World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross

The best thing they can do to be better prepared for the next pandemic is to eliminate big pharma's unhealthy influence of regulators and media.

And to avoid the emergence of the next pandemic, they must actually put an end to gain of function research.

The best thing they can do to be better prepared for the next pandemic is to eliminate big pharma's unhealthy influence of regulators and media.

None of the worst problems from the pandemic (as mentioned in the article) depended on pharmaceutical companies, if anything that would be much more closely correlated with disinformation spread by antiscientific groups that put the population at risk by making false claims about both the disease and the measures that helped promoting unnecessary deaths.

And to avoid the emergence of the next pandemic, they must actually put an end to gain of function research.

Exactly zero pandemics have been originated by gain of function research, meanwhile the measures that actually helped against this one were done in many ways thanks to this kind of research being done for over 10 years before it began. Pretending a conspiracy theory has more value than the well characterized benefits of researching pathogens only helps demonstrating an irrational bias against science when it supports something that runs contrary to a personal belief.

Public trust is being eroded by bad actors that spread false information for personal profit, this is nothing new but it is specially important when pandemics and other future health problems are put into consideration.

Public trust is being eroded by bad actors that spread false information for personal profit

True that!

We simply need a top down medical technocracy whereby sovereign municipalities can no longer infringe on the freedoms of the elite to instill fear and control over the unwashed disease ridden masses. We need to eradicate disease the same way we successfully eradicated terrorism, poverty, crime, and climate change. We're all in this together.

True that!

Unfortunately that also includes information you have used in your comments, for example that covid deaths are significantly overcounted for patients that had no contribution of the infection to their death, that the risks from vaccines and drugs are hidden, that excess deaths attributable to covid are instead because of other causes, that vaccines cause decrease of the immunity against covid, etc.

"includes information... for example that covid deaths are significantly overcounted for patients that had no contribution of the infection to their death, that the risks from vaccines and drugs are hidden, that excess deaths attributable to covid are instead because of other causes, that vaccines cause decrease of the immunity against covid, etc."

@virusrex, exactly. Information as opposed to the very common misinformation such as "safe and effective, you won't catch covid, you won't spread covid. Or the most dangerous pathogen this century. Or masks work if you wear the same one all day. Or that social distancing in public is based off of any scientific study at all." Lots of misinformation out there for sure!

Public trust is being eroded by bad actors that spread false information for personal profit

True that!

Indeed. And who is providing these profits? Is it the generic drug lobby? Or is it big pharma, whose influence of regulators (including revolving door) and media (MSM, social media, factcheck.org,...) is very well documented?

The IFRC said if people trusted safety messages, they would be willing to comply with public health measures and accept vaccination.

Until they eliminate big pharma's unhealthy influence of regulators and media, people will increasingly ignore safety messages. And why is the IFRC assuming that vaccination will be the best response for the next pandemic?

The IFRC said its network had reached more than 1.1 billion people over the past three years to help keep them safe during the COVID pandemic.

Reading the article, I am reminded of the scene where Cruises character talks about the Disinformation Protocol (DIP):

They'll tell you a story about me, about how I am mentally unstable, paranoid...I 'm violent and dangerous and it'll all sound very convincing.

Sort of like they talk about the "antivaxxers"

Here's a few common DIP cue words to listen for: Reassuring words. Words like stabilized secure, safe. If they say these words, particularly with repetition ...it means they're going to kill you

...If they say you're safe...do not get in any vehicles. Just run!

Many have caught on to the DIP and are running away (ignoring) the safety messages.

I am reminded of the scene where Cruises character talks about the Disinformation Protocol (DIP)

Finally, a kindred mind! I too like to model my world view after a Cameron Diaz/Tom Cruise spy parody movie!

And Caddy Shack.

Mostly Caddy Shack.

@virusrex, exactly. Information as opposed to the very common misinformation such as "safe and effective, you won't catch covid, you won't spread covid. Or the most dangerous pathogen this century.

On the oposite, the examples are all clear falsehoods, including the claims you make about experts that supposedly guaranteed you wont catch or spread covid no matter what variants appeared, something you have been repeatedly asked to prove with a source which you have never been able to do.

Making up false things nobody said so you can "debunk" them is just another form of disinformation, it means you could not do the same with what was actually been told.

Indeed. And who is providing these profits? Is it the generic drug lobby? Or is it big pharma, whose influence of regulators (including revolving door) and media (MSM, social media, factcheck.org,...) is very well documented?

When the information is veridic, well substantiated and congruent with the scientific consensus there is nothing wrong with repeating it, in the cases where the information is false as in the article the profit does not even have to be economic, just fomenting distrust in the scientific methods so it can be later used to manipulate people into other forms of invalid irrational beliefs can be justification enough for people to engage in this unethical behaviour.

Funny how Red Cross, WHO and most of the commenters who gravitate here did not care about pandemics until you know what happened.

Now, everyone has got something to say, and doom is just around the corner.

Luckily myself and pretty much everyone else is more inclined to listen to Red Cross, WHO and big Pharma rather than Patrick on the tube with his misinfo.

