Sara and Jack Gorman, Deniers Denying Deniers |515|

#21
The exchange over climate change was very interesting because it showed two very different approaches towards figuring out what's true and what's false. Both sides agreed that healthy, rigorous scientific debate was good. Sara and Jack Gorman described it as getting together a bunch of scientists who worked in the field, including those who disagreed with some of the conclusions, and watching them hash it out. Alex described it as a debate between himself and Sara and Jack, none of who work in the field or have a detailed understanding of the science, debunking each other's sources.

I think we can agree that oft-times those two different processes come to two very different conclusions. On the topics discussed on this forum, anyways. What I would love to see from Alex and his guests, is a rigorous discussion about how to choose between those two very different processes.

It gets back to the debate with the Flat Earther who showed up here. How do you know that when Alex's approach is is applied to Climate Change, that he is right, but when you apply it to Flat Eartherism, you are wrong? When does vigorous debate among experts in the field lead to the correct conclusions about a globular earth, but mistaken conclusions about Climate Change?
The problem with climate change mumbo jumbo, from my POV, is the lopsided analysis and resulting panic. The conclusion is worse than whatever "science" has gone into creating it.

That conclusion being that earth is going to warm by a degree or so due to human activity AND WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE AS A RESULT AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is just plain retarded. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that a slighter warmer planet would result in winners and losers.Some geographies would benefit and some would be harmed. The net damage would probably be 0. But no one wants to say that because they're scared that it's not polite to write off the losers. Same with covid. We all have to be negatively impacted by policies because no one wants to simply accept that a minority of people who are at or near risk for death anyhow have trouble with covid. No one wants to be on the public record saying that.

There can be no truth without, first, courage.
 
#22
The problem with climate change mumbo jumbo, from my POV, is the lopsided analysis and resulting panic. The conclusion is worse than whatever "science" has gone into creating it.

That conclusion being that earth is going to warm by a degree or so due to human activity AND WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE AS A RESULT AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is just plain retarded. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that a slighter warmer planet would result in winners and losers.Some geographies would benefit and some would be harmed. The net damage would probably be 0. But no one wants to say that because they're scared that it's not polite to write off the losers.
I don't get the impression that it's anywhere near that simple, but it does sound like something someone with half a brain would come up with.

Same with covid. We all have to be negatively impacted by policies because no one wants to simply accept that a minority of people who are at or near risk for death anyhow have trouble with covid. No one wants to be on the public record saying that.

There can be no truth without, first, courage.
You've been lucky, then. I'm in the US, and we have had hundreds of thousands of excess deaths - that's hundreds of thousands above and beyond the people who were going to die anyways. Our mortality rate jumped by 16% last year (which is huge and unprecedented until you go back to the 1918 influenza pandemic), and it increased the most among 25 to 45 year olds. And that was with at least a half-assed attempt to curb COVID. Now there's no attempt in my state, and ICUs and hospitals are filled to near capacity in my area (they weren't before), so elective surgeries are being cancelled. I was lucky - I needed reconstructive repair on my foot and I just snuck in under the wire. We're getting a small taste of what full-blown COVID would have looked like, so it would take stupidity, not courage, to claim that this is better.
 
#23
I don't get the impression that it's anywhere near that simple, but it does sound like something someone with half a brain would come up with.
It is that simple. Tell me how it's not. Have you performed the analysis? Has anyone in the sky is falling camp?


You've been lucky, then. I'm in the US, and we have had hundreds of thousands of excess deaths - that's hundreds of thousands above and beyond the people who were going to die anyways. Our mortality rate jumped by 16% last year (which is huge and unprecedented until you go back to the 1918 influenza pandemic), and it increased the most among 25 to 45 year olds. And that was with at least a half-assed attempt to curb COVID. Now there's no attempt in my state, and ICUs and hospitals are filled to near capacity in my area (they weren't before), so elective surgeries are being cancelled. I was lucky - I needed reconstructive repair on my foot and I just snuck in under the wire. We're getting a small taste of what full-blown COVID would have looked like, so it would take stupidity, not courage, to claim that this is better.
I'm in the US and I'm in the data (not YouTube and not MSM) and your excess deaths figure is BS, as are your ICU beds figures. I work in healthcare insurance for one of the big companies. I am acutely aware of hospital bed utilization trends. You are wrong. Period.

