On Covid and other subjects, RFM and LDS seem to have more and more similarities.

Both issue commands to submit to authority. Both believe that one must follow government edicts to be a true believer. Someone sent me a photo of a sign in front of an LDS church with images of Jesus and a face mask. It said, “Face masks are required to call yourself my follower”.

Here people testify that we should doubt our doubts, and believe all from gov't and the mainstream media.

At both RFM and LDS, non-believers are shamed or shunned – covidiots, right-wing extremist conspiracy theorist. Or told you are a flat-earther anti-intellectual, science denier.

It is ironic to call those with doubts, anti-science. Because science is based on doubt and uncertainty. Science keeps changing. In addition, there is laboratory science, and applied science.

For example, masks may reduce virus expulsion in a lab under certain settings, but in the real world, might make things worse. I recently watched 5 EMTs by an ER standing 1 foot apart talking with their masks on.

Masks are considered by many to be magically protective, like garments or prayer. My SIL recently flew cross country with mask, on full plane, then was told to maintain 6 feet separation while departing. A lady told me she screwed up and didn't have her mask on while driving only herself to see me. Blind faith.

People cherry-pick information to fit their beliefs. In church, only positives are allowed, prayers that were answered, and negatives are suppressed. With Covid, only positives of lockdowns, school closures, masks, are allowed. Social media has censored some with doubts. We don't hear about the deaths from lockdown and fear – likely they will outnumber viral deaths. Failed businesses, unemplyment, suicides, and starvation in poor countries. Deaths from untreated heart attacks, cancer, mental health issues, etc.

In church, we use anecdotes to support beliefs, and so with Covid. News shows deaths from Covid, but not deaths from the lockdowns. Only certain deaths matter. Death is now suddenly a new thing, and each death is used as evidence of beliefs.

Many are confident they know the absolute truth about Covid, without looking at alternative views. There are numerous scientists, epidemiologists, physicians, who cast doubt on what we're told, but go unheard.

Many question the lockdown. We went from temporary flatten the curve to prolonging the pandemic, keeping young people susceptible and long-term threats to the more vulnerable.

There is a “Unherd” series of interviews of professors, epidiemiologists, scientists. I was just watching this one with Oxford epidemiologists/physicians. One is Director of Evidence Based Medicine. Discussion of all the uncertainty of data, no evidence that masks are effective (one has reviewed mask studies for 15 years), and masks may make things worse, how the lockdowns were misguided, failure to protect nursing homes, how hospitals spread infection, how media likes sensationalism, providing no context for deaths (no excess mortality underr age 50), seasonal vs pandemic theory, overall Covid fatality rate about like swine flu, (0.1-0.3%), etc. And their big question – will we now lock down “every time someone coughs?” With the devastation of lockdowns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA

Anyway, I wonder how many would be willing to read the following source on Covid, which I would consider the equivalent of the CES letter. Updated monthly, with extensive references.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

I wonder how many would consider listening to these sources of professors, doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, scolars who question the popular narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2rbIDYczvY

https://www.kusi.com/dr-kelly-victory-insists-people-ignore-the-hysteria-over-rising-case-numbers/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ewxCPtw7w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUg8mocLlg0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUg8mocLlg0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK0Wtjh3HVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDffMCAujg

It's the "both sides of the same coin" argument.

You undercut your own argument.

Your post has not been taken down nor have you been excommunicated from RfM

That you have trouble with people who disagree with you and start with the persecution complex makes you the one who is more like a Mormon.

My post came up in the wrong place. It is a response to the OP.

Question: What are the similarities between RFM Trolls and LDS?

Answer: They both will only consider sources that attempt to confirm what they already believe.

1. You grossly misunderstand the clarifying and self-correcting nature of science.

2. You demonstrate little concern for your fellow citizens.

3. You do not understand the difference between belief and fact gathering and correction. As more data is obtained, there should be corrected recommendations, not opinions of people who cherry pick the data.

