Twitter follows the official story and mentions a Tweet fallacious, what else should they do, I understand that. They are expected to counter disinformation while the "official" position is of course not always a guarantee for correct information. Twitter is allowed to block, ban and do whatever it sees fit, even if the reasoning goes against common sense and science. Presented facts are not contradicted. Wasn't it 151? There is one guideline: as long as it follows the government guideline. Another piece of close reading.
‘Find out why health officials..." The official position is known. That's as informative as "Find out why opponents object." I can name some objections from the opponents, from nonsensical to scientific. Of course, you have to delve deeply into both points of view, only then can you take your own point of view. That is precisely why the promise that there will finally be openness about the 'why' of the government's position can be called downright exciting.
So I clicked on the blue line to discover why the official story is what it is, because even through the courts it cannot be found out in the Netherlands. The click leads to this message:
OK – and now the 'why'
The headline reads: "Scientists and public health experts say that vaccines are safe for most people”
Scientists and health experts say vaccines are safe for more than half of the population
Twitter's statement that should debunk "severe side effects"
The experts literally say "The vaccine is safe for most people". That's as true or misleading as "Covid-19 is safe for most people". Now we already knew that there are scientists in government circles who say all kinds of things to each other, but we would find out why.
Here's more information from health officials and agencies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and:
OK... They build up the tension nicely. "Here's" – where? "and:" – what kind of sentence is this and why does it end in 'and'? This is followed by a series of bullets with questions without a question mark.
- How COVID-19 vaccines are developed and tested so quickly
Yes Indeed: how is that possible? Vaccines always took 5 years, 10, decades, have they always been asleep? - How pharmaceutical companies are being held to high medical standards by regulators
Certainly a mystery, that seems almost impossible, because it seems that governments are letting themselves be fooled:- pharmaceutical companies have been paid without a delivery obligation
- pharmaceutical companies are protected from disasters that their products can cause and
- Pharmaceutical companies can decide for themselves how long they continue to supply
- Results show that vaccines against COVID-19 are safe for elderly people
Well, not for all of them. Wherever you look: there seem to be more deaths to mourn than with other (flu) vaccinations, although all deaths are blamed on the vulnerable age. This is in contrast to the deaths where a positive PCR test was taken. Even "suspicion" of Covid-19 is sufficient for the cause of death 'COVID' on the official form. - Advice for pregnant people
What does that have to do with scientists finding the vaccine safe? For everyone except pregnant women or something? No further explanation. - Vaccines can have side effects, but they are expected and not dangerous
This is a hard lie. Research to identify side effects is now ongoing. The long-term side effects are only discussed much later and none are expected, so that may well be disappointing. It is not true that the expected side effects are not dangerous, because people have died from it. I think that sounds quite dangerous. Then say that deaths are rare or better yet, quantify: 'Only ten times as deadly as the harmless flu vaccine', something like that.
Disappointing conclusion
The 'why' of the health officials again consists of just a few statements. You would expect that every line is clickable and leads to something like a Jip and Janneke substantiation with links to studies because it was promised "Find out why". The lines are not clickable. In this Twitter message there is no link to be found except for the one to the photo. No thread, no hashtag, nothing.
Baudet's contested Tweet contains facts that you should be able to debunk very easily if you have knowledge to bring economies to their knees. Twitter fights those facts, just like de Volkskrant, Trouw, AD, Op1, Radio1 etc. with... questionable propaganda. Coming from the health officials.
[Edit: in the meantime the Stentor has taken the trouble to a more factual critique ]
De Stentor: This is true of Baudet's controversial tweet
It is already clear from the first paragraph that De Stentor is not primarily concerned with the facts. They start with something that is separate from the check on what Baudet claims in this Tweet. In the first paragraph, they explain how dangerous the coronavirus is. This is called 'framing': first everyone is on the same page, only then start looking at facts in that light. Not a good start for a neutral fact check; it indicates bias. Apparently, this is what a "Fact Check" still represents today: it is actually a "Roast".
So what do they actually say in that first paragraph? Actually nothing special, nothing that could not be consistent with what Baudet's Tweet said. They refer to a study from six months ago (which is a long time for a corona study) from "Imperial College in London" an impressive name that has something to make up for in their Fatal misses with which they have set the corona panic in motion. Their "Best Case" scenario was 3 to 5 times worse than what happened in the end. Can you imagine what the Worst Case scenario was... So if you want scientific studies in which the seriousness of the threat is still emphasized, then you have to be there. What is clear in any case: If they call something 'exponential' there, you have to calculate it yourself. The Stentor does not do that, it takes it for granted.
For example, they conclude on the basis of a 'rule of thumb' from that Board that Wybren van Haga is at four times as much risk as Baudet himself. Do you believe it yourself? There is a clear kink in mortality rates, around the age of 70. Moreover, it is great nonsense that the immune system weakens by half every eight years from birth. But that was not the point here.
Personally, I think it's a shame that van Haga is four times as likely to die as Baudet but: So What, the Stentor? Then that might be a consideration for van Haga to get vaccinated. It sounds like you're doing a LangeFransje: do you think it's funny to put them both on a kind of death list? Then make a list with Rutte, de Jong, van Dissel – or does that suddenly sound mean? That first paragraph already exudes the well-known MSM atmosphere, known from Jinek. Staggering.
I was going to discuss all the criticisms of De Stentor, but actually I don't feel like it anymore. The suds are not worth the cabbage. Can't journalists just leave!?
The first mistake is that Baudet mentions a mortality rate of 2020. That turns out to be the mortality rate of a longer period, including January and February 2021. Boy – then the claim actually gets a bit stronger. De Stentor then exhausts himself in less pertinent statements about who all dies of corona.
The culpable mistake is that Baudet should have inserted the word 'healthy'.
[the rest of the text is still being worked on]