Prove that covid measures stopped anything. You cannot. I am not going to argue this further with a known troll who specialists in repeating left wing talking points.
 
#24
Everything is on the record these days. No one wants a statement to come back at them in some social media shaming storm; not when one's livelihood depends on "woke" fascists' approval.
The idea that they were being careful about what they said, so they didn't end up on a CIA watch list is a bit thin considering they didn't know that YouTube censors anything that goes against the narrative. They are not the type to think that their phone listens to them or that Google tailors the adverts they see.

TBH they sounded naive. They sounded like bunnies in the headlights when Alex brought up something that went against their world view. Climate change and masks. The "no data hand" was obfuscation, because there is no data to counter.

The father and daughter thing is sweet though, which I thought was a bit too twee. IMHO.
 
#25
It is that simple. Tell me how it's not. Have you performed the analysis? Has anyone in the sky is falling camp?
Huh? How on earth would you know whether or not it's that simple? You claim to be in healthcare insurance. I'm just saying that I'd rather hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.

I'm in the US and I'm in the data (not YouTube and not MSM) and your excess deaths figure is BS, as are your ICU beds figures.
No I'm not. These are the mortality figures collected and reported by the CDC, and the hospital utilization in my area reported by HHS. Some of the hospitals in my region report bed availability in the "negative" percent. That is, they have more patients admitted than they have beds. On average here, over half of the ICU beds and over a quarter of the hospital beds are taken by COVID patients (per the interactive HHS hospital utilization maps).

It's also hard to claim that the "lockdowns" (such as they were) and other recommendations didn't do anything, given what's happening now that they've been dropped completely.
 
#26
Huh? How on earth would you know whether or not it's that simple? You claim to be in healthcare insurance. I'm just saying that I'd rather hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.



No I'm not. These are the mortality figures collected and reported by the CDC, and the hospital utilization in my area reported by HHS. Some of the hospitals in my region report bed availability in the "negative" percent. That is, they have more patients admitted than they have beds. On average here, over half of the ICU beds and over a quarter of the hospital beds are taken by COVID patients (per the interactive HHS hospital utilization maps).

It's also hard to claim that the "lockdowns" (such as they were) and other recommendations didn't do anything, given what's happening now that they've been dropped completely.
The CDC. What do they know? Their data sucks and they're politicians.

Show me the hospital bed reports you're referring to. I'm sure you don't know how to read them and I already know you don't understand the context or historical trends.

AS for appeals authority on the cost/benefit of a warmer globe, as I already stated 1. it doesn't take a genius or "expert", 2. you're an MSM spouting troll 3. It has already been performed by experts and it favors what I said.

Show your data and analysis, troll. Otherwise, adios.
 
#27
The CDC. What do they know?
They're exactly who knows. They are the ones that get sent/collect the data and report on it. Year after year after year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db395.htm

Show me the hospital bed reports you're referring to.
https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization

I'm sure you don't know how to read them and I already know you don't understand the context or historical trends.

AS for appeals authority on the cost/benefit of a warmer globe, as I already stated 1. it doesn't take a genius or "expert", 2. you're an MSM spouting troll 3. It has already been performed by experts and it favors what I said.

Show your data and analysis, troll. Otherwise, adios.
Hilarious. I can't be trusted to read a straightforward factual report compared to your authority as an insurance salesman. But I'm supposed to swallow your admittedly uninformed claims about global warming without question. And I'm the troll. LOL. Gotta love it around here.
 
#28
They're exactly who knows. They are the ones that get sent/collect the data and report on it. Year after year after year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db395.htm



https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization



Hilarious. I can't be trusted to read a straightforward factual report compared to your authority as an insurance salesman. But I'm supposed to swallow your admittedly uninformed claims about global warming without question. And I'm the troll. LOL. Gotta love it around here.
I'm not a salesman, troll. Do you know what an actuary is?

