On 27/06/2023 08:57, MB wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
>> judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.
>
>
>
> The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
> problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
> YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
> information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
> be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.

+1

I avoid YouTube as much as possible as I can't put up with 20 minutes of
a talking head giving me no additional useful information to a few lines
on a printed sheet!

--

Jeff

On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
> presentations for instance.

No, don't! A mine of misinformation!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

Too much shit to quote individually.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Silly billies. I notice that the recent spy in the ocean series is
relatively quiet, but I do find the accent and intonation gets on ones wick
after a while. It does not, in the main tell you much you did not probably
know so although it was also audio described, I do feel it may be that
visual viewers get the most out of it, and its rather leaning toward the
cute animal side of wildlife, rather than education of the viewer, something
often David A used to do almost without you realising it.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.
"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:b335fb26-d016-b4cd-8115-50f039711ef2@outlook.com...
> On 26/06/2023 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
>>>
>>> Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
>>>
>>> "Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
>>>
>>> This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
>>> minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
>>> royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
>>> quite possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off
>>> within a few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
>>> Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
>>> the end.
>>>
>>> Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
>>> formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
>>> accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
>>> the dialog, more difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing demographic,
>>> and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly irritated by
>>> modern production values that favour the programme equivalent of make-up
>>> rather than producing a basically good looking or sounding and
>>> interesting programme.
>>>
>>> Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
>>> 'more'."
>>>
>>> Comments for and against welcome.
>>
>> Received the usual bland reply today, I include it anonymised below:
>>
>
> That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your specific
> point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and action on, the
> issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and the DG has
> ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this day'" then
> that's life.
>
> My only criticism is that the link requires a BBC login which is for
> employees. But I think the research it covers was that which was reported
> widely at the time (2011?).
>
> --
> Robin
> reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
>

On 27/06/2023 09:14, alan_m wrote:
> Quite often the manufactures will provide the information in the user
> guide on the equivalent of a sheet of A4. It's after reading that you
> have to seek out a Youtube video to gain that extra gem of information
> to enable you to get it working.

Often that has got misplaced over the years so at one time there were
often abbreviated help guides that you print out.

On 27/06/2023 09:07, Robin wrote:
> That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
> specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
> action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
> the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
> day'" then that's life.

It is not just the number of letters, EMail they get every day. The
majority will be basically stupid questions but they still have deal
with them.

They seem to work like most other larger organisations, scan through the
letter for keywords and dig out the appropriate pre-prepared response.

At least that might have been done by a human in the past but will be
the dreaded AI now.

On 27/06/2023 08:50, MB wrote:
> On 26/06/2023 20:09, NY wrote:
>> Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
>> but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
>> there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
>> people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
>> lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
>> critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
>> afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
>> wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
>> his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
>> obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
>> complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
>> him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
>> lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
>> colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
>> about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
>> be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".
>
> We had one lecturer, also maths, whose writing was illegible and he had
> astrong accept - we never worked out if he was Scottish or East European
> or what?
>
> Many stopped going to his lectures because you did not learn anything
> then one day, part way into his lecture someone got up and walked out.
> There a murmur around the lecture theatre and first one, then two .....
> got up and walked out.
>
> It was very impressive show of what a waste of time his lectures were
> but what no one realised was the first person had arranged to leave
> early for an appointment somewhere.
>
> We also had a professor who talked fast and made no attempt to check
> people understood.  When they had the mock exams, it was obvious that no
> one had understood him and he had to repeat the course - our fault or
> course!

I was unlucky and failed my second year university BEng exams and the
retakes, so I left (*) and did an HND at the poly in the same city. The
difference in the teaching style was staggering.