4. You think there have been 160,000 deaths from people being in lockdown?

Thank you

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4. You think there have been 160,000 deaths from
> people being in lockdown?

It's a lot more than that. How many suicides for example? In a country like the USA, probably thousands will result from it. That number will go up as small businesses are completely bankrupted (and Amazon, Google etc who don't pay proper taxes roll it in). The stress caused by this situation has put at least one acquaintance of mine into severe anxiety, and hospitalized her husband who has suffered a heart attack from trying to keep their family business afloat. He is lucky. He survived. But a lot of people will suffer fatal heart attacks from the repressive climate we are in. This situation will be repeated over and over. And it will kill.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 4. You think there have been 160,000 deaths from
> people being in lockdown?

Dagny, please consider this report from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6932a1-H.pdf

The mental health disaster from the lock-down and unemployment (50 million), although it goes largely unreported, is extreme, serious, grave, and ought not to be fluffed off lightly.

There are even worse reports from other countries.

Non sequitur. She did not mention, let alone "fluff off" the points you make.

Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, on one reason why he recommends opening schools:

“But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So this is why I keep coming back for the overall social being of individuals, is let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and their safe...”

https://www.buckinstitute.org/covid-webinar-series-transcript-robert-redfield-md/

I receive the MMWR report where I work. I'm glad they are doing surveys.

OK, just so we are clear. Do you feel no mandated public health directives should be given in pandemics because someone might get depressed and commit suicide?

I am not trying to downplay important issues with depression but when 170,000 people die because we don't want to social distance it seems to me that other actions should have been taken to assist people who are impacted psychologically or economically. We have had time but there was no leadership to do so.

Using this as a reason to defend not wearing masks or taking lockdown precautions seems like a stretch.

Obviously the CDC is going to acknowledge the risk. To me, not getting the COVID virus under control is the greater risk.

Heck, I feel depressed and anxious about the entire situation too. That doesn't mean I'm not going to try and do what I can to protect others.

dagny: "Obviously the CDC is going to acknowledge the risk. To me, not getting the COVID virus under control is the greater risk."

Agreed. In the face of multiple risks you have to address the most insistent one first. That would be COVID-19 first, with the greatest need being preventing the spread. The fewer the case numbers, the less virus around and about in the air, the better control there is with resulting lower morbidity and mortality.

It's the triage approach: First, remove the source of danger if possible or get victims away from it. Second, provide emergency care for the wounded/sick. Third, provide safe environment for victims and render ongoing medical care as required. Fourth: Take action and/or make plans as necessary to prevent or ameliorate the situation (to prevent recurrence or deal with ongoing situations).

Primary goals: 1. Rescue. 2. Medical care. 3. Stabilize situation. 4. Prevention plan. 5. Address other issues as necessary.

#4 & 5 would encompass secondary concerns related to an urgent situation, such as non-emergency but priority physical issues, emotional/mental health effects and other societal concerns.

Regarding the latter issues as "secondary" is not to say they are not also crucially important. But the first rule in emergency is to deal with the most urgent concerns first. In this case, imho, that would be dealing with (1) people critically ill with COVID infection (2) caring for other infected people (3) identifying asymptomatic spreaders (4) isolating people who have the virus - eg 2 wk quarantine (5) reducing the levels of virus within communities (promoting distancing, masks, small groups, outside activities, education and information - and etc). In short, taking reasonable public health measures to address the emergency, provide ongoing care to the afflicted, educate the public on the latest pertinent scientific findings and make recommendations going forward.

It's not that the risk of suicide is not a crucial medical/mental health issue. Rather, it's that you have to put out the fire first and then deal with secondary fallout.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2020 03:25PM by Nightingale.

Exactly. Thanks for that, especially 1-5 info.

No one is ignoring the economic and emotional costs of the shutdown. But if you think the economic and psychological costs of a rampant pandemic are less than the losses that we are currently incurring, you delude yourself.