The data is not straightforward and it is not factual. That has been discussed at length in the covid thread, which I know you have followed. Why bring up the same tired memes that have been shot down all along on the other thread? Troll much?

Insurance has way more and more detailed data than the CDC. That's how I know who has what conditions and what their age is and what their remaining life expectancy is. CDC has none of that history. They rely, at best, on death certificates filled out by people just trying to get through the busy day. The CDC makes no distinction between died of covid v died with covid. Many of your excess deaths, such that they are, are due to people not having access to care for acute emergent and chronic conditions because fools like you bought into the covid scare and caused access to care to be closed down and/or scared people into not seeking care. Troll.

Once again, your trollish appeal to authority is misguided. By your logic, whoever does something is correct just because they do it. Way to miss the whole point of just about everything on Skeptiko ever. I note that when Trump did something or said something you didn't believe it, even though he was the guy doing it and with access to information. But I think you know that you make no sense. That's why you are a troll. Be gone.
 

Alex

Administrator
#29
Just listened to this interview. Excellent job of being respectful. These people were so dogmatic without evidence and couldn't handle your evidence. 97% What? They also bordered on, if not endorsed, censorship, ethically or legally. They were not even aware of it on YouTube. Lincoln yes, Kennedy no? What? I give them credit for being polite but ignorant, misdirecting the real issues, and "not scientific" at all. Thanks for the "book review".
haha.

One bright spot was the insight that the older wiser dad (jack) had about censorship, free speech and science. of course, this is a double edged sword because it points to degradation of the education system... I mean, sara has a phD from columbia... that's kind of scary
 

Alex

Administrator
#31
Alex, Bravo!!!
This episode is Top Tier!

I wish you could have seen the confusion on my face when you explained up front how many of your listeners dislike the confrontational episodes.
I had no idea.

This is what I love about Skeptiko.

And Bravo to Sara and Jack for standing their ground and obviously doing their best to apply an open mind to each argument.

I hope we get a "Round 2 - Sara and Jack return for debate" on:
1 - Has mask effectiveness been scientifically demonstrated
2 - How dependable (or refutable) is evidence for climate change being majority-manmade
thx, but I don't think you fully appreciate how absolutely rare it is for these kinds of people to ever stick their head out like this. one of the reasons I made it such a big deal about them being oh oh forewarned is because I was sure that they had no clue what they were getting into... to be clear, they were forewarned over and over again... they just didn't realize how much of a bubble they live in.
 

Alex

Administrator
#32
To write a new book about such important scientific issues and not have a basic understanding of the science behind them is very disingenuous to say the least. They either have short-term memory loss problems or are simply lying to support their ideological dogmas.

They just want to dictate to people their ideologies with no scientific evidence because that's what most people listen to in our culture. The only problem they're going to have is with people who actually use their mind, do the research and come to a logical conclusion like Alex has done.

When they are confronted by someone like Alex, they do not know what to say because the truth is shining a light on their lies so they can't bring up false evidence or unscientific claims. Not once did they refute anything Alex said with any type of science other than what they feel is the truth.

When I see scientists like this dictating to me and my children's future, I now realize who the Nazis are. They look like the father and daughter next door teaming up to write Nazi propaganda dressed up looking like typical middle class Americans. Who would have thought?
I get your point but I actually think this is a testament of something different. I get the feeling that these are "nice people" who live in a carefully constructed world occupied by people who share their exact political and social beliefs about everything. the fact that there wealthy, well-educated, and committed to a religious subculture that reinforces their desire to separate ("be chosen") only make makes things worse.
 

Alex

Administrator
#33
"We are smart people and we know what's right. We wouldn't want the 'little people' to read something and then and go off and do anything we don't agree with....
yeah, she was really tone deaf... I mean, you definitely get the impression that she didn't have any clue that could be perceived in a not so favorable light.
 
#34
I'm not a salesman, troll. Do you know what an actuary is?
I know. My bad.

