If y’all haven’t been on Twitter lately I think the tide might (don’t get hopes up too high but....) I think it might be turning. I’m seeing more and more threads of folks like us. And on my emai where Twitter sends “you might like” it’s got stuff that before they would have censored. I don’t trust twitter any farther than I can throw them (their motive is clearly profit and stirring angst up) but it’s still interesting and mildly hopeful.
I keep hoping, but I'm not seeing it. Even on this NY Times article on Twitter, the comments were saying mothers who don't jab their kids should be arrested, the usual shit like that. And on other threads, too. Sorry, don't mean to be Debbie Downer -- wish this wasn't the case.
How many are bots or paid posters? If there are millions of erstatz fans on you tube and other platforms, how many commenters in the NYT or Bezo's rag are genuine. This is psyop. Granted, a bunch are likely legit, but there are quite a few that likely aren't.
Look at the insane comments on this thread -- most claim to have gotten Covid, yet are still clueless and boasting about all their jabs & boosters (and looking forward to getting more): https://twitter.com/BillyCrystal/status/1530686945386450945.
Oh I completely agree that one can’t trust anything on Twitter or many MSM posting sites. But.... I just now got today’s “twitter email” “just for you” or whatever inane thing they send and it was ALL anti vax posts. Openly. So while the motive is highly highly questionable, the outcome is good.
Love that article, for what it did NOT say
But the comments in that article are really horrific, and show that most people are still pro-jab.
If y’all haven’t been on Twitter lately I think the tide might (don’t get hopes up too high but....) I think it might be turning. I’m seeing more and more threads of folks like us. And on my emai where Twitter sends “you might like” it’s got stuff that before they would have censored. I don’t trust twitter any farther than I can throw them (their motive is clearly profit and stirring angst up) but it’s still interesting and mildly hopeful.
The NY Times articles was written for exactly the audience that commented on it.
I am tempted to write a substack post taking a critical look at that NY times article, but do not want to overload the bandwidth of my readers.
Would love to read that. It wouldn't "overload the bandwidth" at all.
I keep hoping, but I'm not seeing it. Even on this NY Times article on Twitter, the comments were saying mothers who don't jab their kids should be arrested, the usual shit like that. And on other threads, too. Sorry, don't mean to be Debbie Downer -- wish this wasn't the case.
How many are bots or paid posters? If there are millions of erstatz fans on you tube and other platforms, how many commenters in the NYT or Bezo's rag are genuine. This is psyop. Granted, a bunch are likely legit, but there are quite a few that likely aren't.
Look at the insane comments on this thread -- most claim to have gotten Covid, yet are still clueless and boasting about all their jabs & boosters (and looking forward to getting more): https://twitter.com/BillyCrystal/status/1530686945386450945.
Oh I completely agree that one can’t trust anything on Twitter or many MSM posting sites. But.... I just now got today’s “twitter email” “just for you” or whatever inane thing they send and it was ALL anti vax posts. Openly. So while the motive is highly highly questionable, the outcome is good.
I had to stop reading after this line:
"later, when the child got sick with Covid-19, asked Froehlke without success to give the deworming drug ivermectin to her. "
I wonder why the writer missed the "antiviral" adjective for Ivermectin as well? Well, I don't wonder.