The tragedy is that the stop-go imposition of the rules combines the worst of both strategies. We get sky-high death rates and a prolonged period of economic and logistical interruption.

I'm sure you feel you are looking at the big picture by such generalizations, freeman. However, the problem with such wide-sweeping, painting of everything with the same brush, is the intricacies, the details, the delectable parts that make something delicious are missed.

The brush strokes make a great VanGogh. The subject matter is a distraction for those who cannot see more.

Now should we list the things that North Korea and South Korea have in common?

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Both issue commands to submit to authority.
> Both believe that one must follow government
> edicts to be a true believer. Someone sent me a
> photo of a sign in front of an LDS church with
> images of Jesus and a face mask. It said,
> “Face masks are required to call yourself my
> follower”.


This is interesting because it is a mark of the conservative mind (not to be confused with party affiliation).

The conservative mind often judges others by the degree one conforms to authority, the authority of an individual to the authority of a culture. These are the people who, when children, believed the best playmates were those who listened best to their parents and teachers. To be good is to obey. Disobedience is a mark of a bad playmate, later to be understood as a bad person.

Human, too rambunctious to obey, even if I wanted to (and I didn’t)

I think you should voice your concerns at an indoor venue of some sort packed with like-minded individuals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2020 12:28PM by Beth.

I don't see owner/s of a private discussion board, facility or business as being controlling in the authoritarian sense. Rather, they devise standards that help to maintain their operation as they envision and desire it to be.

The foundational principle of RfM, as I understand it, is that readers and posters will not be subject to Mormon apologetics. Therefore, defence of the faith is not allowed. That extends to any faith btw. People who have been hurt by religion, which includes many participants here, don't need to read more opinions on why they're wrong or how they fall short.

Rather, RfM emphasizes the recovery part of it's name. In any recovery group you wouldn't dish out more of what hurt people in the first place.

Most exmos want to focus on fact and science and value proof as far as it is available. Not much science-based material is served up during Sacrament meetings.

The Covid response is not well served by the duelling "experts" spectacle. Understandably, RfM moderators don't leave posts up that promote non-science-based theories that promote harmful ideas or recommendations.

We're lucky, imho, that Admin gives wide latitude at this point in the subjects we discuss. That doesn't include woo woo though. Unfortunately, some "facts" are in the eye of the beholder.

Selecting one of your links at random I listened to Dr. Kelly Victory re the "hysteria" about case numbers. She extols the wonders of hydroxychloroquine. She admits there are no large scale randomized control trials re its use in Covid. She states personal knowledge of many people who have taken it and "recovered quickly". There are several major problems with her endorsement. The chief one is that her conclusions are based on anecdotal accounts, not a scientific study.

Control trials constitute bedrock science. Nothing to skip over lightly.

She goes on about how safe the drug is and effective and it's been around for years. Yes - safe for conditions like malaria and lupus, although does have side effects. Nobody is arguing that hydroxy isn't useful and relatively safe. But it has not been proven effective against Covid and, in fact, can cause harm, such as heart complications.

After that, I can't trust her conclusions or advice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2020 01:35PM by Nightingale.

I read into her background. She is not credible. She claims credentials she does not have, exaggerates very short periods of public service, etc., and there is nothing in her background that has anything to do with epidemiology.

She's a typical Free Man source.

There is a reason that both the WHO and the CDC shut down hydroxychloroquine trials for use in Covid. The drug caused more problems than it solved for Covid patients. Covid attacks both the lungs and the heart, and hydroxychloroquine caused additional cardiac issues in already sick patients. The use of the drug did not result in a net gain for them. The positives did not outweigh the negatives.

I'm at a loss as to why this is so difficult to understand. Physicians are desperate for effective treatments. If hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, everyone would be on board including the WHO and the CDC. Yet certain segments of our society are determined to turn this into some sort of vast conspiracy theory, instead of simply being a case of a drug that overall does more harm than good for Covid patients.