The data is not straightforward and it is not factual. That has been discussed at length in the covid thread, which I know you have followed. Why bring up the same tired memes that have been shot down all along on the other thread?
I've only popped in occasionally, and I don't bother reading posts which seem uninformed. I don't know what the memes are surrounding this, or what you think has been shot down. My interest was in what the scientific reporting showed.

Insurance has way more and more detailed data than the CDC. That's how I know who has what conditions and what their age is and what their remaining life expectancy is. CDC has none of that history. They rely, at best, on death certificates filled out by people just trying to get through the busy day.
That doesn't explain 700,000 excess deaths, though. Misclassifying a stroke death as a COVID death would result in the same overall number of deaths, but a relative paucity of stroke deaths, not a grossly increased number of deaths.

The CDC makes no distinction between died of covid v died with covid.
They specifically distinguish between COVID as the underlying cause of death and COVID as a contributing factor. Deaths due to COVID includes the former and excludes the latter (see footnote for Figure 2 in second link). "COVID-related" deaths includes both (see footnotes for Table 1 and Figure 1).

Many of your excess deaths, such that they are, are due to people not having access to care for acute emergent and chronic conditions because fools like you bought into the covid scare and caused access to care to be closed down and/or scared people into not seeking care.
Yes, it was mentioned that comparing the total number of excess deaths with the number of reported COVID deaths "could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., deaths from other causes occurring in the context of health care shortages or overburdened health care systems)." (from the first link) However, this would have to be the result of COVID cases overburdening the system. Closing down or reducing unnecessary/elective care (urgent and emergent care wasn't closed down) would lead to excess capacity (all those unused health care workers and health care facilities) to deal with sick and hospitalized patients. If COVID was imaginary and the influx didn't materialize, then the system couldn't have been over-burdened.

However, I do suspect there was a gray zone where people delayed care for what they thought was elective or mild problems, and were sicker when they did eventually get care for their diabetes, etc. And so that 10 to 20% discrepancy between total excess deaths and reported COVID deaths wasn't just misclassified COVID deaths.

Once again, your trollish appeal to authority is misguided. By your logic, whoever does something is correct just because they do it. Way to miss the whole point of just about everything on Skeptiko ever. I note that when Trump did something or said something you didn't believe it, even though he was the guy doing it and with access to information. But I think you know that you make no sense. That's why you are a troll. Be gone.
You've got me mixed up with someone else.
 
#35
An iconic pair of people, methinks. A curious blend of old-fashioned conservatism and present-day virtue-signalling liberalism -- one might almost think of iron hands in velvet gloves -- informed mainly by what appears to me as a felt need to perform according to the prevalent zeitgeist amongst their ilk. They came across as so naïve, so trusting in whatever their confirmation bias is telling them. Sara in particular projects the archetypical image of a person with little self-awareness of her own sympathy with the totalitarian trend in rigid orthodoxy. She sent shivers down my spine with her justification for preventing discussion amongst the unwashed plebs.

Oh yes, folks. Only we academic types have the nouse (and more importantly the phDs) that make us qualified and able to preach down to you because you are so dense and obdurate. It doesn't matter that our qualifications aren't in areas, such as climate science, that we know little about. We know what's true, and this Sunday, when you attend our church, we will sermonise you about that because it has been delivered on tablets of stone from on high.

I downloaded the kindle sampler and noted one of the mentions in the acknowledgements section as being of Michael Shermer (I assume the Michael Shermer we all know and love) -- if so, 'nuff said -- he's another "Karen" who's a tad more of an iron hand than a velvet glove compared to Sara, and just as inclined to retreat into the protective arms of parroted orthodoxy when challenged. That's the thing about orthodoxy: one doesn't have to know a thing; even in the face of cognitive dissonance, when one can't effectively counter different opinions, it's always there to back one up.

I was staggered that Jack Gorman apparently didn't know how social media is routinely stifling free speech on issues it deems beyond the pale. Like someone has already said, he seems to live in a bubble. He should venture out into less calm waters and see what's being said on other platforms, then at least he'd be aware how and why many other people think differently than he does -- and that some at least of their arguments aren't entirely without merit.

