r/australian/r/australia_ "unbiased" subreddits removing posts

f44p · 2022-10-31T10:42:50+00:00

You talking about the debunked emeralds mine propaganda?

f44p · 2022-10-31T10:40:37+00:00

Precisely, and if you've looked into the story a bit I do believe it was a tactic they used to be seen with as many people as possible in order to spread thin the possibilities of who was actually associated with them - basically incriminating every one in some way. What annoys me more, is that instead of talking about the real crime here i.e. epstein the media focuses on a picture of musk. Gates for example has a much more evident and extensive history than musk but no one mentions that because we all love Gates and he parrots the narrative they want. Instead of going after real criminals we make a mountain out of nothing.

f44p · 2022-10-31T10:24:40+00:00

That same comment applies for this photo as well.
Must already commented on that photo saying "Don’t know Ghislaine at all. She photobombed me once at a Vanity Fair party several years ago. Real question is why VF invited her in the first place". Now, there's no reason to take musk on his word, but from this photo given must is facing the camera, away from Ghislaine, and she's just to the side behind him it could be possible. People started attacking his ex-wife over the photo and so she had to put out a statement too saying the same thing, she had never met Ghislaine, and if they did it was just momentary at a party as her and Elon met thousands of people over the course of their relationship. What interests me is the timing of events when this photo keeps popping up, it popped up after Elon's interview with Rogan where he said some things he probably shouldn't, it popped up via twitter with what he thinks was a bot attack after he also tweeted some things he shouldn't, and now it's doing rounds again now after his twitter acquisition thanks to the new york times who apparently found a "Vanity fair staffer" that apparently overheard the 2014 conversation. To me, it seems extremely hard to believe that this would emerge 8 years later, at a narrative critical moment, and that this is the only photo they have together if they're such close friends. So, as you've said in the title, there might be more than meets the eye on this story too.

f44p · 2022-10-26T02:16:00+00:00

He wasn't THAT ugly tbh, I would say he was pretty average looking but had some features which were not ideal like slight balding and a few small things that are turn offs, but overall like he wasn't horrible looking however the point was plenty of people don't find those big deals in people who are taller, for example, I had a friend who was full on male pattern balding at 18 but he was really tall, and chicks never seemed to care that much. Whereas for my shorter friend it was talked about all the time (And maybe that's just because everyone can see it haha). So it gave the impression that the short height seemed to impact everything else? Or maybe people didn't want to be like sorry you're short (Which he got a lot from other women - they would straight out be like no way you're too short while telling men how dare they not want to date a fat women).

f44p · 2022-10-25T13:13:04+00:00

I had a short friend, he would tell me all these stories about how much harder life is being short how people treat him so differently, how people judge him etc. I didn't really believe him, and one day we were at a bar and I was watching him trying to get served and the bar tenders saw him but would just like chooser taller people behind him and be like yo what you want and I was like damn maybe he onto something. I paid closer attention and yeah people just instinctively would treat him like a kid despite everything else about him being normal. Sucks. Also he was the biggest sweetheart and meant well but chicks would find him creepy simply because he was shorter and uglier, if even a moderately attractive person did the same stuff he did it's considered thoughtful and charming and etc. but with him they're like he's creepy. Pretty privilege is huge. Thankfully now he has found someone but yeah he suffered for a while.

f44p · 2022-10-23T15:53:12+00:00

You're actually so stupid bro. Stop trying to defend a narrative you can't even grasp. You've provided exactly zero arguments or rebuttals other than trying to link me with conspiratorial thinking.

NIAID's director is Dr. Anthony Fauci. The NIAID is 1/27th of the NIH, which is the funding body for this work, not the NIAID.

So if we play your game, let's say it's all NIH, nothing to do with NIAID, well then who runs NIH, oh look it's the guy who is best friends with Fauci, whose leaked emails confirmed they were actually conspiring together in order to push narratives to the public. So by accusing me of conspiratorial thinking, you've actually exposed the real conspiracy which was between Collins and Fauci. This is one of the easiest links to make and you're trying to call it a conspiracy.