I would love to know why the use of this drug has been turned from a medical issue into a political issue.

"Physicians are desperate for effective treatments. If hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, everyone would be on board including the WHO and the CDC."

Amen!

I meant to make this point. I don't understand it either. It's frustrating. It makes no sense.

WHO would be on board as long as they had permission from China.

Another video link selected at random features Dr Scott Atlas who uses words like 'hysteria' and 'frenzy' to refer to the official response to Covid.

He also has no training or experience specific to virology or pandemics.

When choosing a professional in any sphere - car maintenance, plumbing, painting, weather prognostication, dentistry - wouldn't you select one with experience relevant to your issue?

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He also has no training or experience specific to
> virology or pandemics.

Nor do the vast majority of journalists, politicians, law enforcement, news readers, celebrities etc we keep hearing from.

As always, follow the money. Who benefits from certain measures? Who makes money off vaccines, and are the vaccines better value than a competitor?

> Nor do the vast majority of journalists,
> politicians, law enforcement, news readers,
> celebrities etc we keep hearing from.

You know who is missing from your list of charlatans? Epidemiologists. They are all that matters.


---------------
> As always, follow the money. Who benefits from
> certain measures? Who makes money off vaccines,
> and are the vaccines better value than a
> competitor?

Wrong. Follow the body bags.

> Nightingale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> He [an MD opining on CV treatment] also has no training or experience specific to virology or pandemics.

Swift replied:
> Nor do the vast majority of journalists,
> politicians, law enforcement, news readers,
> celebrities etc we keep hearing from.

Hopefully, no-one in this group you mention is giving medical advice. If so, we would be well advised to question their qualifications, information and conclusions.

The difference when a physician gives an opinion is that s/he has the weight of their supposed medical expertise behind them. People may give more credence to their advice due to respecting their credentials as an MD. This can be a mistake as doctors do not usually have unlimited wide-ranging education, knowledge, experience, information and expertise on every conceivable medical condition, subject and eventuality. Rather, most specialize in a particular area. They may know everything possible within their field of expertise but that does not qualify them to render opinions on every topic within the wider field of medicine.

In fact, if an MD goes outside their specialty and makes an error they can rightly be investigated for malpractice.

When you see your GP with a particular complaint, needing a specialist opinion, your GP refers you to a physician within that specific specialist field of knowledge. For instance, if you seek help for back pain, your GP would not refer you to a podiatrist. If you have headaches needing further investigation you may be referred to a neurologist but not likely to a hematologist. And so on.

A physician is not a Doctor of Everything but rather likely becomes a specialist in a narrow field of expertise. This is only to be expected as medicine is a broad subject covering a huge weight of knowledge. No-one could possibly be expected to be an expert in every facet of it.

The virologists and pandemic experts during crises such as COVID-19 certainly may consult with other physicians in various areas of knowledge. A team approach is likely to yield the best outcomes. However, circumstances dictate which type of expertise should lead the charge when it comes to diagnosis, treatment recommendations and future planning. There doesn't seem anything in such an approach to raise alarm about how things are being handled.

I think it is unfortunate that things have become contentious, leading to major distrust amongst us. It makes no sense to me that anybody, anywhere, at all, would know of a proven effective treatment and would not want to employ it to curb the case numbers and death rates in the world.

To use your list, if anybody, anywhere, is relying on a news reader or a celebrity (etc) to announce the best preventive measures or most effective treatment I would urge them to give their head a shake. And then again. Of course we should be listening to the most qualified experts available on the planet. For the sake of us all.

As the US president is fond of saying: One death is too many.

OK then. Let's act like we believe that.

Hey, let's give credit where credit is due. That was an entire rant with no anti-female content. That's diversification that exceeds expectations. :)

"A lady... Blind faith". :)

Got me. I didn't read closely enough. Still, pretty mild compared to what he can produce when he gets up a full head of steam.

