Google Medic Algorithm change

Again, it doesn’t help your case if you depend upon misinformation to support your point. For example, doctors don’t receive a total of 8 hours in nutrition training (utter bollocks).

Bollocks? How about some details on this, and some refutations of the following, from another source (https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/06/08/ho...ctors-get/):

"....a group of prominent physicians wrote in 2014 that “nutrition receives little attention in medical practice” and “the reason stems, in large part, from the severe deficiency of nutrition education at all levels of medical training.” They note this is particularly shocking since it has been proven that a whole foods, plant-based diet low in animal products and refined carbohydrates can reverse coronary heart disease—our number-one killer—and provide potent protection against other leading causes of death, such as cancer and type 2 diabetes.

So, how has medical education been affected by this knowledge? Medical students are still getting less than 20 hours of nutrition education over 4 years, and even most of that has limited clinical relevance. Thirty years ago, only 37 percent of medical schools had a single course in nutrition. According to the most recent national survey, that number has since dropped to 27 percent. And, it gets even worse after students graduate.

According to the official list of all the requirements for those specializing in cardiology, fellows must perform at least 50 stress tests, participate in at least 100 catheterizations, and so on. But nowhere in the 34-page list of requirements is there any mention of nutrition. Maybe they leave that to the primary care physicians? No. In the official 35-page list of requirements for internal medicine doctors, once again, nutrition doesn’t get even a single mention."

I contemplated going down the rabbit hole of explaining where the fake news paradigm came from and how its well known and established to actually mean "verifiably true facts that happen to be inconvenient to governments, corporations and all who support them" and thus why restricting GENERAL search terms from finding these alternative sources is such a huge deal.

The short version is, during the run up to the 2016 election the alternative media were instrumental in documenting and exposing the mainstream media bias against Trump and their role in supporting the, at that time, increasingly violent and cult like social justice movement. All the way to local government and police involvement or certainly and verifiably complicity with it. Despite the numerous highly and obviously illegal acts committed around it. This scared the mainstream because they were forced to realize they can't just say whatever they want and expect people to believe it anymore, so they started the process of trying to stamp it out via force. Because the average layman ISN'T as piss poor at fact checking as some may seem to think they are. The internet has in fact made people far more skeptical than they've ever been because everyone knows that you can say anything on the internet. Authoritarians fear an open market of ideas more than anything. Stalin put it best when he said (according to brainyquote):

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

The censorship rolling out from Google and everyone else, which has been doing so since at least 2015 when Youtube(Google) changed its terms of service so every video was technically in violation of it, thus giving them the mechanism to pull things based on pure bias but say otherwise, is one of the more obvious parts of this. On top of shadowbanning and many other forms of soft censorship.

But there are others with more passion and time to do that then me, so I'll just post this video link for people who want to start looking into it themselves:

https://www.corbettreport.com/we-need-to...ut-search/

Why does no one seem to understand the bigger picture of search algorithm manipulation. This isn’t about being able to work around search blacklists to find certain information, it’s about how we are being steered toward a future where we will not have control over search results at all. We will ask our computer oracles a question and we will get one pre-approved answer. This is the nightmare future we are stumbling into, and (almost) no one seems to get it.

He along with many other people have begun to recognize the danger and inherent irrationality behind the concept of "reliable sources" and accurately identifies it as little more than source bias and thus something that can be manipulated in public consciousness to make even untrue things accepted as true so long as the right people say them.

Bollocks? How about some details on this, and some refutations of the following, from another source (https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/06/08/ho...ctors-get/): 

Lets look at the comparison which was made...”a total of 8 hours studying nutrition” vs. “reading two good books on nutrition”.  Note: those 2 good books must be aimed at a lay person if we are going to forego considering the hundreds of hours spent building the knowledge base in biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology which allows the medical student to understand the nutrition textbook in the first place.

First, your second source lays false the original claim, since we are now up to 20 hours of dedicated classroom nutrition instruction. But even that becomes false when you realize that every hour of classroom instruction also involves at least another hour of study outside of the classroom. And it doesn’t include all the nutrition instruction which takes place in the other subjects, relevant to each system. You also get nutrition education in nephrology, cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, pharmacology, etc., as well as during clinical rotations in those fields. And that’s just for physicians who don’t have an interest or need which leads them seek out dedicated study in nutrition. Those physicians who do will also have additional continuing medical education on the subject.