Luckily myself and pretty much everyone else is more inclined to listen to Red Cross, WHO and big Pharma rather than Patrick on the tube with his misinfo.

Yeah, well I'm more inclined to listen to doctors who have successfully treated many thousands of patients, and pay attention to peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than bureaucrats who are just filling up their pockets...

well I'm more inclined to listen to doctors who have successfully treated many thousands of patients, and pay attention to peer-reviewed scientific studies,

Not what you have been saying up until now. Glad you changed your tune.

Yeah, well I'm more inclined to listen to doctors who have successfully treated many thousands of patients,

Unfortunately those same doctors (that you keep bringing) are apparently completely unable to provide clear scientific evidence that should be terribly easy to get from treating that many patients, or do it by falsifying or fabricating that data, exactly as it would happen if they acutally found out that the data proved their opinions false.

When your argument is that you trust more people that have been proved to disseminate false information just because they say what you want to say while the actual scientific consensus must be wrong even with the well curated data from literally millions of people then you are only demonstrating a bias, not an argument.

jeffbToday  09:11 am JST

Information as opposed to the very common misinformation such as "safe and effective, you won't catch covid, you won't spread covid.*

True. Basic internet research shows this to be factual, so no need to post multiple links for something that is common knowledge.

A small group of "experts" shot their mouths off with untruths.

Yeah, well I'm more inclined to listen to doctors who have successfully treated many thousands of patients, and pay attention to peer-reviewed scientific studies

Double standards used to be a sin. Now they are a virtue.

True. Basic internet research shows this to be factual, so no need to post multiple links for something that is common knowledge

The inability to provide even one single link to support the claims made obviously indicate they are as indicated misinformation and strawman fallacies.

A small group of "experts" shot their mouths off with untruths.

Since those "experts" are actually antivaxxers pretending the experts said things they never did this is correct, the misinformation came completely from antivaxxers.

There is a reason why the scientific consensus is not on the side of the antivaxxers.

Big Pharma invests Big Money in R&D and makes Big Profits but also saves millions of lives but they are not the answer 100% of the time.

but also saves millions of lives

That's not what Patrick says on YouTube.

Smallpox, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, treatment of cancers, Cystic Fibrosis, polio......

Antibiotics have saved many millions.

Smallpox, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, treatment of cancers, Cystic Fibrosis, polio......

Indeed. You forgot the Rona jab!

What is the Rona jab?

What is the Rona jab?

Corona vaccine.

What about the corona vaccine? I can only assume you believe it was a failure. I do not and it saved millions of lives. Fortunately no one I knew died from covid. More than 90% of my close people had the covid vaccine and none experienced any side effects. Some of them caught covid but didn't have a hard time with it.

What about the corona vaccine?

You forgot it in your top ten list.

Antibiotics have saved many millions.

Yes, I very much agree.

What about the corona vaccine? I can only assume you believe it was a failure.

Yes, very much so. Might have provided some benefits to some, but overall I believe it caused more problems than it prevented, by a lot...

＠virusrex...

"There is a reason why the scientific consensus is not on the side of the antivaxxers."

"Scientific consensus"?? Where in the world is there such a thing? Where do you get your scientific consensus? There's "scientific" powerhouses that dominate the sphere and whose "conclusions" are taken as to be truth.

There is no such thing as "one" science, science is a method. And it's a method that in and itself begs and accepts all types of questions, doubts and x factors.

A scientific study is such because it can only replicate reality to a certain degree, depending on which its result would be either extrapolatable to a boarder universe or deemed statistically significant or not, much of which depends on variable control to be able to determine if what you suppose cause certain effect indeed cause it or not.

Not once in the news or out of any draconian politician quoiting "science" were the mentions of the statistical significance of such studies or whether the science was good enough to extrapolate to the entire population.

How can you trust that as the rabid scientific zealot you seem to be, is a testament of your blindness.

"Since those "experts" are actually antivaxxers pretending the experts said things they never did this is correct, the misinformation came completely from antivaxxers."

You did see the WHO chief say "vaccines didn't work as expected" (sorry paraphrasing here), didn't you? And not to mention Fauci...

What makes an expert worthy of your trust anyway?

If others in the scientific community respect them at a time, just because they veer of the mass mentality is not a fair cause to mistrust them, ON THE CONTRARY I would say!

Like I said above, science is by definition open to question and discourse and division and repeated endless corroboration and correction of previous understandings, thus having a "consensus" is a oxymoron in science, when a "consensus" is reached is the END of science. Questioning and doubting should persist for science to be science.

When you say "shut up, is science" you automatically become the LEAST scientifically versed person and anti-science. You become dogmatic and religious.

In most governments and committees there is an understanding written or not, I do not know, that even if all are in unison accord, one should be in discord just so as to not eliminate the idea that all other could be wrong and a very minimum outline defined for the very least action to take in the event the majority was wrong.

Do you have this capacity in you?

Yes, very much so.

Meanwhile the experts of the world in infectious diseases, public health, vaccines, etc. consider them a huge success that have saved countless lives and protected the health of even more people.

Obviously the opinion of those experts (and every respected institution of medical science in the world) is a much better standard to judge if the vaccines have been successful or not.

Personal beliefs that depend on inexistent evidence (and ignoring very clear evidence of the contrary) are simply wrong.

"Scientific consensus"?? Where in the world is there such a thing? 

It is very common, there are countless things proved so completely and above any rational doubt that it is perfectly valid to describe the position of the scientific community as in consensus.

depending on which its result would be either extrapolatable to a boarder universe or deemed statistically significant or not, much of which depends on variable control to be able to determine if what you suppose cause certain effect indeed cause it or not.

That is completely wrong, it is extremely simple to do studies to confirm what the authors of the scientific literature conclude about something and when that is overwhelmingly in one direction then it can be called a consensus. there is no supposition involved, for example

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04805-y

many people may fail to recognize that there is a broad consensus in favour of the vaccine among doctors

quite strong support for the consensus in the article, Are you going to argue that well recognized scientists and scientific journals are also wrong because they clearly refer to the consensus?

There is no such thing as "one" science, science is a method. And it's a method that in and itself begs and accepts all types of questions, doubts and x factors.

You are confusing between a consensus and dogma, when all valid arguments lead to the same conclusion then there is consensus, and the validity of the arguments depends obviously in following correctly the scientific method, the contradiction exists only on your mind because of your personal confusion about what a consensus means and how it is reached.

Not once in the news or out of any draconian politician quoiting "science" were the mentions of the statistical significance of such studies or whether the science was good enough to extrapolate to the entire population.

That is your problem, pretending that the news are the original sources of scientific information, if you want the scientific details you have to go to the sources, as in the peer reviewed articles published in indexted journals.

How can you trust that as the rabid scientific zealot you seem to be, is a testament of your blindness.

Not at all, it is simply your completely mistaken understanding of the meaning of the consensus, evidenced as your quick degradation to personal attacks instead of arguments.

When you say "shut up, is science" you automatically become the LEAST scientifically versed person and anti-science. You become dogmatic and religious.

Nobody is doing that, that is a strawman fallacy you are trying to impose as the real argument which is "Use actual arguments, valid data to discuss, the scientists of the world have done it and reached the same conclusion, using falsehoods to pretend this is not the case is not valid"

In most governments and committees there is an understanding written or not, I do not know,

Yet you claim there is no consensus, with this you are recognizing your claim is baseless and depend completely in something you accept you ignore.

Can you bring any respected institution of the world that refutes what is written in the article? if you can't no matter how much you search then it is very much likely there is a consensus about it.

＠virusrex...

your quick degradation to personal attacks 

Touché. I did realize that. Mea culpa.

I wanted to point out instead of educational or trying to enlighten, how you come across as pedantic and with a superiority complex.

The link you provided is highly interesting.

I see your point about what a consensus actually is the context you are talking about. As the article you provided shows consensus in this case is not "100%" as a default. My understanding as I wrote my comment was that consensus meant "100%" accordance. Which is not. So I stand corrected if indeed in your comments you mean consensus as just "a large majority" as in so far I could read there is no consensus as to what percentage upwards can actually be deemed consensus (60%? 70%? 80? 90?) . Which actually serves to be boarder point that given consensus is not 100%, means there is still the scientific reality of it not being entirely truth or other possibilities may also exist.

Also, although the link you provided is a very well put up study, just because a study is done it doesn't mean it's a scientific one. Scientific studies are those made using the scientific method of proving hypothesis through a replication of the conditions in a controlled environment.

Studies that don't do that are either empirical studies, or just statistical, mathematical, etc. papers (studies).

True, most are generally spoken under the umbrella of "science", true that several scientist who actually perform scientific studies ALSO perform empirical, mathematical, etc studies. All of this though does not in reality make them scientific. For strict scientific definition purposes.

That is a huge thing. The study you linked cannot claim to have scientifically proven that doctors are in consensus. It has statistically empirically (by observation of surveyed anecdotal references) demonstrated it in the universe polled (I think doctors in Chekoslovaquia was their main sample?)

So, I do remain suspicious of politicians. I grant you, I do not wanna bother to research myself, no excuse there.

Studies that don't do that are either empirical studies, or just statistical, mathematical, etc. papers (studies).

I disprove vehemently of one word in that sentence: "just", indicating a lesser scientific value. While a controlled environment is of course the gold standard, it is also not feasible in many situations and statistical studies are oftentimes the best we have. And while they of course depend massively on the source material and its interpretation, for the last three years and probably continuing from now on we are blessed/cursed with incredible amounts of data. We would be myopic to the point of stupidity not to use it.

Not everyone is statistically literate, and of course not everyone has to be. But for those who are it is incomprehensible if, to some people, studies with a sample size not just in the thousands, but in the millions are credibly-to-them disproven by anecdotal observation. This is simply incredibly frustrating to watch, and the highly opinionated trench warfare in JT's comment sections is an expression of that.