Right enough. Just teasing you. :)

"When you take the time to think the very worst, it shows how much you really care!"

--Pompous LeToot, Todo Cagado

There sure is a lot of trash written about Covid and it's contradictory. Masks anyone? One minute they're useless, the next compulsory. Almost like they couldn't be compulsory when there were hardly any available!

Personally, I think the virus is real. There is plenty of evidence for that. I also wear a mask. However, every petty dictator has crept out of the woodwork, from the woman who reports her neighbor to the politician who grandstands and pretends to be Churchill. Some of the measures being brought in are nothing to do with Covid or little to do with it. Some of them have been discussed in high circles for years.

Be specific. What guidance is good and what is bad? Otherwise your jeremiads are devoid of meaning.

Legitimate scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals, they do not post videos to YouTube.

Covid is not a hoax, the earth is not flat, we really did land on the moon, and POTUS was not sent by Jesus to defeat the satan-worshipping pedophile overlords.

The similarity is the mental gymnastics required to handle all that cognitive dissonance and magical thinking. Not to mention the completely whack-a-doo theories floated in priesthood meetings!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2020 08:28PM by oxymormon.

Civilized first-world countries have conquered CoViD and moved on.
USA isn't even an afterthought now.

Eating their dust.


How's it feel to be the one ostracized dumb-yet-obstreperous kid? Lol

You know Free Man. Anyone who agrees with him is a genius regardless of actual expertise.

Shoot. We can't even deliver the mail anymore.

Here's an evaluation of them

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

"Swiss Policy Research is also providing information regarding the Coronavirus with mixed facts and misinformation. In this article, Facts about Covid-19, there is the use of several poor sources to support their claims such as the Daily Mail, Off-Guardian, Sputnik, and Youtube videos. Further, this list of so-called facts also contains unproven conspiracy theories such as this: “NSA wholesaler Edward Snowden warns that the “coronavirus crisis” will be used for the massive and continuous expansion of global surveillance. The well-known virologist Pablo Goldschmidt speaks of “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures.” Leading British virologist, Professor John Oxford, talks about a “media epidemic.” They further state “More than 500 scientists have warned of “unprecedented public oversight” using problematic “contact tracking” applications. In some countries, such “contact tracking” is already carried out directly by secret services. In several parts of the world, the population is already monitored by drones and is facing excessive police supervision.” While any of these may one day turn out to be true, there is zero evidence at this time to support these claims and hence they are unproven conspiracy theories."

And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Propaganda_Research

"The site has been criticised for spreading conspiracy theories and especially so during the times of the COVID-19 pandemic when it has become a source of misinformation and disinformation internationally.[4] SPR has been categorized by some as a tool of propaganda.[2]

In 2017 a University of Zurich report on media in Switzerland analyzed "six of the most discussed alternative media", including SPR. Daniel Vogler concluded that SPR "resorts to conspiracy theories", and its contents are mostly "pseudo-scientific"."

It's remarkable what a little research shows. Free Man's sources are

1) Atlas, the Stanford professor who isn't really a Stanford Professor and doesn't have any expertise in epidemiology;

2) Kelly Victory, who thinks hydroxychloriquine works against COVID-19, claims on her resume certifications of which the certifying bodies have no records, and in any event has no experience in epidemiology; and

3) This Swiss group, whose reputation for objectivity, you have found, is every bit as good as Atlas's and Victory's.

As I said above, Free Man thinks anyone is an expert who agrees with him. Sad!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2020 10:29PM by Lot's Wife.

I didn't watch all of his youtube videos.
Does he use Stella Immanuel? I mean, what is more convincing than alien DNA and incubi and succubi?

Give him time.

These aren't all "unproven conspiracy theories". "Track and trace" phone apps are in open use in some countries. They monitor all your movements and social contacts. There is a lot more surveillance going on.

