and the news anchors instead tell the viewers what “they” think is what’s really going on, instead of allowing their listeners the benefit of the combined experience of those in the medical field instead of the personal opinions of media personalities who have no such experience or education.
 
I don’t trust what the MSM says in the U.S., especially those who cut off press conferences where leading immunologists are attempting to educate & update the public…
They were quite willing to cover the immunologists live. But they rightly cut off live coverage of the campaign speech by the President, and broadcast a condensed version of it. Also the whole thing they made available on-line, for people who can’t get enough of Trump praising himself.
 
We can’t trust the media because its main goal nowadays seems to be to defeat Trump in November.
Why would non American media care about that?
This is a question on media in general and not just about American media.
In my country we do not have much talk about Trump other than that he and Boris Johnson might not have done the right thing with the lockdowns.
 
Why would non American media care about that?
This is a question on media in general and not just about American media.
In my country we do not have much talk about Trump other than that he and Boris Johnson might not have done the right thing with the lockdowns.
We live in a global economy; what occurs in one country-especially a country as powerful politically and economically and culturally as the U.S. affects other countries. The previous Canadian P.M., Pierre Trudeau, once likened having the U.S. as a neighbor with being in bed with an elephant-one is attentive to every movement. and, of course, there’s the famous quote from a former president of Mexico: “poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.” Immigration policies and the differences one might anticipate alone, will be of great interest to many countries and to their press. Military issues, will be of great interest to countries and to their press. Trade and aid issues will be of great interest to countries around the world, and to their press.
Furthermore, the media is a business. It has it’s own business interests.
Noam Choamsky argued that the media exists to sell viewers/readers to advertisers. It’s an interesting argument and one might see how advertisers also have an interest in the policies which might be endorsed by a particular president or by having stable markets in which to peddle their goods.
If you read the Guardian (English paper) they are pretty upfront about their orientation on issues of climate and on their opposition to Mr. Trump. Other media sources, may not be so straightforward about their orientation, but they also will have a general perspective which you can glean after sustained reading.
After the last election, I was listening to NPR (National public Radio) on my way home from work and a journalist was discussing both how blindsided the media was by the election results and acknowledging that the media in general had not given the positive coverage to Mr. Trump that had been given to his opponent.
this certainly jibed with my experience of listening to NPR and ABC news on a daily basis while commuting. I follow the Guardian and the BBC and they have not been very generous towards Mr. Trump.
I’m not casting a vote here on whether or not one should like Mr. Trump and his policies, merely observing what I encounter regularly, when perusing these sources.
My understanding (I can’t provide sources at present so take it with a grain of salt) is that those who major in journalism tend to have what is called a liberal (this is usually a political not an economic term in the United States) perspective. This may inform the stories chosen to cover, the people chosen to provide quotes in the stories, and the perspective from which a story is presented.
What country do you live in?
There is some variety, of course and there will be some variety as well at the global scale, I’m merely reflecting on trends.
 
We can’t trust the media because its main goal nowadays seems to be to defeat Trump in November. So they claim everything he says is wrong even if they know it’s right.
Well, some of the media claim everything he says is right even when it is obviously not.
It’s very difficult to know who to listen to anyway, because there are too many variations in what the medical experts say. In addition, the way facts are presented is almost always uncertain if not outright confusing. And, of course, the medical people don’t really pay a lot of attention to the economic aspect of it all. That’s not their area of expertise, and they shouldn’t expound on it for that reason. But it makes it even more uncertain.
I find the experts very clear, but then I’m used to hearing people in science and medicine talk about a rapidly-evolving subject. It is the President who is most likely to come out with word salads about light and disinfectants and lungs and big objects. Even reading the White House transcript over and over, including the clarification later in the press briefing, I still counted tell exactly what the President was trying to say. (I’m not convinced he knew himself. I think he was hoping to sound optimistic, maybe?)

As for the economic aspects of the pandemic, I’m not quite sure you realize the economic impact of stopping elective procedures on hospitals and clinics. Believe me, hospitals and medical officials are very aware of economics. I wish the President, who certainly has zero expertise in medicine, would stay out of medicine. Just say, “Here, I hired very competent people, listen to them, I could not possibly explain it as well as they do.” He would look a lot more with it.

By the way, he was asked about the bankruptcy issue with the states raised by others, and he very wisely refused to say a thing about it at present, even though he was pressured to say something. I thought that was excellent! He understands that carelessly throwing out conjectures that can move the markets is a very bad idea. He needs to realize that carelessly throwing out conjectures about medicine is also a bad idea. People take medical ideas and run with them just as much as they do it with financial conjectures. Still, putting that question off was really good. Kudos to him for that.
 
