[suoduandao2]

I find that about as plausible as the other side's claims about Dr. Fauci's role in the AIDS crisis. In the (lengthy) interview I linked I never once heard him make those sorts of claims, he just hammered the point about informed consent. Which I'd really like those who agree with his deplatforming to stop dodging.

[wbsss4412]

You don’t believe what, exactly? The quotes? The source from the article is the AP, are you claiming the AP fabricated these quotes?

> In a video circulating widely on social media, Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of COVID-19 vaccines who once researched mRNA vaccine technology, made the claim that the vaccines are “damaging T cell responses” and “causing a form of AIDS.” “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.” In the interview, published April 1, Malone claimed that “lots of scientific data” support his claim, but cited no evidence. The claims are unfounded.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-covid-technology-s...

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

So this topic is rather new to me, in particular about this Dr. Robert Malone. That being said, it seems to me that you are far more sure about their incompetence than you should be.

I would assume the quotes are not fabricated. I'm also looking at corporate journalism and wondering why I should trust the messages in the articles it produces. This excerpt appears to be a pretty good example of exactly why I should not trust it.

> In a video circulating widely on social media, Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of COVID-19 vaccines who once researched mRNA vaccine technology, made the claim that the vaccines are “damaging T cell responses” and “causing a form of AIDS.”

The emphasis is on the part of that sentence that is supposed to prime the reader to start thinking from a certain perspective. (This person is against COVID vaccines and you're not supposed to like that.) The quotes in that particular sentence are also very likely cherry-picked out of their original context just looking at how they are fragments of a sentence interpolated into the author's thoughts.

> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”

This is the presentation of the doctor that is most fair. The quotes are full sentences, and it's notable that the meaning here is not disagreeable.

> In the interview, published April 1, Malone claimed that “lots of scientific data” support his claim, but cited no evidence. The claims are unfounded.

This quotes only the subject (either direct or indirect; we've lost that context) from a complete thought and attempts to suggest that it is ridiculous to believe their completion of the thought.

Anyway, maybe it comes across that I believe everything Dr. Malone has to say but I wasn't kidding when I said this topic is new to me. This excerpt of someone's opinion does a very poor job of convincing me that I should agree with the opinion. I do think it does a good job of priming readers to think a certain way but I don't consider that to be a virtue in journalism.

[wbsss4412]

Disregarding any editorializing from the AP, not following up these quotes:

> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”

With concrete and compelling evidence, is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who is claiming expertise in a subject.

That’s the point. One can have a discussion about the integrity of the media in general, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the facts of Dr Malone’s public behavior. We’re talking about someone who clearly knows the ethics of his profession who is going around making extremely inflammatory statements without providing evidence, and tweeted out a video claiming a kid died from the Covid vaccine without actually making a basic effort to examine its provenance.

Y’all want to sit here and point fingers but my point was never about the integrity of the media nor tech companies. The original question was more or less “I don’t see why they have a problem with this guy“ and I answered it.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> Disregarding any editorializing from the AP

I can't! That's the only thing you provided.

I do now understand your opinion of those quotes (and I don't disagree, FWIW) but that had been left out until now.

[wbsss4412]

> I can't! That's the only thing you provided.

Quotes aren’t editorializing. I’m referring to the quotes + the fact that he has yet to provide any proof of those assertions.

[suoduandao2]

I think, based on statements I actually heard him make and my Bayesian priors towards corporate journalists, that articles like this one grossly misrepresent the substance of whatever he was actually saying.

[wbsss4412]

Well I can see why you’d put so much faith in a man of such unimpeachable integrity.

[suoduandao2]

Sarcasm received, and reciprocated for your own attitudes towards the New York Times and Washington Post.

[wbsss4412]

I find it amusing that simply because I pointed out the faults of Dr Malone, you assume I’m some sort of devotee of the Washington Post/NYTimes. This is a fabrication inside your own mind.