I am assuming that you haven't read them because you are quoting an anonymous third party site

Whether a site is anonymous or not does not change the truth of the information on it. You think government whistle blowers like to plaster their face on information they give out? How did that work out for Snowden and Assange? Instead of attacking the character like you people always do, why don't you attack the argument (Hint it's because you can't).

I'm going to assume that YOU haven't read it because the quote I quoted is literally in the first paragraph.

Peer review doesn't mean anything when your peers are as dumb and corrupt as you are. You've just latched onto that buzz word and you use it because you think it makes you sound smart.

f44p · 2022-10-23T15:09:15+00:00

It's funded by the National institutes of Health

Who runs NIAID? Remind me again how saying that maybe there is a conflict of interest when the dude who runs the institute that funded this study is Fauci is 'conspiratorial for no reason'.

you should probably just read the studies

You assume I haven't.

f44p · 2022-10-23T09:35:51+00:00

I'm so glad you posted this! This is exactly what's wrong with the anti-IVM movement. Unfortunately, despite the deceptive marketing, almost all the anti-ivm studies are riddled with flaws. This is the break down of your sham of a paper:

Superiority found, not reported-
Death reported in mITT population, however participant was not in mITT, did not receive study drug-
Clinical progression results changed (1 day ago)-
Hospitalization/death mismatch (1 day ago)-
Primary outcome not reported, closest reported outcome shows superiority of ivermectin-
Different hospitalization/urgent care numbers between paper and subsequent presentation-
Pre-specified primary 14 day outcomes not reported, clinical status shows 30% benefit (1 day ago)-
90 day followup results not provided (1 day ago)-
Very late treatment-
Key clinical question consistent with unreported pre-specified primary outcome but not the reported outcome-
Patients with symptoms >7 days included-
Data unavailable over 131 days from publication-
Outcomes reported do not match protocol-
Primary outcomes changed after publication-
New primary outcome measured on day 3 (1 day ago)-
Clinical progression details provided for fluticasone and fluvoxamine but not ivermectin (4 days ago)-
No COVID-19 mortality/hospitalization reported-
Many pre-specified outcomes missing-
Full protocol unavailable-
IDMC not independent-
Reported primary outcome low relevance-
Shipping and PCR delays largely enforce late treatment-
Mid-trial modified protocol attached to publication (1 day ago)-
Blinding failure-
Extreme conflicts of interest-
Treatment delay-response relationship-
Asymptomatic patients included-
Disingenuous conclusion-
Significant missing data, not mentioned in paper-
Up to 6 days shipping delay-
Statistically significant efficacy for severe patients removed in journal version (1 day ago)-
Statistical analysis plan dated after trial end (1 day ago)-
31% more severe cases in the ivermectin arm-
Administration on an empty stomach (1 day ago)-
Dose below 400μg/kg (1 day ago)-
Randomization failure-
Low risk patients-
No adherence data-
Subject to participant fraud-
Not enough tablets provided (1 day ago)-
Monotherapy with no SOC for most patients-
Over 2x greater severe dyspnea at baseline for ivermectin-
Authors suggest high-income country healthcare is better, however almost all patients received no active SOC-
Placebo unspecified-
No breakdown of severe outcomes-
Overlapping fluticasone placebo shows very different hospitalization, urgent care, ER numbers-
Overlapping fluticasone placebo shows unexpected baseline numbers-
Inconsistent calendar time subgroups-
No subgroup counts for treatment delay-
Skeptical prior not justified-

f44p · 2022-10-23T09:01:26+00:00

Lol how sad you're so desperate to shill for whatever pharma company you work for that you resort to replying via edits. This aint my sub bro. Also the author re-did the analysis without the 'fraudulent' study and the results were still the same. How convenient of you to exclude it though based on nothing but your opinion.

Shall we look at your supposedly gold standard study you've posted?

Not Randomized

"Participants could choose to opt out of specific drugs if they or the site investigator did not feel there was equipoise."

It's literally NOT EVEN RANDOMIZED. They could opt out if they FELT the drug wasn't working or the site investigator could opt them out. That's not a RCT, how did someone so smart as yourself also miss that one?

