Russel has spoken

[Whyismyfacealwaysdry]

On Instagram, has anyone seen? What are your thoughts?

And hypocrisy too considering they were complaining about insults from other PP during their overnight session

Interesting that me and another person are repeatedly being sneered at but if we reply to suggest the person hasn’t read what we’ve been saying correctly - since neither of us are saying that we think RB is innocent or guilty - then our comments gets deleted.

So interesting you mention hypocrisy - from a Deadline article on the Comedy Roasts where Katherine Ryan called out Brand for being a predator:

“The industry insiders said Fulwell 73 grew uncomfortable with the rumors swirling around Brand and his reluctance to be roasted gave the company an opportunity to drop him.
“Contract negotiations were made as tricky as possible, is the best way to put it,” said a source familiar with talks with Brand over Season 2. “In the end, it came down to the fact that it seemed like Russell didn’t have a good sense of humor. He didn’t feel he was fair game.”

https://deadline.com/2023/09/russell-brand-roast-battle-uk-katherine-ryan-1235549112/

I guess only he’s allowed to cast aspersions and attack people.

Perhaps you haven’t been reading the Talk Guidelines correctly?

I assumed posts were being deleted because they're doing things like scaremongering about public health measures (e.g., smear tests). It is depressing how it has become lucrative to build a career on persuading people out of doing things are beneficial for their health.

You’re right. I need to work on how to be sly

That’s not scaremongering. It’s the statistics and information produced for the service itself. Do you not find it problematic when people are discouraged from being given full information in order to make decisions?

I’m also not trying to persuade anyone on this - show me where I did in this thread.

perhaps studying Brand’s modus operandi could be of help in this?

I think I’m getting wonderful lessons right in this thread.

I think it’s important that people are given the information and the cognitive training to make decisions. Unfortunately too many people are scientifically illiterate and simply can’t evaluate certain information properly. Which is why, as a society, we rely on experts to produce guidelines and recommendations.

The danger of the likes of anti-vaxxers, grifters and conspiracy theorists is that they unfoundedly undermine confidence in these experts, which leads to terrible consequences - sometimes deadly. See MMR for a pertinent example.

I would love everyone to have proper education on the scientific method and source evaluation.

Oh, that’s wonderful to hear. I’m glad we were able to show you the light.

In theory I don’t disagree. In practice, the information presented leaves out the ability for people to make a choice or even to understand that they have one. It’s a one-sided narrative.

To me, this is like democracy. You can argue that there are people who don’t comprehend enough to make what someone else considers a critically reached decision on who to vote for, but ultimately it is their right to vote how they wish for whatever reason they wish. When it comes to their own health care it should be the same.

Part of the problem with the argument you’re putting forward, that more people should be educated on how to think, is that you are portraying that if they did think they would come to the same conclusion as you. It therefore removes any honest debate.

Again - this is more nonsense @SatsumaNightmare

This risks of smear tests are clearly outlined, including the possibility of a false positive. This trend of trying to persuade people there's a conspiracy about literally everything (and then making money from putting up videos about it) is ridiculous. We have a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the benefits of smear testing outweighs the risks and costs.

e..g, from cancer research UK.

Risks

Cervical screening works very well but, like any screening test, it isn’t perfect.

In a few cases, tests will seem to find abnormal changes that aren’t really there. This is called a false positive result. It leads to unnecessary worry and also the need for more tests.

Rumble? Isn't that what's happened to him...

Not at all. But I do believe that the opinion of experts is worth more than the opinion of non-experts. In most instances, it’s highly likely that I will side with the experts - either because my own source research leads me to the same conclusion (in an area where I do have the education and experience to evaluate it) or because I am self-aware enough to realise I don’t have the correct tools to evaluate the data myself.

People like Brand, who has no medical experience (beyond self-administration of intravenous drugs) or scientific training, nor understanding of the scientific method of falsifiability, is in no position to evaluate any scientific paper. It is not enough to simply hold up data sets - they need to be understood in context and against a wealth of other studies. Experts have this base knowledge and ability to interrogate - Brand does not.

Which is why it is especially dangerous to use his platform to discredit the scientific community.

Are there problems with Big Pharma? Of course! Look at scandals like the opioid crisis or the way drugs are marketed in America, how poorer countries are held to ransom over costs for life saving treatments.

Are there issues with food production? Of course - look at how Monsanto effectively created a captive market for their crops.