Last edited:
if they say its just a flu, then yes.

If they say “ItS nOT a FLu!” then you can know with absolute certainty that not only is it just the flu, its not even as bad as the flu.
I know what my evidence is for believing it is not the flu. The first is that “the flu” is not just one thing, but a whole class of viruses that can range in severity from something really miserable and too often deadly to a devastating infection that killed millions in the early 20th century, but mostly none of the influenza viruses are a coronavirus. Influenza viruses are not coronaviruses. They’re different things.

What’s your evidence for believing that SARS-CoV-2 is not as bad as any of the current strains of influenza? After all, there are vaccines for influenza. Not only is there not a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, but there is also not one for the related MERS or the original SARS. MERS has been out there for 6-7 years, and they still don’t have a vaccine. (The first SARS emerged 17 years ago and there is no vaccine, but there have been no outbreaks since 2015–and NOT because we have “herd immunity” to it!!)

Well…just list the things about this year’s flu season that makes it worse than COVID-19 will be. Otherwise, maybe just admit that there are factual reasons to not make the two into the same thing
 
Last edited:
But they rightly cut off live coverage of the campaign speech by the President, and broadcast a condensed version of it
But that’s not their job as journalists. Plus, they have never had problems with previous Democratic POTUSs “praising” themselves. And their “condensed” versions are not always accurate. The liberal mindset is beyond hypocritical, as well as anti-God.
 
I find the experts very clear, but then I’m used to hearing people in science and medicine talk about a rapidly-evolving subject. It is the President who is most likely to come out with word salads about light and disinfectants and lungs and big objects. Even reading the White House transcript over and over, including the clarification later in the press briefing, I still counted tell exactly what the President was trying to say. (I’m not convinced he knew himself. I think he was hoping to sound optimistic, maybe?)
Perhaps I can help you out a bit.

These were his words, exactly…

I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that? By injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it [the virus] gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that. We’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it seems interesting to me.

What Trump was referring to was the presentation – just prior to his comments – by William Bryan, Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the US Dept of Homeland Security (DHS). In that talk, Mr Bryan was speaking of current research on the effects of sunlight and humidity on the corona virus — specifically, research on how sunlight acts as a DISINFECTANT on the virus, drastically reducing its “half-life.”

Just so we’re clear the word disinfectant doesn’t necessarily imply a chemical household cleaner. The technical definition is: an agent that frees from infection. That definition applies to infections that harm the human body — i.e., anything that frees the body from infection is a disinfectant, in the definitional sense.

The word disinfectant is only loosely applied to household cleaners in the sense that those chemicals stop bacteria and viruses from infecting people, but they don’t free any body from infection. Therefore, even though they don’t technically function as disinfectants — they don’t free anyone from infection— they do kill the stuff that potentially can infect the body. That is why they can loosely speaking be called disinfectants, no matter what the press has convinced anyone to think Trump’s words MUST mean.

The video of the presentation is here, timestamped to begin at the beginning of Mr Bryan’s talk.


More information on the DHS study is here: DHS Study Shows Potential of Heat, Humidity to Kill Coronavirus

Trump’s comment (quoted above) immediately followed the presentation by Mr Bryan, see here:


What Trump was referring to regarding a “disinfectant” was the possible use of light to ‘disinfect’ or kill bacteria and viruses inside the body, i.e., using sunlight (specifically UV-C) to free the body from infection .

Continued…
 
That goes a long way to explaining why the “news” is purely a series of misconceptions and panic-inducing diatribes that inform us of little and are most often a source of dismay for anyone who cares to look past the headlines and false narratives.
I read the transcript. I know who is making up cr@p, and he is unfortunately a President of the United States who wants to pretend he understands the science but instead spews out word salads that take a contortionist like you to spin into a correct rendition of what is known and what is being done.
At various times and under specific conditions H2O2 can be given intravenously (IV H2O2 therapy) to patients to assist the cells in disinfecting the body of anaerobic bacteria and viruses…
I suppose the mainstream press would think its readers are too ignorant to be able to distinguish using the 3% H2O2 from the 35% formulation, so even mentioning that H2O2 (3%) can be used in or on the body would get the ‘clueless’ public thinking any formulation of it would be fine?
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT IMPLY TO PEOPLE THAT IT IS OK TO USE ANY CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE INTERNALLY!!!

"If ingested, solutions of hydrogen peroxide up to concentrations of 9% are generally nontoxic; however, even a 3% solution is mildly irritating to mucosal tissue and may cause vomiting and diarrhea.… "
“…One milliliter of 3% hydrogen peroxide liberates 10 mL of oxygen. When the amount of oxygen evolved exceeds the maximum blood solubility, venous embolism occurs. Intravascular oxygen embolism may also occur.…”
atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=304&tid=55

THERE IS NO ARE NO CLINICAL TRIALS SUPPORTING IV HYDROGEN PEROXIDE THERAPY AND IT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FDA!! PLEASE DO NOT PUSH MEDICAL TREATMENTS!!
 