The university style of teaching was "I'm so much cleverer than you mere
undergraduates will ever be. I'm demeaning myself by teaching you when
I'd much rather be researching, but it's part of my contract." It was
very much a one-way broadcast, with no checking that people were
understanding - and if you didn't understand it was "obviously" your
fault. One lecturer was particularly poor and scored very badly in the
end-of-course feedback, so he called a few of us and asked us to go away
and come back with our comments. So we did what seemed blindingly
obvious: we talked to everyone in our class and gave him a digest of
everyone's comments, trying to be as positive as possible - as well as
saying what we didn't like, suggesting how he might improve. He went
ballistic when he realised that we were presenting *everyone's*
opinions; it became apparent that he only wanted our own comments - and
I suspect he carefully chose the students who he thought would be least
likely to rock the boat. So his consultation was a sham: he wanted
yes-men, not real comments.

The dean of the faculty was a bit of a loose cannon. When I went in to
get the results of my retakes, my own tutor was not available so I
sought out one of the other lecturers. I was just asking "How did I do?"
when the dean walked past. "Oh, don't worry, laddie. You'll have done
fine." And he walked off, leaving the very embarrassed lecturer to break
the news that I hadn't done "fine" and had actually failed several of
the subjects that I'd passed the first time round, even though I'd
passed one subject at the second attempt that I'd failed first time. He
apologised profusely for the dean's crass over-confidence.

The poly style of teaching had much more feedback as we went along.
Several of the lecturers said "These are the facts and the skills that
you need to know by the end of the course. If you don't know them by the
end, that's as much our fault as lecturers as it is yours as students."
There was much more opportunity to stop a lecturer and say "Hang on. I
don't understand that bit. Can you go over it again?" And the lecturer
would do so, usually trying to explain in a different way rather than
just repeating what we'd misunderstood the first time. In other words,
the sort of teaching that you find a) at A level at school and b) on
training courses in industry.

I ended up doing a lot better, getting distinctions in most of the
subjects. A lot more of the final result was based on course work -
assignments that I could complete open-book in unlimited time, rather
than struggling to remember in a time-limited, closed-book exams. I knew
I'd passed each course even before the exams. based on the marks for the
assignments: the exams were just the decider between pass, merit or
distinction.

My final-year project report at the poly got me my first job. I'd been
using an analogue-circuit-simulation package to model the behaviour of
induction motors. My job interview was going moderately well, until they
asked about my project, and I produced the report. The interviewers took
a quick look, exchanged glances and one of them brought in someone else
and asked him to go away, take a look at the report and give his verdict
by the end of the interview. Turns out that the job involved using
computers to simulate the logic and timing of digital circuits, so
unwittingly my report was very relevant. The verdict seemed to be "we
want this guy", and a job was offered there and then.

(*) I was allowed to retake the exams again the following summer, but
they said that several of the courses would have a new syllabus - and,
no, I couldn't attend the revised lectures. So it wasn't much of a
concession :-(

In article <4ktk9ilghge0t94a37138kciha2laag6nq@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 20:09:04 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube presentations for instance.

Yes indeed, I learnt a lot from his videos. Seems to be very fair and
balanced and tells it how it really is.

Main stream media is largely corrupt and ignores inconvenient items
like excess deaths and vaccine damage in order to continue to
gaslight the public with the controlled narrative. This doctor goes
into detail and shows you what is happening.

He also attracts malevolent, wicked people who don't like the truth.
History is never on the side of censorship.

Bob.

In article <u7eki1$1d1e0$2@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 09:07, Robin wrote:
> > That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
> > specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
> > action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
> > the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
> > day'" then that's life.

> It is not just the number of letters, EMail they get every day. The
> majority will be basically stupid questions but they still have deal
> with them.

> They seem to work like most other larger organisations, scan through the
> letter for keywords and dig out the appropriate pre-prepared response.

> At least that might have been done by a human in the past but will be
> the dreaded AI now.

and there are the phone calls !

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:53:07 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> How many letters / EMails do you think the BBC receive every day?
>
> How much would it cost to answer every one individually?
>
> There would be no money left to make any programmes.

