Rolling Stone cannot practice "journalism" when there are no journalists left.
Not dissimilar from the "science is settled" crown that formerly dominated the halls of HHS/FDA etc.
“In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc.”
Dr., this is a brilliant and important critique of what you politely dub "advocacy journalism posing as investigative accountability" but which should perhaps be more accurately labeled Big Pharma, anti-Kennedy political propaganda.
You are correct that Rolling Stone used to be cool. But that was back when it undertook actual journalism. Like so many outlets, it has devolved into shallow name-calling. (Pau Offit, really? -- that displays everything.)
Thanks for this analysis. It reveals how researching a drug for safety is transformed into some kind of bad thing. If Rolling Stone's editors are worried about contracting Hep B, they can have my vaccine....
Reposted on social media platforms with this: "I absolutely love it when Dr. Jack rolls out the logic fallacy parade when silly people (Rolling Stone in this case) say stupid things. But I'm biased and look at everything from an intellectual level these days. I took a course from IPAK-EDU he gave. You can too! "
Sites that rate media bias state that Rolling Stone is primarily read by a left-leaning demographic, aiming to appeal to those with similar liberal causes, social justice activism, and progressive politics. IMHO, the Rolling Stone article was written to bolster the confidence and stroke the egos of those who are COVID Vaxx dosed & multiple boosted, who still wear masks while driving alone, and who find solace in group think. Their readership has been dwindling for decades and their voice resonates within an ever depopulating echo chamber.
before covid, how many people wore masks while driving their car alone? You now claim that all those car drivers wearing masks are doing so in order to keep from inhaling pollen? hahahaha good one!
Hilarious! I wore a sander's mask during inversions and high pollen episodes with just the dog. People asked if I were sick. I said "No, and I'd like to stay that way ". You tell me about "all" these car drivers you've interviewed. I can't be the only one injected with aluminum. I had a whole lot of choice in the matter at ages 6 months and a year!
all I know is before covid I had seen not one person driving in a car by themselves wearing a mask. Never. Not one. Since covid, you see them often. The logical conclusion is they are wearing the mask thinking it will prevent them from getting covid, not because they're protecting themselves from pollen. You are likely the one and only person who wore a mask both before covid and since covid, and you're wearing it for reasons other than covid. Good for you. But I'm willing to be that 99 percent (or more) of the people we see wearing masks in cars are doing because of covid.
I did occasionally. I'd rather restore my immune system to before aluminum injections corrupted it. Of course, I'd still wear a mask when the air is exceptionally dirty. Have you ever examined a mask after wearing it in a Wasatch Front inversion?
Strong breakdown of the rhetorical scaffolding here. The Tuskegee comparison is especially weak, treating equipoise in a low-resource context as if it's equivalent to withholding treatmentfor diagnosed illness. I worked adjacent to clinical trial ethics comittees for a few years and that kind of false equivalence kills nuanced debate before it starts. The conflation of policy-relevant vs policy-justifying science is where alot of public misunderstanding actually lives.
Sharp takedown of how journalistic standards have been replaced by narrative framing. The methodical breakdown of each logical fallacy (post hoc, false analogy, poisoning the well) exposes how Rolling Stone weaponizes insinuation instead of presenting evidence. Seen this playbook alot in recent years where temporal proxmity gets treated as proof of causation.
Rolling Stone is staffed by a bunch of woke liberal writers who ridiculed Ivermectin and lied about it, claiming that in Oklahoma hospitals were overwhelmed treating IVM overdoses. They are just oh so cool and love nothing better than to ridicule those stupid Okies and other hillbillies. The sad irony is that they are so wrapped up in their own arrogance and know-it-all mentality that they couldn't see the truth of the covid scam, and now many are suffering (or dead) from taking the poison injections.
Rolling Stone cannot practice "journalism" when there are no journalists left.
Not dissimilar from the "science is settled" crown that formerly dominated the halls of HHS/FDA etc.