Last edited:
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT IMPLY TO PEOPLE THAT IT IS OK TO USE ANY CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE INTERNALLY!!!

"If ingested, solutions of hydrogen peroxide up to concentrations of 9% are generally nontoxic; however, even a 3% solution is mildly irritating to mucosal tissue and may cause vomiting and diarrhea.… "
“…One milliliter of 3% hydrogen peroxide liberates 10 mL of oxygen. When the amount of oxygen evolved exceeds the maximum blood solubility, venous embolism occurs. Intravascular oxygen embolism may also occur.…”
atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=304&tid=55

YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND!!! STOP STOP STOP IMPLYING THAT YOU DO!!!
Where did I imply to people that it is okay to use “ANY CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE INTERNALLY???”

You are playing the part of the press here — twisting words.

I said: “Your body can tolerate the 3% formulation of it on cuts, acne, as mouthwash and even internally,…” That does not imply it is “okay to use” it internally. Merely that your body can tolerate it.

I suppose, by the same token, we could take as an IMPLICATION from YOUR words — ""If ingested, solutions of hydrogen peroxide up to concentrations of 9% are generally nontoxic; — that it is “OKAY” to use it internally. Right, you should be more careful with YOUR words.

Physician, heal thyself! — but not with hydrogen peroxide.

DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT IMPLY TO PEOPLE THAT IT IS OK TO USE ANY CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE INTERNALLY!!! 🥴 — by asserting that solutions of hydrogen peroxide up to concentrations of 9% are generally nontoxic.
 
Last edited:
THERE IS NO ARE NO CLINICAL TRIALS SUPPORTING IV HYDROGEN PEROXIDE THERAPY AND IT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FDA!! PLEASE DO NOT PUSH MEDICAL TREATMENTS!!
I am not “pushing” any medical treatments. I am attempting to report the current state.

Also, your insistence that IV H2O2 therapies are “not approved” by the FDA makes it sound like they are banned by the FDA. That appears to be untrue as there are a number of internists and physicians who use them across the country for various conditions, and there are some clinical trials underway.


Here is what the FDA says about ingesting H2O2…
i. Safety. The Subcommittee evaluated the toxicity and mutagenicity of hydrogen peroxide. The toxicity data suggested that 1.5 to 3 percent hydrogen peroxide in aqueous solution has a low toxicity. When ingested in large doses, hydrogen peroxide produces esophagitis and gastritis (Ref. 131). Few primary systemic toxic effects are expected at low concentrations because hydrogen peroxide decomposes in the oral cavity (Ref. 132) and bowel before absorption can occur.

In case studies, fatal poisoning (Refs. 135 and 136) has been reported for ingestion of hydrogen peroxide at concentrations exceeding 3 percent or excessive ingestion of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide. Generally, ingestion of household peroxide (3 to 9 percent) causes no significant toxic effects (Refs.137, 138, and 139).
https://www.fda.gov/media/73826/download (p. 32257)
Am I recommending ingestion? Absolutely NOT as I am not a physician, but that shouldn’t stop me or you from reporting the current state of the science, should it?

So your jumping from me “reporting” where things are at regarding H2O2 to, therefore, I must be recommending that people use it is an unwarranted leap of thought.

Reporting on medical treatments is not “pushing medical treatments.” You are doing to me what the press did to Trump. Twisting words. 😷
 
I wish the President, who certainly has zero expertise in medicine, would stay out of medicine. Just say, “Here, I hired very competent people, listen to them, I could not possibly explain it as well as they do.” He would look a lot more with it.
If these presentations were about medicine and nothing else, that would be a good argument, though one might question the degree to which people would really learn much from them. But they’re not. They’re also about discussing those things already in the public venue as well as economics and politics. Democrats reject all of that, of course, because at present they’re pushing a politics of despair in order to induce people to vote for their candidates in November.

But not everyone rejects encouraging news or even optimistic speculations.
He needs to realize that carelessly throwing out conjectures about medicine is also a bad idea.
Since “medicine” has nothing to offer at present that they all agree on, why not discuss some of them of their conjectures?
People take medical ideas and run with them just as much as they do it with financial conjectures.
Like they won’t anyway? Probably his presentations, combined with the statements of the physicians that are part of it, keep at least some people from adopting folk remedy nonsense and quackery on a massive scale. The absence of clear remedies invites that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top