Dr. Phil unlisted gender debate w/ Matt Walsh on YouTube
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
This is how "most" of these "debates" (and studies, etc.) come out in their favor. They just try and try again until they get the results they want and cover up the rest.
More like actively silence any result they don't like and try to destroy the livelihoods of people who conduct studies that give "problematic" results.
reminder that they've been doing this for decades and it's only now that we're even aware of it.
ironically it is social media, with all its numerous faults, that will bring the downfall of the left.
It's like voting in the EU!
One of the best wake up moments for anyone is when someone goes on these shows and then has recorded it themselves, so that way it can be compared later.
The sheer level of editting that goes into most of them would boggle the mind.
I noticed something reading IVM studies and mask studies. The conclusions agree with the acceptable position even when the data in the study doesn't. Pre-coof mask studies and post-coof mask studies show consistent results (that cloth masks block very few particles and have typically very small positive effects but well within the margin of error). Only the conclusions have changed. The study out of Denmark (iirc) early in the coof that was spread around as showing that masks don't work had the same results as later studies that show they do; it's just they didn't put a positive conclusion on it.
Of course there's no pre-coof IVM studies for prevention of coof, but I read the seven studies that the NIH said they based their decision on and they didn't even have to cherry pick. All of them concluded IVM didn't work even though everyone showed fairly strong positive results in all metrics except for one study had 4 deaths for the IVM group while placebo had 3. However in the body they said the average time to ventilator for the IVM group was 5 days and in the placebo group was 10 days, which would suggest the people who died in the IVM group were already much more progressed by random chance (or "random" chance).
I've found people who claim that the same thing occurred with the "low fat" diet studies in the 80s and 90s. The data would show low fat is bad but the conclusion would say low fat is good. I haven't confirmed this for myself but it would make sense given that low fat is indeed bad.
The most amazing thing is they don't even have to actively cover things up.
Actually reading the data paints a much different world than listening to pundits tell you what the data says.
We have a massive dearth in actually verifying or even listening to things ourselves. Our world relies on being told what things are by others.