When it comes to facts, CNN seems to believe that only it should be able to tell you what they are and what they aren’t. That desire goes so far as to suggest that going out and doing your own research is “idiotic.”
CNN host, Don Lemon, for instance, said that “we have to start doing things for the greater good of society and not for idiots who think they can do their own research,” adding that these same people think “they are above the law and they can break the rules.”
Firstly, the fact that he’s attacking people who do their own research as the same who think they’re “above the law and break the rules” is rich given the fact that he’s a Black Lives Matter supporter, and effectively applauded the destruction of cities and communities in the name of “justice.”
But most importantly is the suggestion by Lemon really exposes the mentality of CNN and even the mainstream media overall. It doesn’t like you going out to find the answers for yourself, let them tell you what is and isn’t reality. It’s for your own good, or as Lemon said, “the greater good.”
If you break down what he’s suggesting, he’s saying that they should be able to craft whatever narrative CNN pleases and have it be the way any situation is defined. This is effectively suggesting CNN should be able to lie to you and that lie is the truth.
It’s very Orwellian, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from CNN, which has effectively become a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.
At least two contributors to the far-left CNN network are charging that Americans simply are not smart enough to do their own research and make their own decisions about COVID and its “vaccines,” which actually are more like treatments.
It is Ramishah Maruf, of CNN Business, who explained, “The problem is that most people simply don’t know how to do their own research, especially when it comes to understanding the complexities of medical science.”
Maruf quoted CNN correspondent Brian Stelter, who said that four words, “Do you own research” are hurting the U.S. pandemic response.
Celebrity Nicki “Minaj helped raise doubts about COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter last week she would only get the shots once she’d ‘done enough research.’ It may seem like a reasonable, even positive, attitude, and it is a favored talking point echoed by many in the right-wing media,” the report said.
Did you know there’s a searchable archive of the last 12 years of TV news? Or that every moment of all of the major news network’s broadcasts from the week of 9/11 are available for free online? Well, you do now! Go forth and research!
- Really Simple Syndication – #SolutionsWatch
- Research Tools You Should Know About – #SolutionsWatch
- How to Access the Library of Alexandria – #SolutionsWatch
- Television Archive
- Understanding 9/11 – A television news archive
- Television Archive resources
It happens when every baby is born in Michigan, blood sample is taken from the newborn.
But a judge has ruled the way the state of Michigan does this, is most likely unconstitutional.
Its a complicated legal ruling, but it may pave the way for changes in the newborn health screening process.
“They don’t tell the parents, they don’t explain it to the parents, they just do it,” says Saginaw County attorney Phil Ellison.
He is talking about the state of Michigan’s program where it takes a sample of blood from every newborn shortly after birth.
The blood is taken to test for diseases. He represents four parents and nine children, who claim the parents didn’t consent to have those blood samples stored and used in research.
A lawsuit was filed in 2018, claiming their constitutional rights were violated and recently a federal judge, in part, agreed.
“He ruled that the two parents of the two children who were born before May 1st 2010, had their constitutional substantive due process rights violated, basically your right to be a parent was violated when the government, being the state of Michigan, kept, retained without permission or consent the blood spots or blood samples of children that they had taken during the newborn screening process,” says Ellison.
The judge also ruled the process for blood taken from babies born after that May 2010 date, when consent forms for storage and research were in put in place, may also be unconstitutional, but wants to hear from the state on why blood samples are stored and exactly how many.
Millions of blood samples are stored in bio banks in Detroit and Lansing. Ellison says the health screening is important and should be done, but parents should be better informed about the whole process, including how the blood is stored and who has access to it.
“What starts out as a good, probably noble public policy idea of testing children early for diseases, now has turned into, we are going to keep the data, we are going to keep the blood samples , we are going to sell the blood samples, we are going to trade the blood samples, now law enforcement is accessing these samples, we have found out,” says Ellison.
Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys “trusted information,” has now taken a step in that direction.
As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later. The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted.
Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted. He is now sceptical about all systematic reviews, particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials. He compared the original idea of systematic reviews as searching for diamonds, knowledge that was available if brought together in systematic reviews; now he thinks of systematic reviewing as searching through rubbish. He proposed that small, single centre trials should be discarded, not combined in systematic reviews.