“In Newspeak there is no word for ‘Science’. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Dr., this is a brilliant and important critique of what you politely dub "advocacy journalism posing as investigative accountability" but which should perhaps be more accurately labeled Big Pharma, anti-Kennedy political propaganda.
You are correct that Rolling Stone used to be cool. But that was back when it undertook actual journalism. Like so many outlets, it has devolved into shallow name-calling. (Pau Offit, really? -- that displays everything.)
Thanks for this analysis. It reveals how researching a drug for safety is transformed into some kind of bad thing. If Rolling Stone's editors are worried about contracting Hep B, they can have my vaccine....
Thank you, John! Cheers.
Reposted on social media platforms with this: "I absolutely love it when Dr. Jack rolls out the logic fallacy parade when silly people (Rolling Stone in this case) say stupid things. But I'm biased and look at everything from an intellectual level these days. I took a course from IPAK-EDU he gave. You can too! "
Great piece, Dr. Jack.
I forget where I read this or the details of it, but the editor of Rolling Stone is rumored to be a CIA asset
Sites that rate media bias state that Rolling Stone is primarily read by a left-leaning demographic, aiming to appeal to those with similar liberal causes, social justice activism, and progressive politics. IMHO, the Rolling Stone article was written to bolster the confidence and stroke the egos of those who are COVID Vaxx dosed & multiple boosted, who still wear masks while driving alone, and who find solace in group think. Their readership has been dwindling for decades and their voice resonates within an ever depopulating echo chamber.
Your car has a pollen filter for the cabin air?
before covid, how many people wore masks while driving their car alone? You now claim that all those car drivers wearing masks are doing so in order to keep from inhaling pollen? hahahaha good one!
Hilarious! I wore a sander's mask during inversions and high pollen episodes with just the dog. People asked if I were sick. I said "No, and I'd like to stay that way ". You tell me about "all" these car drivers you've interviewed. I can't be the only one injected with aluminum. I had a whole lot of choice in the matter at ages 6 months and a year!
all I know is before covid I had seen not one person driving in a car by themselves wearing a mask. Never. Not one. Since covid, you see them often. The logical conclusion is they are wearing the mask thinking it will prevent them from getting covid, not because they're protecting themselves from pollen. You are likely the one and only person who wore a mask both before covid and since covid, and you're wearing it for reasons other than covid. Good for you. But I'm willing to be that 99 percent (or more) of the people we see wearing masks in cars are doing because of covid.
I did occasionally. I'd rather restore my immune system to before aluminum injections corrupted it. Of course, I'd still wear a mask when the air is exceptionally dirty. Have you ever examined a mask after wearing it in a Wasatch Front inversion?
Strong breakdown of the rhetorical scaffolding here. The Tuskegee comparison is especially weak, treating equipoise in a low-resource context as if it's equivalent to withholding treatmentfor diagnosed illness. I worked adjacent to clinical trial ethics comittees for a few years and that kind of false equivalence kills nuanced debate before it starts. The conflation of policy-relevant vs policy-justifying science is where alot of public misunderstanding actually lives.
Heroes of the past become the goons of the present. But time wounds all heels!
It's clearly meant to criticize Robert Kennedy Jr. The rest of the blather is just filler.
HA!!! Bravo.
Sharp takedown of how journalistic standards have been replaced by narrative framing. The methodical breakdown of each logical fallacy (post hoc, false analogy, poisoning the well) exposes how Rolling Stone weaponizes insinuation instead of presenting evidence. Seen this playbook alot in recent years where temporal proxmity gets treated as proof of causation.
Rolling Stone is staffed by a bunch of woke liberal writers who ridiculed Ivermectin and lied about it, claiming that in Oklahoma hospitals were overwhelmed treating IVM overdoses. They are just oh so cool and love nothing better than to ridicule those stupid Okies and other hillbillies. The sad irony is that they are so wrapped up in their own arrogance and know-it-all mentality that they couldn't see the truth of the covid scam, and now many are suffering (or dead) from taking the poison injections.