I've made a few allusions to religion, and that's because I think this is the new religion: of pious believers in orthodox science (more accurately, scientism) who can use borrowed authority to browbeat heretics mercilessly. Now it's beating with eyebrows, but how long before the iron emerges from the velvet? Actually, strike that: it's already emerged in the Covid arena with lockdowns, vaccination passports and coercive means of "encouraging" people to get jabbed, quite contrary to the Nuremberg Code.

I've personally lived a pretty solitary life for around 5 years and rarely go out, perhaps once a month or so, mainly to do shopping for goods I can't get delivered to my home address. While out, I have voluntarily observed the ridiculous and ever morphing rules fastidiously -- not because I for a moment believe them, more because I can't be arsed to provoke any negative reactions. Life's too short, and it's only a couple of hours a month, after all. But few are in my situation and would have risked encountering difficulties with their employers had they not been vaccinated.

And I worry about them. In a couple of years, will some of my nearest and dearest suffer from delayed reactions worse than Covid? The simple answer is that we can't be sure yet -- though there is some evidence that data collection for negative outcomes reveals only a fraction of the real number of cases, which include sudden deaths within hours of being injected. In ordinary circumstances (normal cycles of vaccine development and testing lasting up to 10 years), only a few reports of death would be sufficient to halt experimental testing. Many think there's evidence that we have surpassed this amount by orders of magnitude already.

And everybody, including Jack Gorman, seems to be studiously avoiding the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin prophylaxis and treatment. He only mentioned hydroxychloroquine, I noticed. Was that because he is blissfully unaware of ivermectin, or has he heard of it and dismissed it out of hand? Whatever, whilst I have to decline doubtless well-meaning appeals to be vaccinated, nobody is offering the alternative -- ivermectin treatment; indeed, the evidence is being systematically suppressed and one can't get it for love nor money unless one is slightly subversive and willing to buy it in preparations intended for animals such as horses.

If you want to buy pills, go search for them on the web, where profiteers are currently charging an arm and a leg ($115 for only 10 pills in the US) for what is one of the cheapest and least harmful proven anti-viral agents available. No profit in it for big pharma, so it's getting the bum's rush. And they're suppressing the evidence because if there were a widely-acknowledged treatment, then they could not have legally enrolled millions in their experimental gene therapy exercise.

I hope Jack and Sara know this: the "vaccination" isn't really such: it's experimental tinkering with genetic material (mRNA) that in the past has proven fatal for animals when they've been re-exposed to relevant viruses. No matter: big pharma has vaccinated itself against any lawsuits over negative outcomes, so they couldn't give a toss about it because they're making piles of money. Many people who get vaccinated are unaware what they're signing up for, and so can't really give true informed consent. So much for the Nuremberg Code.

Jack and Sara, you probably think you mean well and that at bottom you're decent people, but try to see how you're coming across: as educated ignoramuses who can't see their own prejudices and predilections. I think your performance was, to put it bluntly, nauseatingly complacent and smug.
 
Last edited:
#36
Yes. The problem is that too much of what is called "undeniable science" is, beyond the misnomer, not truly tested. As you say, if, in engineering, the equipment or software doesn't work or the bridge collapses, then we have proof that that "science" was wrong. With the scientists that want to be de facto law makers (like Fauci) there is not only no clear proof of anything, but there is no accountability when things don't work out in the long run.

Actually, it's worse than that. The Fauci's and social scientists working for the government and interest groups are often demonstrably wrong, yet those pointing out the obvious errors are shouted down. For example, there is no reason for anyone to take these new fangled vaccines because everyone (including the CDC) admits that vaccinated people still contract the virus and still pass it to others. The entire social responsibility argument breaks down right there and it becomes a matter of personal choice. The vaccines are not permanent. They wear off. Even the manufacturers are now saying that everyone needs a third "booster" and maybe more. Not everyone is at risk from covid. That is established "science" that even the CDC admits. Healthy children and young adults (to say age 55) are at less risk than they are from the flu. No one disputes that. Yet, those demographics are still being ordered to mask up and get vaccinated.