But these issues and discussions should be held to account by experts and people working within a media and education system that has built in protection and professional standards.

Unfortunately, these very checks & balances are used as further ways to discredit the system - “the MSM isn’t reporting this, they don’t want you to know. Only we have the truth”

Actually, they aren’t reporting it because it doesn’t reach their standards for accurate and truthful reporting.

Don’t you see an issue with anyone being able to publish without a fact check? Verification? Because I do. That’s what’s going to lead to the downfall of society - not naming a predator.

I never said it was a conspiracy theory.

Now look at what you posted. Look how they are downplaying that. ‘A few.’ ‘Unnecessary worry and also the need for more tests.’ It doesn’t actually give any statistics so people can utilise the data. It also doesn’t mention any of the physical repercussions of a false positive such as medical intervention that can cause life-long damaging impact. It doesn’t mention that should the medical establishment be trying to introduce smear tests now, the system would not pass their own checks for effective screening. It does not mention that GPs are given an incentive for getting a hit rate of people attending.

What I don’t understand is why you, and others like you, wish to stop people obtaining information. What are you so scared of? And to be clear, this is information from the exact same system that you are supporting in this instance. If you think the information is rubbish then dismiss it.

What this ultimately comes down to is a desire for people to not be able to make their own decisions. It’s the weirdest sort of group think.

I’m done with this thread.

To add - conspiracy theories can be harmless but when it comes to influencers pushing fake claims about health as a career option, I have very little patience.

The most irritating thing is these people merrily go ahead and take all the interventions that are recommended (e.g., cancer screening measures, vaccines, wearing suncream), because they know full well it's in their best interest to do so.

Absolutely do. Which is why I won’t hang a man out to dry on the basis of reporting from known reporters who lied to get a story. As is the case here. Danielle Hindley won a libel case against the Daily Mail because of the ‘reporting’ of one of their journalists who also happens to be pivotal in the RB investigation.

Ok, so the Daily Mail is famously a terrible newspaper, which has been determined unreliable by many of the bodies that evaluate media reliability and bias.

I don’t know the particular case to which you refer, but I will look at it.

In the meantime, there is a lot in my post that you haven’t engaged with. Of course, that is your right, but I wanted to point that out so it’s clear for other people on the thread.

I’m not for a moment suggesting this is what you are doing, as I assume you are busy or thinking about a response, but in many case, not engaging with parts of a discussion and changing the direction of a debate is a distraction technique used to obfuscate. Again, it’s one of the tools people like Brand, Carlson, Trump etc use.

Dishonest journalism or not the women coming forward with allegations aren't journalists. Do you not think it's a bit of a reach to suggest women would be willing to break the law themselves by falsely accusing someone of rape.
Or is it that you do believe them but don't think they had a right to speak out using the media?
It's been said to death but SA victims have
good reason to have little trust in the police. And even if they did one lone woman claiming to have been orally raped stands little chance of justice.. unless she recorded it there is no evidence.
But using the media to tell the world what happened gives her evidence.. More and more women come forward, meaning instead of he said she said it becomes he said, she she she she +++++ said.

Ok, so the reporter in question is Charlotte Wace, previously of the Mail on Sunday.

She was extremely junior at the time she ‘went undercover’ at the beauticians for the Mail. That’s not an excuse for poor judgement and incorrect reporting, which should have been weeded out by the checks & balances extant in MSM. It wasn’t - possibly because it was the Mail which is, as mentioned before, not the bastion of good reporting.

However, the case was widely reported and used by other MSM commentators as further need for a more regulated press.

It is not a reason why social media should be heralded as a more truthful medium.

And as a side note, were I a junior reporter who had made such a terrible and public error, I’d be damn sure my work was watertight in future. And if I were that junior reporter’s boss, reporting on someone known to be extremely wealthy and litigious, I’d be making damn sure her i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

PP have commented on how Brand’s heroin addiction is in the past and people can change - is this second chance equally applied to young women? Or just very rich men?

Russell Brand is a known, self confessed sex offender. He's not being hung out to dry🙄 he starting to get what's coming to him. He's spent years "manifesting" this.

You seem to be talking about pap smears. The new cervical smear tests that have taken their place in recent years do not have a problem with "false positives" as they are testing for HPV...

Not sure how smear tests came up on this thread, though.

Didn't you announce you were 'done with this thread' quite a while ago?

We get it. Rapist good, vaccinations bad, wake up sheeple. Bye now.