Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- strategy:narrative [2021/11/25 07:30]
kalev
+++ strategy:narrative [2022/01/10 18:12] (current)
liam [Predicting the narrative]
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
   * Understanding the main stream media narrative in order to deconstruct it
   * Understand the importance of fear to manipulate people
+  * Understand the importance of isolation to depress people
+  * Explain why fear and isolation are crucial ingredients to disempower and manipulate people. Both have been cleverly exploited.
+  * All this has been made possible because people are no longer taught proper argumentation (in the noble form) and formal logic at schools or universities anymore.
+Perfect opportunity to re-discover, proper argumentation, logic, critical-thinking and the scientific method. The plan is to use these topics as the main thread in a series of articles, which will explain where we went wrong with the COVID response, what we can learn from it, and what we need to put in place for this not to happen again.
@@ Line 18: / Line 24: @@
   * List the problems
+    * Dishonest reporting
+      * Partial truths about death demographics
+    * Outcomes are not matching predictions (Goal posts keep moving)
+      * Vaccines are not safe and effective
+      * % of population required to reach herd immunity
+    * Censorship
+      * Big tech (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)
+      * Main stream media
+      * Government agencies banning early treatment drugs
+        * FDA, CDC, (TGA Australia)
+      * No public debate between opposing expert views
+    * Consensus
+      * All countries following *exactly* the same drum beat (How is this even possible?)
+      * Of science (which is a oxymoron). Only one solution is allowed
+        * Defunding of researchers that do not agree with the narrative
+        * Deplatforming
+        * Vilification of scientists with years of expertise and first hand experience
+    * Common-sense not so common
+      * No promotion of healthy lifestyle. (Loose weight, and take vitamin supplements)
+      * If infected, wash mouth, nose and throat regularly
   * Follow the steps backwards to point out the logical fallacies that lead us to where we are now
   * Highlight the warning signs that were ignored or fabricated
-  * Dismantle all the false claims and provide the truthful claims
+    * Hospitals getting paid $50,000 per COVID patient
+    * Incentives in all the wrong places
+    * VAERS
+  * Dismantle all the false claims and demonstrate reality is more nuanced and complex
@@ Line 29: / Line 58: @@
 Discuss early treatment, vaccine development, alternative strategies. Many alternative strategies are not)
-=====Topics worth discussing====
+====Predicting the narrative====
+We need to record our predictions on how the narrative is going to change, as in [[https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-january-caf? | this January 10, 2021 piece]] by Jeff Childers.
+It is already happening now with the Botswanan variant (COVID-21)).
+"They" are blaming the unvaccinated for the mutations, when all cases have been found in dead ***vaccinated*** people.
+What is the strategy:
+  * Push for more booster shots?
+  * Prepare the landscape to bow out gracefully by suggesting the vaccines are not effective for this new variant?
+  * Other?
+----
+====Topics worth discussing====
   * What is science?
@@ Line 47: / Line 91: @@
         * Straw man
         * Appeal to emotions
-        * Appeal to science
+        * Appeal to (false) science
     * Falsification
       * Sweden approach
       * Ivermectin: Uttar Pradesh, African countries
-      * Demanding Randomized, double blind, peer reviewed articles to establish credibility, when Pfizer violated ALL these standards and published misleading results for a variant that no longer exists.
+      * Demanding Randomized, double blind, peer reviewed articles to establish credibility, when Pfizer violated **ALL** these standards and published misleading results for a variant that no longer exists.
-      * How is it possible to develop and conduct a trial on a brand new vaccine technology in record time and publish the results, but we still haven't been able to do establish the benefits of a drug (IVM or HCQ) that have been around for decades and have a well know risk profile? How does that make any sense?
+      * How is it possible to develop and conduct a trial on a brand new vaccine technology in record time and publish the results, but we still haven't been able to do establish the benefits of drugs (IVM or HCQ) that have been around for decades and have a well know risk profile? How does that make any sense?
+====Thread====
+A common thread that runs through many of these topics is the battle or tension that exists between thoughtfulness and emotion.
+How proper rules of argumentation have been consistently violated in order to override a considered and reasoned response.
+====Problems===
+No accountability, nor agreements on the feedback rules and mechanisms that should be followed were established upfront. (This needs to be done in future pandemics)
+Hypotheses, postulates, theories and thresholds should be defined and recorded upfront. Theories should be revised and **debated** __in public forums__ as new observations become available, if they do not meet the recorded expectations.
+There does not need to be consensus. In fact the less consensus the better. Experts should be encouraged to disagree, but their reasoning and expectations should be recorded and regularly compared to reality. Those that are able to best predict outcomes should be listened to more.
+Conflict of interests.
+No agreement on the most important measure to keep track of. Daily cases was a really bad metric.
+Testing everyone, even those that where asymptomatic was a bad strategy.
+Transparency and honesty on how the data is reported. Media wants to sensationalize everything.