This is not science. It is mania, but so called well credentialed scientists are succumbing to it. I have found that many - maybe the majority - of common understandings are also manias; just some weird consensus myth that developed by design or accident, yet endures. Anyone not willing to recognize the immense heap of myths that we live by is not a scientist, full stop.

Rather they are politicians by another name and manipulating your perception of reality is their game. That said, the conspiracy theorists are just the flip side of that phenomenon. They are also politicians manipulating your reality; just they are the misfits of that genre.
Fuckin brilliantly written, brother!
 
#37
Amazing Post!

Oh yes, folks. Only we academic types have the nouse (and more importantly the phDs) that make us qualified and able to preach down to you because you are so dense and obdurate. It doesn't matter that our qualifications aren't in areas, such as climate science, that we know little about. We know what's true, and this Sunday, when you attend our church, we will sermonise you about that because it has been delivered on tablets of stone from on high.
I read this differently and your explanation helped my to formulate it.
Did you see the recent South Park where Chinese military are supervising the script writing ? This is more what I picture with these type of people. They are aware of an invisible authority who is always hovering behind them and listening to make sure they don't stray from the approved dogma.

If you want to buy pills, go search for them on the web, where profiteers are currently charging an arm and a leg ($115 for only 10 pills in the US) for what is one of the cheapest and least harmful proven anti-viral agents available. No profit in it for big pharma, so it's getting the bum's rush. And they're suppressing the evidence because if there were a widely-acknowledged treatment, then they could not have legally enrolled millions in their experimental gene therapy exercise.
I'm about to put in my payment info, but do you know if they will ask for a prescription after you give payment?
 
#39
Okay, help me out here, because none of this makes any sense. Why is the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance so right about Ivermectin that Robbiedigital already has his wallet out, but they're dead wrong about their support for masks and vaccines!?

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/faq-on-ivermectin/
Excellent question!!!

The answer:
1 - Mandates with potential serious as jail and even removing children from their families
2 - On going testing. "The data" for both masks and the "Vaccines" are currently being gathered.

In short, I fully believe Frontline is taking the science at face value.
For instance, there's nothing "scientifically" weird about a patent # 06-06-06 which I believe Microsoft secured for some implantable chip technology which (who knows) may have something to do with the graphene oxide ingredient which cause Japan to recently reject a HUGE order of vaccines.
The Frontline doctors are doing their absolute best to give Big Pharma the benefit of the doubt (aka assume they're not compromised) probably in hopes that the system will survive once the reality of the virus/vaccine comboe is revealed ... cough cough.. bioweapon.. cough

...And its not just Ivermectin. Most of their solutions for prevention are vitamin supplements for which the CDC has remained crickets.

I think the most important answer is that the ivermectin seems to be having more success, with zero risk of side effects including death, jail, and having your fucking children taken away
 

Attachments

Last edited:
#40
Excellent question!!!

The answer:
1 - Mandates with potential serious as jail and even removing children from their families
2 - On going testing. "The data" for both masks and the "Vaccines" are currently being gathered.

In short, I fully believe Frontline is taking the science at face value.
For instance, there's nothing "scientifically" weird about a patent # 06-06-06 which I believe Microsoft secured for some implantable chip technology which (who knows) may have something to do with the graphene oxide ingredient which cause Japan to recently reject a HUGE order of vaccines.
The Frontline doctors are doing their absolute best to give Big Pharma the benefit of the doubt (aka assume they're not compromised) probably in hopes that the system will survive once the reality of the virus/vaccine comboe is revealed ... cough cough.. bioweapon.. cough

...And its not just Ivermectin. Most of their solutions for prevention are vitamin supplements for which the CDC has remained crickets.

I think the most important answer is that the ivermectin seems to be having more success, with zero risk of side effects including death, jail, and having your fucking children taken away
I'm sorry, but none of that answers my question. It just makes it seem like the answer is "random conspiracy bullshit and paranoia, yada yada yada". How can Frontline be "taking the science at face value" and "ignoramuses" at the same time?
 
Top