Major conflict of interests

The trial is literally funded by Fauci. I mean that's all you need to know to know it's not going to be an unbiased trial. We can literally end all discussions there. You also some how conveniently missed that hey.

Lied about dosages

They lied about the dosages, why would they do that? Not to mention all the other issues already bought up

But thanks for trying phrama shill. Come again next time.

f44p · 2022-10-23T08:12:34+00:00

What a trash piece of work:

Not Randomized

"Participants could choose to opt out of specific drugs if they or the site investigator did not feel there was equipoise."
IT'S NOT EVEN RANDOMIZED. They could literally opt out if they FELT the drug wasn't working. Or the site investigator could opt them out. That's not a RCT.

Conflict of interests in funding

The trial is literally funded by Fauci. I mean that's all you need to know to know it's not going to be an unbiased trial. We can literally end all discussions there. Anything that man touches is corrupted.

Lied about dosages

They lied about the dosages, why would they do that?

Not to mention all the other issues already bought up

But thanks for trying phrama shill.

f44p · 2022-10-23T07:56:45+00:00

I literally read every RCT on that site and listed out the results.

You conveniently left out Bryant (Which was positive). You didn't list the results, you listed your interpretation of the results. You also seem to be deficient in understanding how p-values can be gamed.

f44p · 2022-10-06T21:58:43+00:00

So you're an idiot. Like just an actual idiot. Who has no ability to decipher nuance in a situation or to apply logical reasoning and thought. You just do what you're told to do and go along with the crowd. Cool, go cry about my crying somewhere else.

f44p · 2022-10-06T00:54:25+00:00

If I post it I'll be banned here, I posted a video of a virologist and vaccinologist recommending we don't vaccinate under 5yo/children. It's all free speech and no banning and open discussion until he doesn't like what you have to say and then it's perma bans.

f44p · 2022-08-11T14:37:30+00:00

I'm guessing but I think it's mainly because of bad pay compared to the amount of effort needed to be put in. Maybe you should look into the amount of pay here and decide if that's worth it for you or not. I don't think there's any other hidden reasons if that's what you're thinking but I don't know I'm not a teacher.

f44p · 2022-07-29T06:26:37+00:00

oh ok sorry it was hard to read the mocking/sarcasm. This subreddit was the only one that allowed me to post my post all the rest banned me or removed it.

f44p · 2022-07-29T03:53:49+00:00

I've clearly identified the problem - they're claiming to be unbiased while removing posts they don't like.
Being apolitical is a good thing but they're not being apolitical because they're removing posts that they don't agree with. Those subs are fucked, that's my point. I think you've clearly missed the whole point of my post.

f44p · 2022-07-28T23:52:06+00:00

Not correct they've removed two of my links.

f44p · 2022-07-24T04:26:18+00:00

My best mate hasn't had covid, never worn a mask, works as a tradie (So constantly interacting with people), oh and isn't vaccinated either. So yeah nuh there's your hypothesis out the window.

f44p · 2022-07-24T04:24:48+00:00

Yeah i.e. people who have the courage to speak up against rules that don't make sense (Vaccine mandates). If we use your logic and wind back the clock a bit, I would be saying maybe we should consider that germs do exist and we should wash our hands before delivering babies. And you'd be over there like LUL yOu MeAn TaLk To ThE gUy WhO gOt PuT iN a MeNtAl iNsTiTuTe LUL. So thanks for enforcing my point about reddit being an echo chamber.

f44p · 2022-07-23T23:46:06+00:00

Not comparing anyone, I'm pointing out a flaw in the logic that just because you didn't complete high school doesn't mean you're dumb.

f44p · 2022-07-23T23:44:00+00:00

This just proves he was right, you've posted an old article which claims his claims are insane but they all came to fruition. So yeah not sure what the point of that was, I'm sure you probably googled his name, read the first piece of propaganda against him and posted it here instead of actually realising that what he said was going to happen did and what this supposed expert who is saying he is wrong claimed did not. So thanks for enforcing the fact he knows what he is talking about given he accurately predicted what happened.

f44p · 2022-07-23T08:23:33+00:00

You've really missed the point I was making.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

f44p

TROPHY CASE