In that case there would be no complaints (or at most very few), so it
sounds like an excellent idea to me. Surely someone can take this
forward and "make it happen"?

On 27/06/2023 13:47, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <4ktk9ilghge0t94a37138kciha2laag6nq@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube presentations for instance.
>
> Yes indeed, I learnt a lot from his videos. Seems to be very fair and
> balanced and tells it how it really is.

See the many example of misinformation given by Campbell in the link in
reply to Rod. He misleads dumbasses like you on a regular basis, and
seems to make a decent living by doing so. Either he's a misguided fool
who is hopelessly unaware of his own limitations in knowledge, or else
he's a cynical liar.

> Main stream media is largely corrupt and ignores inconvenient items
> like excess deaths and vaccine damage in order to continue to
> gaslight the public with the controlled narrative. This doctor goes
> into detail and shows you what is happening.
>
> He also attracts malevolent, wicked people who don't like the truth.
> History is never on the side of censorship.

Puerile paranoia left in for everyone to laugh at.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/06/2023 14:00, charles wrote:
> and there are the phone calls !

Do they still answer the phone?

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:53:55 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
>> presentations for instance.
>
>No, don't! A mine of misinformation!
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
>
>Too much shit to quote individually.

So don't quote anything at all? An unusual policy for someone who is
always screaming for 'EVIDENCE!' from anyone else who says anything.

All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
documents, many of them from the government, and essentially translate
them into plain English for those of us who don't understand all the
medical or statistical terminology. He shows us the documents and
gives links to where we can read them for ourselves if we want to.

Rod.

On 27/06/2023 18:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:53:55 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
>>> presentations for instance.
>>
>> No, don't! A mine of misinformation!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
>>
>> Too much shit to quote individually.
>
> So don't quote anything at all? An unusual policy for someone who is
> always screaming for 'EVIDENCE!' from anyone else who says anything.
>
> All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
> documents, many of them from the government, and essentially translate
> them into plain English for those of us who don't understand all the
> medical or statistical terminology. He shows us the documents and
> gives links to where we can read them for ourselves if we want to.

Well, you asked for it, though why you couldn't be arsed to go and read
it for yourself, only you can tell! Whatever the reason, it marks you
out as someone who doesn't fact check their claims properly, even after
mistakes have been pointed out to them.

From the above link:

"""
COVID-19 pandemic
Further information: COVID-19 misinformation

In early 2020 Campbell's YouTube channel started to focus on the
developing COVID-19 pandemic.[11] Until then, his videos had been
receiving an average of several thousand views each, but his channel
began to receive significant traffic after it started running
COVID-related videos.[10] Between February and March 2020, his channel
increased from an average of 500,000 views per month to 9.6 million,
mostly from American viewers.[12] By September 2020, his videos had been
viewed more than 50 million times.[13] In March 2020, he argued that
China's COVID-19 statistics were grossly underestimated and that the US
and UK were doing too little to contain COVID-19.[8] In September 2020,
he argued that more ventilation in pubs, restaurants, and cafes would be
needed in addition to the existing restrictions.[14]

Early in the pandemic, Campbell spoke of the importance of a "calm and
measured approach that is as informed as possible".[15] He said he
wanted to assist people in making informed decisions about their health
in order to counter what he saw as other people on social media
"spreading absolutely bonkers—and sometimes dangerous—information".[12]
In August 2020, UNICEF's regional office for Europe and Central Asia
cited his YouTube channel as an excellent example of how experts might
engage with social media to combat misinformation,[16] citing a March
2020 briefing by Social Science in Humanitarian Action.[17]

In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while
at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable",
he later became a "total COVID-19 crank".[2]
Needle aspiration