Every subset of medicine complains that they aren’t given enough time in medical training. At some point you have to be realistic about the best use of resources. We have registered dieticians to draw on when expertise is needed. There’s no point in trying to duplicate their training in medical school. And basic instruction in nutrition to a general population is a public health issue, which is better (highly quality instruction, more efficient use of resources, broader coverage, etc.) dealt with from that perspective.

Linda

I contemplated going down the rabbit hole of explaining where the fake news paradigm came from and how its well known and established to actually mean "verifiably true facts that happen to be inconvenient to governments, corporations and all who support them" and thus why restricting GENERAL search terms from finding these alternative sources is such a huge deal.

The short version is, during the run up to the 2016 election the alternative media were instrumental in documenting and exposing the mainstream media bias against Trump and their role in supporting the, at that time, increasingly violent and cult like social justice movement. All the way to local government and police involvement or certainly and verifiably complicity with it. Despite the numerous highly and obviously illegal acts committed around it. This scared the mainstream because they were forced to realize they can't just say whatever they want and expect people to believe it anymore, so they started the process of trying to stamp it out via force. Because the average layman ISN'T as piss poor at fact checking as some may seem to think they are. The internet has in fact made people far more skeptical than they've ever been because everyone knows that you can say anything on the internet. Authoritarians fear an open market of ideas more than anything. Stalin put it best when he said (according to brainyquote):





The censorship rolling out from Google and everyone else, which has been doing so since at least 2015 when Youtube(Google) changed its terms of service so every video was technically in violation of it, thus giving them the mechanism to pull things based on pure bias but say otherwise, is one of the more obvious parts of this. On top of shadowbanning and many other forms of soft censorship.

But there are others with more passion and time to do that then me, so I'll just post this video link for people who want to start looking into it themselves:

https://www.corbettreport.com/we-need-to...ut-search/




He along with many other people have begun to recognize the danger and inherent irrationality behind the concept of "reliable sources" and accurately identifies it as little more than source bias and thus something that can be manipulated in public consciousness to make even untrue things accepted as true so long as the right people say them.

Doesn’t this stuff belong in the hidden forums?

Linda

Doesn’t this stuff belong in the hidden forums?

Linda

Doubtful, given the sheer and increasing number of people who have either experienced or understand it. It's pretty far from a conspiracy theory as far as the popular derogatory use of the term.

Doubtful, given the sheer and increasing number of people who have either experienced or understand it. It's pretty far from a conspiracy theory as far as the popular derogatory use of the term.

If it’s mainstream, you should be able to find something other than the Corbett Report (and its ilk) to reference. 

Linda

If it’s mainstream, you should be able to find something other than the Corbett Report (and its ilk) to reference. 

Linda

Are you really this dense? Do you honestly think that a mainstream media corporation is going to allow their employees to report on stories that directly implicate themselves or those they're economically tied to in criminal acts? Do you really think any government is honestly just going to come out and tell people to their face about their own criminal behaviour and selective enforcing of laws for their own benefit, let alone the vast monetary and other conflicts of interest? Of course not. They're going to hide that as much as they can and then demonize the very idea of it and shut down any questioning by treating anyone who does as if they're just crazy and making sure that only their sources are "officially" reliable and trustworthy.

This has literally been the case of how governments, in all their forms, have operated for thousands of years, this isn't new.

You wanna know what happens to mainstream journalists who do try going against the narrative and talking about what's actually happening? Ask Michael Hastings.

But here's one tiny little itsy bitsy grain of all this for you to mull over, remember the Balloon Boy Hoax of 2009?




Hmmmm... I'm guessing you never saw any of that talked about on the mainstream news didja? Gee I wonder why? Maybe because that would've exposed the massive (and common) police corruption and shaken peoples faith in them as reputable organizations, or "reliable sources" as you might put it. Thus working against their own interests. As someone who's medically trained I'm sure you can take special appreciation of the insanity of not considering a blood sugar level of over 400 an accurate medical concern.

Are you really this dense?

Of course I am. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t hang around on the hidden forum, so you can’t expect me to be up-to-date on the various apologetics in place which “justify” why a medium full of stories about malfeasance among police officers and police departments, is supposedly suddenly compelled to be silent on whether or not a particular misdemeanour charge was justified in this one case.

Or why news organizations who are only too happy to catch their direct competitors falling for a hoax, are suddenly passing up the opportunity to show how much better investigators their journalists are in this one case.

As someone who's medically trained I'm sure you can take special appreciation of the insanity of not considering a blood sugar level of over 400 an accurate medical concern.

I don’t know this reference.

