Debunked COVID-19 myths survive online, despite facts

Cue to the usual comments about how actually all those myths are true and real, but a global conspiracy that includes just about everybody in the world except some few chosen ones is hiding the proof. Also you should trust these videos made by convicted fraudsters that coincidentally sell books and health products that can prevent the disease without need for masks or vaccines...

"MYTH: MASKS DON’T OFFER PROTECTION FROM THE VIRUS"

WHO is also responsible for perpetuating this myth since the official statements from the organization till March were that masks are not necessary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

Only by June did they update their stance on masks.

Wear a mask in public buildings and where social distancing isn’t possible. Wash your hands properly and frequently. Stay 2 metres away from others when outside your home.

it isn’t rocket science but is very effective.

Public health officials, fact checkers and doctors tried to quash ...

Yeah, I'm sure they are 100% sincere, honest, and qualified to check the facts.

Regarding "THE VIRUS WAS MAN-MADE":

Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize for his discovery of the HIV) recently explained (in French) that he believes the Wuhan lab was trying to create a vaccine against HIV, by engineering a weakened corona virus (that would explain all the asymptomatics) to express HIV genes. He believes that before they realized the potential consequences, the vaccine (i.e. SARSCoV2) either leaked out or they made a trial run. 

https://www.francesoir.fr/opinions-tribunes/le-defi-de-la-verite-luc-montagnier-prix-nobel-de-medecine

Cue to the usual comments trying to discredit this virus expert.

WHO is also responsible for perpetuating this myth since the official statements from the organization till March were that masks are not necessary.

The WHO is before anything else a scientific organization, it cannot go against the scientific evidence. At the beginning of the pandemic masks were known to be only of very limited efficacy to stop spreading against other viruses, and the COVID-19 was though to be transmitted almost exclusively by symptomatic patients. The WHO recommendations were consistent with what was at that time the best available evidence. As we found out more about the virus the recommendations changed, but scientific denialists continue to go against it without any excuse.

Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize for his discovery of the HIV) recently explained (in French) that he believes the Wuhan lab was trying to create a vaccine against HIV, by engineering a weakened corona virus (that would explain all the asymptomatics) to express HIV genes. He believes that before they realized the potential consequences, the vaccine (i.e. SARSCoV2) either leaked out or they made a trial run. 

Did you not read the replies for this comment in the previous topic? Sorry to inform you but Montagnier is no longer a respected scientist, he believes and repeat all any any kind of nonsense he reads, including the irrational notion that DNA emits radio waves. About COVID-19 he has been also been proved completely wrong

https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/luc-montagnier-coronavirus-wuhan-lab-pseudoscience/

(notice how this article is from April)

You should try to base your opinion on people that actually have the evidence to back up what they say, having to go as low as to repeat what a disgraced figure imagine can destroy your credibility. There is no need to discredit him, he does that by himself perfectly well with his newfound taste for antiscientific nonsense.

Sad article that is full of the same rhetoric as the myths. Doesn't anyone do any real investigations of whatever they're trying to piecemeal together. This is the CCP and this all began with the collapse of the USSR. Nothing, nothing like this occurs naturally in nature. Whatever was in Wuhan was there to be naturalized again and again and again until all the hands in this pie were invisible. Just like the American playbook for HIV, the real search is for bio-immunity. Governments on every side of the pond will first preserve themselves and they take the truth with them...

This article is little more than a "yes it is/no it isn't" schoolyard spat without solid debunkings, just appeals to authority and ad-homs.

But it does serve to highlight the level of discourse the MSM resorts to to push its narrative, so it does serve some useful purpose after all.

That poster would be very useful here in Japan. SOOOO many people masking their mouths but leaving their nostrils wide open to infection.

"As we found out more about the virus the recommendations changed"

My third world country made masks mandatory in March. I have not stepped out of my home without a mask since the last 9 months.

Don't tell me that WHO which has the most capable scientific brains (such as yourself) at its disposal took 6 months after the onset of the pandemic to update its stance on masks when a third world country with overburdened healthcare system could do it as soon as it became clear that this virus is going to take lives and cause unprecedented damage.

@Aly Rustom. Ah, yes, the ubiquitous chin slings; usually worn by middle aged men and often seen on public transport and in supermarkets. I like to observe their behaviour in the wild and play chin sling bingo. We encountered one such mask wearer last evening when he decided to run up to my husband and berate him for not wearing a mask, completely ignoring me. We were outside our block of flats, had just that second got out of our car and were about 10 metres away from Mr. Chin Sling Virtue Signaller. Saw several Chin Slingers on the train Saturday, politely asked one near me to wear his mask properly, got glared at while he muttered under his breath. Full house.

This article is little more than a "yes it is/no it isn't" schoolyard spat without solid debunkings, just appeals to authority and ad-homs.

That is false, everything is well supported with evidence, people under the impression that everything is a conspiracy tend to think that all is supported only by authority (as they tend to do) in science things are supported by data. You think something there is wrong? you just have to provide the valid data to prove the contrary, if you cannot do it then you have to accept that your opinion is much more likely to be just wrong.

If you only way to refute something is once again the same unproven conspiracy without ever having any valid argument that also means that first you have to prove that conspiracy.

My third world country made masks mandatory in March. I have not stepped out of my home without a mask since the last 9 months.

Don't tell me that WHO which has the most capable scientific brains (such as yourself) at its disposal took 6 months after the onset of the pandemic to update its stance on masks when a third world country with overburdened healthcare system could do it as soon as it became clear that this virus is going to take lives and cause unprecedented damage.

Countries have many reasons to do things and most of the time they can make policies that are not sustained by science, sometimes those turn out to be right, in other they are completely wrong. When they are wrong they will be criticized, but since governments are not scientific organizations plenty of excuses can be used. The WHO is a scientific organization, it cannot "bet" to do recommendations that may or not be true but that are against the best available data at the moment.

Your criticism could only be valid if your country had the data to support their decision and shared it with the world, without this data your government simply did something without a valid scientific base because they lose very little with a mistake. Have everything that your country done ended up being correct? what happens after a mistake?

The internet promise of providing a superhighway of knowledge has turned into a superhighway of batpoop nuttiness.

Some of these yahoos on FOX news know they are spreading false information and myths, but there is money to be made by fleecing the gullible who are easily hoodwinked.

The President of the United States spread and continues to spread myths, lies and falsehoods to tap into the gullible for political support and money, having taken in over $250 million since the election by spreading myths. The old joke of the inmates running the asylum is now a reality.

It's hard to stop this now that spreading myths has no downside. There is no punishment. Instead, rational people have to continue to trying to convince people that the myths are false, rather than the irrational proving that the myths are true.

It's all a waste of time, since the the irrational don't change their minds and suddenly say, "Hey, that makes sense and I'm going to change my mind..."

Never happens. They just become more entrenched.

virusrexToday  05:38 pm JST

This article is little more than a "yes it is/no it isn't" schoolyard spat without solid debunkings, just appeals to authority and ad-homs.

That is false, everything is well supported with evidence, people under the impression that everything is a conspiracy tend to think that all is supported only by authority (as they tend to do) in science things are supported by data. You think something there is wrong? you just have to provide the valid data to prove the contrary, if you cannot do it then you have to accept that your opinion is much more likely to be just wrong.

If you only way to refute something is once again the same unproven conspiracy without ever having any valid argument that also means that first you have to prove that conspiracy.

You deliberately misrepresent anyone who dares to question the need or efficacy or safety specifically of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as a anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. Yet I have told you many times that I'm fine with the principle of vaccines and have and many in the past and may have more in the future. I'm concerned about the collection of vaccines for this particular virus because of the politicisation of the situation, the speed at which they're being rushed to market, they way that thousands of qualified medical professionals who question the lockdowns etc are publicly demonised, and the special protection pharmaceutical companies get.

You deliberately misrepresent anyone who dares to question the need or efficacy or safety specifically of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as a anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist.

No, only those that do it based on imaginary conspiracies and arguments that are false or misleading.

Anybody can say they are pro-anything, but then use invalid arguments to criticize that thing they are supposedly on favor. There is perfectly valid science supporting the development of the vaccine, you cannot deny it, but even so you choose to see only the political aspect as if that was enough to disregard the science, it is not. Just because someone you don't like say something that doesn't make that something false, that is a logical mistake. Sometimes people or systems you don't like benefit from things that are true.

For example the vaccine was not rushed, it simply has not special difficulties to surpass, and was tested on a schedule used for other vaccines that have been in use already without problem. This "rush" is simply a false argument that antivaxxers like very much to use. Also, lockdowns are simply one of the many very different measures that all conform the necessary measures to prevent contagion, so criticizing one single measure do not mean they are against the whole prevention effort. That would be like saying that one doctor that says that one antibiotic is not appropriate for one specific case of infection is "against the germ theory". Of course some people have heavy conflicts of interest and zero data to sustain their opinion, those people would still be wrong, even if you like what they say.

Research the false arguments you keep using, they are terribly easy to disprove and they can make people mistake you for someone that want to mislead others on purpose. It would be as morally wrong as saying you would not do something only to do it anyway, destroying your credibility.

That would be like saying that one doctor that says that one antibiotic is not appropriate for one specific case of infection is "against the germ theory".

That Is exactly what you have been doing all along. You label anyone who criticizes the use of one vaccine for a particular disease as a anti-vaxxer.

Of course some people have heavy conflicts of interest and zero data to sustain their opinion, those people would still be wrong

Again, you seem to be talking more about yourself than those you oppose.

That Is exactly what you have been doing all along. You label anyone who criticizes the use of one vaccine for a particular disease as a anti-vaxxer.

Of course not, only when the reason they use are already demonstrated as false or completely dependent on imaginary conspiracies that involve every single health professional and that have zero proof of ever existing.

Again, you seem to be talking more about yourself than those you oppose.

That would be also false, the reports on the phase III trials are available to prover their safety and efficacy, and there is nothing I argument based on my authority, so even if I had any conflict of interest (and I don't) it would not apply to anything I write. You need to understand better how evidence and COIs work before trying to use them as arguments.

I guess it all comes down to taking advice from qualified scientists and doctors, or from some troll on the internet.

i'm guessing that one of these cohorts isnt going to do real well on "Are you smarter than a Fifth Grader".

I guess it all comes down to taking advice from qualified scientists and doctors, or from some troll on the internet.

Problem is that there are scientists and doctors (and trolls) on both sides of this discussion. One needs to look at their conflicts of interests.

Problem is that there are scientists and doctors (and trolls) on both sides of this discussion. One needs to look at their conflicts of interests.

But then why do you ignore them when they say what you want to hear? having double standards is one of the easiest ways to discover that a person is not interested in real information, another would be when they use imaginary COIs as personal attacks.

But above that what is needed is to examine the evidence. If the evidence of scientists and doctors all over the world indicate vaccines are safe and effective, and their supposed COIs depend on one single person or organization spending a thousands times their resources, every year, to fund them all, it can still be said their side is much more likely to be right, specially when the opponents are completely devoid of data and earn their salaries from supporting precisely the opinion they are trying to push.

Look at the data first, COIs later, if a side is without data then it can be disregarded,