In September 2021, Campbell said in a video that he believed that most
people in the United Kingdom and United States were "giving the vaccines
wrongly". Referencing a study on mice, he said that myocarditis could be
caused if the person injecting the vaccine does not perform aspiration
(checking that the needle does not hit a blood vessel by initially
drawing back the plunger). Aspiration is a common technique but is not
without disadvantages, so it has not been recommended by many
countries.[18] The video was referenced by American comedian Jimmy Dore
on his YouTube talk show to make the misleading claim that a failure to
aspirate was causing myocarditis.[19]
Ivermectin
Further information: Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic

In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin—an
antiparasitic drug—might have been responsible for a sudden decline in
COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially
authorised for such use in the country; its use was merely promoted by
the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo and it has
no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[20] Meaghan Kall, the
lead COVID-19 epidemiologist at the British Health Security Agency, said
that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation and that there was
no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan, rather
that his claims appeared to be "based on anecdata on social media
driving wildly damaging misinformation".[20]

In March 2022, Campbell posted another ivermectin video, in which he
misrepresented a conference abstract to make the claim that it
"unequivocally" showed ivermectin to be effective at reducing COVID-19
deaths, and that ivermectin was going to be a "huge scandal" because
information about it had been suppressed. The authors of the abstract
refuted such misrepresentations of their paper, with one writing on
Twitter, "People like John Campbell are calling this a 'great thought
out study' when in reality it's an abstract with preliminary data. We
have randomized controlled trials, why are we still interested in
retrospective cohort data abstracts?"[21]
Vaccines

In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed standalone
journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might
increase the risk of heart attack, and said that this might be
"incredibly significant".[4] This video was viewed over 2 million times
within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support
for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination causes heart
attacks.[4] According to a FactCheck.org review, although Campbell had
drawn attention to the abstract's typos and its lack of methodology and
data, he did not mention the expression of concern that had been issued
against it.[4]

In March 2022, Campbell posted a misleading video about the Pfizer
COVID-19 vaccine, claiming that a Pfizer document admitted that the
vaccine was associated with over 1,000 deaths. The video was viewed over
750,000 times and shared widely on social media. In reality, the
document explicitly discredited any connection between vaccinations and
reported deaths.[3]

In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article
published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed
that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much
greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The
video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that
COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting
seriously ill from COVID-19.[22]

In December 2022 Campbell posted a video in which he made selective use
of statistics to make the misleading claim that COVID-19 vaccines were
so harmful that they should be withdrawn. The paper he used was in
reality only considering hospitalisations from COVID-19 in a short time
window, and not the overall vaccine risk/benefit balance. David
Spiegelhalter, chair of Cambridge University's Winton Centre for Risk
and Evidence Communication, said that such use of the data seemed
"entirely inappropriate".[23]

In February 2023, nanomedicine specialist Susan Oliver published a
Youtube video debunking false information Campbell has posted about
vaccine brain injury. Within six hours Oliver's video was removed,
apparently because of the content in clips included from Campbell's
video, while Campbell’s entire original remained online. Oliver
speculated this may have been as a result of coordinated complaints made
by Campbell’s Youtube followers, or that Youtube favoured high-traffic,
highly profitable accounts; a Youtube spokesman said the number of
complaints received did not affect decisions to remove content.[24]
Death count

A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths
have been over-reported.[5] In January 2022, Campbell posted a video in
which he cited figures from the British Office of National Statistics
(ONS) and suggested that they showed deaths from COVID-19 were "much
lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". He
concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates showing only
COVID-19 as the cause of death. Within a few days, the video had been
viewed over 1.5 million times.[25] It was shared by Conservative Party
politician David Davis, who called it "excellent" and said that it was
"disentangling the statistics",[5] while American comedian Jimmy Dore
used it to claim that COVID-19 deaths had been over-reported and that
the figures proved that the public had been victims of a "scaremongering
campaign".[26] The ONS responded by debunking the claims as spurious and
wrong.[27] An ONS spokesman said suggesting that the 17,000 figure
"represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually
incorrect and highly misleading".[26] The official figure for
COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 at the
time; in 140,000 of those cases, the underlying cause of death was
listed as COVID-19.[5][28]
Monkeypox parallels

In article <a56m9ilthacfirh76gse8rest6rns769f1@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
> documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
> translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
> understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
> the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
> ourselves if we want to.

Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

Bob.

On 27/06/2023 18:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <a56m9ilthacfirh76gse8rest6rns769f1@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
>> documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
>> translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
>> understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
>> the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
>> ourselves if we want to.
>
> Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.

And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:57:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 27/06/2023 18:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <a56m9ilthacfirh76gse8rest6rns769f1@4ax.com>,
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> All I've seen Dr Campbell do is go through official published
>>> documents, many of them from the government, and essentially
>>> translate them into plain English for those of us who don't
>>> understand all the medical or statistical terminology. He shows us
>>> the documents and gives links to where we can read them for
>>> ourselves if we want to.
>>
>> Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.
>
>And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
>should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
>about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.

Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.

Rod.

On 28/06/2023 06:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:57:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/06/2023 18:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.
>>
>> And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
>> should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
>> about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.
>
> Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
> story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
> statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
> maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.

Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
article.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:36:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 28/06/2023 06:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:57:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/06/2023 18:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.
>>>
>>> And the very fact that the result is different from main stream media
>>> should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't quite right
>>> about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link given.
>>
>> Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a different
>> story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from government
>> statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on your guard that
>> maybe something isn't quite right about the mainstream media.
>
>Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
>article.

How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
data from the government's own website?

Rod.

On 28/06/2023 12:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:36:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the Wikipedia
>> article.
>
> How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
> data from the government's own website?

In potentially selective quoting and misinterpretation of what data to
read. For example, data from the yellow-card scheme, for reporting side
effects of medical treatments, is official government data, but has been
widely misrepresented in public quotes claiming that vaccines are
killing huge numbers of people, which simply isn't true - what is
actually happening is that people are dying all the time from a wide
variety of natural or accidental causes, so x numbers of people dying
shortly after having y vaccination means nothing at all on its own, what
matters is if x is *SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER* than the ongoing background
rate of death for that time of year, yet the fact that government
statistics show x people are known to have died after having y
vaccination is widely touted by vaccine denialists, a notable example
being the MP A n d r e w B r i d g e n who was suspended from the
Commons for attempting to mislead The House in this manner:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/11/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-loses-whip-over-covid-vaccine-comments

Do not forget also, as I've pointed out before, misinformation is a nice
little earner:

https://www.savethestudent.org/make-money/how-to-make-money-youtube.html

"As a benchmark, you can expect to make around $3 – $5 per 1,000 views
(about *£2.50 – £4.10 per 1,000 views*, at the time of writing). This
means that one million views equals $3,000 – $5,000... or *between
£2,500 – £4,100* to us British folk.

However, more popular channels and videos can earn closer to *£6 or £7
per 1,000* *views*. It quite literally pays to be popular."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <p17o9i53cdhpjda2b84rma0olu3gqlq464@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:36:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:

> >On 28/06/2023 06:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:57:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27/06/2023 18:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly so but with a different result than main stream media.
> >>>
> >>> And the very fact that the result is different from main stream
> >>> media should put you on your guard that maybe something isn't
> >>> quite right about him, and indeed there isn't. See the link
> >>> given.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, the fact that the mainstream media tells a
> >> different story from Dr Campbell (reading in many cases from
> >> government statistics from the gov.uk website) should put you on
> >> your guard that maybe something isn't quite right about the
> >> mainstream media.
> >
> >Until you check out Dr Campbell's reputation and discover the
> >Wikipedia article.

> How does anybody's reputation matter when they're reading official
> data from the government's own website?

In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act which
will inevitably attract the mob determined to protect their deceit.

Bob.

On 28/06/2023 13:42, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act which
> will inevitably attract the mob determined to protect their deceit.

You are Vladimir Putin and I claim my £5!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk