NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[CogDiss 1188X]

Before I begin, I want to say that a appreciate the more measured nature of your last response. I don’t intend any low blows in what follows.

You say you’re not making things up. I get the impression it’s happened multiple times in this thread. Here are a just a few examples.

In this instance, you made two random Italian scientists quoted in an obscure Reuter’s report the end all and be all of scientific evidence and used Chompsky to justify it.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=156050767

Those doctors you’re hinging you’re entire argument....

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155982170

Going back to my original post on the Italian doctors, I summarized my argument:

He’s (the “top” Italian doctor) basing his opinion on data he generated on the scene. One can and should question the meaning of the data, but one can’t chalk it up to the mere opinion of two random doctors.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155975032

I actually agreed with you in essence. I used one of your arguments, it’s his “opinion.”

And I said one should question the meaning of his data mentioned in the news story.

How do either of these two things mean that I think his data is “the end all and be all of scientific evidence?”

I’m stumped. Can you see how I think you’re making things up about me and my argument?

How do I “hinge my entire argument” on the doctor’s data? I said one should question their data!

My “entire” argument could be restated more directly as:

Don’t resort to questionable rhetoric (“the opinion of two random doctors”) to dismiss things you disagree with but instead question the meaning of the data in a even-handed way.

The NYTimes got brought into the mix because that agent provocateur Longfellow replied to his co-conspirator Hbpainter that it was good to see that NYT picked up the Reuters story too. I referenced Chomsky to say “question the NYTimes” too! That was the extent of my use of Chomsky if you go back and read my post.

But what about Fox, you say?

I agree with you that Fox was established by Roger Ailes to push Republican talking points. I read “The Republican Noise Machine” when it came out ‘cause that’s the kind of leftie I was, but, alas, no longer am. BTW, why is it so hard to believe that someone could view the politics of the last several years and conclude it’s degenerated into a form of insanity? Why is it hard to believe that someone whose go to position is to question the dominant narrative might find some points in common with those who oppose it for political reasons?

https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy/dp/B0002P0CGU/

Anyway, Fox obviously has an agenda. I don’t think it’s a secret.

The problem I have with liberals is they think the NYTimes, the Washington Post or NPR don’t.

The main thrust of my perspective is very simple. Powerful interests in all realms use propaganda and many other questionable tactics to push their agendas. They have created a world full of lies which we have to live in.

Knowing this, question all authority. Question all narratives, especially the dominant narrative that is being pushed at any given time. If you dig deep enough, you may find truth. Truth is our compass. We need it to properly navigate the world.

In a way, this is so banal one might find it scattered throughout a bag of fortune cookies. Problem is few people act on this simple understanding consistently. People believe “authoritative” sources without a healthy dose of skepticism as a shortcut all the time. I assume “authoritative” sources have been captured by or more likely just naturally aligned themselves with moneyed or powerful interests long ago. I base this on a crazy shit ton of reading I’ve done and by observing world events unfold.

When those authorities are found walking around without clothes, cognitive dissonance is triggered in us. Human nature reacts to protect our sense of self instead of pushing through the pain to get to the truth.

You brought up hydroxychloroquine in reference to me. This might surprise you but I’ve actually never expressed an opinion on it as a treatment. The only thing I’ve done is reference the Stanford statistics blog to point out the idea that Surgisphere and others may use an association with Harvard as a way to push questionable agendas based on the authority of the name.

There is definitely a pattern forming in my arguments.

I will in the future comment on HCQ but I ask that if you choose to reply that you make an effort to direct your comments to me to things I actually say. I will make the same effort with regard to you. Multiple times when reading this thread I’ve literally (and I mean that literally) thought you must have me confused with someone else. Perhaps with that troublemaker Longfellow or one of his co-conspirators.