Linda

Of course I am. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t hang around on the hidden forum, so you can’t expect me to be up-to-date on the various apologetics in place which “justify” why a medium full of stories about malfeasance among police officers and police departments, is supposedly suddenly compelled to be silent on whether or not a particular misdemeanour charge was justified in this one case.

Or why news organizations who are only too happy to catch their direct competitors falling for a hoax, are suddenly passing up the opportunity to show how much better investigators their journalists are in this one case.

I do expect you to understand the basic logical concept that criminals and their associates don't go out in public bragging about their criminal activities. And they certainly wouldn't allow it to be investigated or talked about via platforms they control and people they pay. Therefore you can't rationally expect to find such stories on their platforms. You must go to alternatives.

The news organisations that make up the mainstream are owned by a scant few hyper rich people who themselves are largely all on the same page with each other and are implicated in many of the same things. What is mainstream news has nothing at all to do with what's actually true or popular opinion, it has to do with what the people with the ability to write the cheques and pay the broadcasting fees want their employees to talk about and thus how they want the cultural narrative to be shaped.

Alternative media, which often can be just a single person with a camera interviewing people such as how Dan Dicks started with https://pressfortruth.ca/ And Luke Rudkowski started https://wearechange.org/ has far less overhead than them. Especially when you're posting videos to the internet rather than having to pay broadcasting fees or licences. And they also have far more freedom in what they are willing to report on or investigate because no one's holding their livelihood over them.

Remember when the existence of the "Bilderberg Group", the annual meeting of hyper rich commanders of industry, media and government from multiple countries used to be a conspiracy theory associated with people who also believed that the world was controlled by reptillian aliens? Well because too many people now know they exist and how important it is to keep an eye on such groups due to the sheer power and sway they hold over society they made a website to try to look just a little less corrupt and suspicious (While likely moving their real meetings elsewhere to maintain secrecy).

This didn't happen because Fox or CBC or anyone bothered to do any real reporting on them. They in fact were the ones reports that everyone who was interested was just a crazy conspiracy theorist because of course they're part of it. It happened because independent alternative journalists like Luke Rudkowski and Dan Dicks get on planes each year to go ask them hardball question that no mainstream outlet would ever dare ask. While getting their hotel rooms raided and themselves arrested illegally by police and then released all the for daring to investigate. Meeting minutes and other things of their conferences have been leaked in the past, showing that they as a group did in fact set things like the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2008 housing bubble burst among many other things into motion on purpose for their own benefit.

Eventually enough people became aware of the evidence that trying to continue insulting them as just crazy people only served to prove the point that it's a shadowy group that has something to hide and is not working in the public interest. These are the types of things that the fake news paradigm is actually interested in censoring and stamping out of existence. But they also know well enough to at least try and make it look like that's not what it's about, such as with the Google Medic Algorithm. Something that certainly could make it easier to find good information, but could also be used to stamp out inconvenient truths by lumping it in with bunk information. And it's guaranteed to be used for just that.

I don’t know this reference.

Linda

Of course you're not, because you didn't watch Richard Henne's video presenting the direct recordings, of the police interviews of him and his family and other things around his case and comparing it to what the investigators officially wrote down in their affidavits and reports that I linked above, thus proving the police outright fabricated evidence against him. He's been claiming it was never a hoax for years, you'd think some journalists would've maybe picked up on that by now and taken a look at his evidence and blown the lid on it in the last 10 years to one up the competition. But of course they didn't do that and probably won't ever except maybe 30 years from now when there's no longer a risk reporting it. Much like all the other things they don't talk about:

https://www.corbettreport.com/when-is-th...andawatch/

Linda

I'll cut you some slack though because I have a feeling that a lot of this is coming from my own experience dealing with this sort of thing so its easier for me to notice and understand some of the logical patterns of how people cover up the things they don't want other people to see and how a lot of the perceptual tactics work.

I can tell you it's no different than what a kid does if you ask them if they took the last cookie, of course they'll say "no" regardless of if its true or not. You have to go to outside sources of evidence to determine whether it's likely that they did or not. So if you start with the question "Is the mainstream media corrupt?" It makes no sense to expect an admission of guilt from them if they are.

Likewise with government corruption and corporate corruption, etc. In order to answer that question you have to look at behaviours and patterns of the requisite group members to piece together predictions of how you think they'll react in certain cases to determine what their goals and fears really are compared what they say they are. There is no silver bullet type report you will ever find on such things. It all comes down to means, motive and opportunity.

Everyone lies to protect their interests, but not everyone is good at it.