The review said there is no evidence for the assertion. You claim the assertion is true--but present no evidence.

Do you see the problem?

The Australian Government is begging us to sign up to an App that monitors our movements relative to others who have the app. If someone tests positive, in theory any recent contacts can be identified and isolated. I think about 30% of the population has done it so far. It doesn't seem to have been at all useful yet ie no contacts have been identified (partly because we have so few cases).

If the Oz Deep State sells the location data to China, I quite like the idea that some dweeb in Beijing is trying to work out what buses I catch every day to work and where I go to shop.

I also marvel at the notion, as evidenced in this thread, that there are millions who even now do not believe that this virus genuinely exists, presumably on the advice of their favourite conspiracy website or right wing politician.

The gullibility is astounding. Some moron on tv can hawk bleach as a COVID cure and people listen to him. Politics trumps science.

Yeah, humans are rational beings. Really.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, humans are rational beings. Really.

Some are. Some, demonstrably, are not. :)

The great conceit of all civilizations is the belief that the principles of their success have taken root in the hearts and minds of their citizens and will endure. It therefore comes as a shock when under stress those people abandon the principles, the rationality, that blessed them and embrace superstition instead.

Yet it happens again and again and again.

Well said. Sigh.

Sadly, true.

I can hear Trump now: “obstreperous? I didn’t even know I was pregnant”.

That's funny, Bradley.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's funny, Bradley.


VERY funny. Bradley is excellent at this sort of thing.

thank you for your post. i agree thousands and thousands of times over and i thank you for the courage to stand out from the rest of the crowd here. rfm is like lds like you say in that they follow without question. i guess if you let someone else think for you it saves using your brain, whatever is left of it after being in the cult. thanks again. finally someone with courage, aka guts.

Follow what without question? The mere reality of being EX Mormon belies that assertion. Obviously people questioned. Obviously people did NOT follow.

Who or what do you think we are following? Au contraire - this is the most amorphous group I have come across.

Who is thinking for us? And again - "us" does not denote a cohesive collective here, in my experience.

I agree Freeman. Sometimes we swing the pendulum too far to one side to correct from where it has been and that is what we get.

A cult mind set with a different name - each being somehow inherently more superior to the opposition just by virtue of them existing. Call it the weakness of the human ego to ever be uncertain about something or gasp! without being the source of all truth.

That is what I learned from mormonism everyone can have opinions but anyone who claims to have all the facts is a liar.

The thing that appeals to me about this forum is that it allowed the free exchange of ideas which at the end of the day isn't that more helpful while we figure out what life is going to work for us? Sans agenda.

"RFM and LDS seem to have more and more similarities." That's probably true. Both have certain leanings that are definitely encouraged. There are limits of free thought in both organizations.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are limits of free thought in both
> organizations.

This is a private message board. The owners have a right to make rules and remove posts that violate them. Some of the posters complaining the loudest about stifled "free" speech or thought here are guilty of consistently breaching the clear, consistent, simple, reasonable and non-onerous guidelines. For example, no religious preaching, no vociferous arguing or name-calling, no promulgation of well-known, recognizable and disproven conspiracy theories, no complaining about the board (it's rude) and no mopologists. And the biggest rule of all: No Politics (remember that one?)

Although off-topic posts are allowed, staying on topic for the most part serves new exmos well and also anyone still grappling with exmo-related issues - both situations for which the board was set up in the first place.

CZ, Big Admin, has kindly allowed us to veer way, way, way off topic lately, for various reasons - COVID being a main one (it did kind of come out of nowhere and consume the world - hard to ignore) and others I can't recall at the moment.

And yet we gripe?

Get a Grip.

Seriously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2020 08:01PM by Nightingale.

Nothing is the same

I endorse you right to post that here. Too frequently a post is badmouthed here when by all rights it should be more carefully examined. Keep posting I love it!!!!!!!!!!!