For all of my new followers, and Twitter tells me that for some reason a whole bunch of people (like, a thousand) started following me last week, let me introduce this series and the @cosmo_globalist generally. Stick with me on this thread, okay?
We publish in English, for now, but plan to expand to other languages. We treat *global* events from a genuinely global perspective; our correspondents come from around the world, and we mean for every article we publish to be of relevance and interest to you, wherever you live.
We're not national, nationalist, partisan, or provincial. We want to fill the *massive* gap in global news coverage left by the collapse of the legacy media, a problem we discuss here: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/introducing-…
(The gap is so profound that @Timodc had to resort to this stunt to get Americans to realize a genocide is taking place in Tigray:
Have a look at what we've been doing: claireberlinski.substack.com. If you think it's interesting, do sign up, and if you'd like to support more work like this, please subscribe. We're also looking for Founding Members who can help a bit more, financially. Ask if you'd like to be one:
Just send me a DM. Soon we'll be scaling up, and we'd love to have your support in doing that well.
We've found that our readers enjoy it when we treat a theme of global interest over the course of a week or more:
Such as, for example, our series on energy, which was a great success. claireberlinski.substack.com/p/welcome-to-e… As you can see, we hosted a wide range of views; our readers debated (and one of them won):
And we settled the question, "All things considered, what's the best way to provide enough energy for everyone on the planet?" It was a great series. Recently, inspired by the pandemic, we've been running a series on catastrophic and existential risks, such as:
2. Biotechnology and the Fermi Paradox: Whether or not Covid19 came from a lab, it *could* have come from a lab, and the risk of such accidents is rising--fast. We must treat this risk seriously: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/biotechnolog…
3. Why are we incapable of thinking rationally about big risks? I looked at some of the common cognitive biases that get in the way: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/the-apocalyp…
We interrupted Doom Week to do a four-part special segment on the Internet as a catastrophic risk multiplier, using the anti-vax movement as a case study. Here's Part I: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/epistemic-ch…, where we introduce the argument.
In Parts II and III, we looked at common anti-vax arguments. Here we provide a guide to making sense of competing claims about vaccinations: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/epistemic-ch…
Finally, we wrapped it up by arguing that the pandemic has *clearly* been made more dangerous to all of humanity because of social media. We call upon Big Tech to fix their dangerous and faulty product: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/epistemic-ch…
If you want to receive our newsletter, please sign up--it's free!
If you like what we're doing, please become a paid subscriber--we're counting on you; this is our only source of income.
If you like what we're doing a *lot,* and you're looking for a good investment opportunity, please get in touch via DM.
And if you'd like to join us--by writing for us or working with us--don't hesitate. We want to hear from you,
especially if you live somewhere that's typically ignored, or stupidly covered, by the global media.
This is very comprehensive, yes. It's excellent. But the simplest argument, I think, and the one that I hope might persuade people who won't read anything longer than a tweet, is this one:
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the spike protein is a poison.
You have two choices.
Would you like a finite dose of poison?
Or would you like your poison attached to a virus?
Proteins don't replicate. *Viruses do.* Viruses take your cells hostage and turn them into virus-making factories. Each new virus comes with ... a spike protein.
So which is the better bet? Spike proteins in a dose so limited that your immune system can quickly despatch it to hell? Or spike proteins travelling on a virus that replicates, meaning within days there are more of these proteins than there are grains of sand on the earth?
What's even more alarming about this story is that it happened three months ago and this is the first hint of it in the media. But the State Department has--from the article--been involved from the beginning. Shouldn't this have been an obstacle to a big Biden-Putin summit?
A summit, incidentally, followed by massive Russian cyberattacks? I think we're failing to convey properly this whole message we've been assured Putin was given, about "consequences." Either that or we're failing to inflict them.
Does anyone seriously think he'll stop if no one makes his life--and that of the people around him--a lot less pleasant than they are right now? It only stops when things get a lot less fun for Putin. He *enjoys* these jolly escapades in international vandalism.
For those interested in our epistemic convulsions, @jon_rauch has written quite a bit about this; here's the essay on which his book is based: nationalaffairs.com/publications/d…. He's more optimistic than I am. He thinks our institutions are holding up reasonably well against the onslaught,
and will ultimately prevail; I would argue that no, they can't be said to be holding up well at all. If anyone's interested, I'll go through the institutions he names, one by one, and explain why I think so; I don't see that any of our institutions really have the alacrity--
--or the sense of urgency--to respond to the attack on what he calls the constitution of knowledge. Like Rauch, they deep down believe that they've been around forever and they'll be around forever, so they don't have to treat this as an emergency.
I can no longer remember the name of the professor who taught my intro to logic class. I can't even remember his face. But that class had more influence on me than any other I've had.
It was just a standard intro class. Basics of predicate and propositional logic, truth tables. But they got to me when I was young enough and my brain plastic enough that it *really* stuck. It had the effect on me of a religious conversion.
I don't know why logic is no longer considered the proper foundation of childhood education. It shouldn't be possible to get any kind of undergraduate degree--in the sciences or liberal arts--without taking a class like that.
I suspect some people won't read an argument about vaccines and risk if it means reading a long essay, but might read it if I tweet it, sentence by sentence. I don't have the patience, but I'll repeat some of the arguments: claireberlinski.substack.com/p/epistemic-ch…
If you want to base your views of the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines or ivermectin on the most reliable information--not perfect, not infallible, but "best we've got right now"--"we" being humanity--here's a reasonable way to do it:
1. Get off social media, stop listening to YouTube and podcasts, and instead open Google Scholar. This gives you access to literature that's been published, at least, in the goal of increasing humanity's stock of justified, true beliefs.
It may well turn out to be exactly the same film. So far the evidence for ivermectin is poor quality and limited, but there are genuinely some hints it may be of value. Definitely a good enough reason to study it properly. And if good quality evidence shows it has real efficacy--
I'll become the biggest ivermectin booster on the planet, and all of it's advocates will say, "See! We told you so." But they told us so based on bad reasoning. They may hold a *true* belief, but it isn't a *justified* true belief,
and thus it is not knowledge, but a hunch--be it a lucky or unlucky one. Some powerful things are working against the hypothesis--among them, that at doses required to have the effect ivermectin does on SARS-CoV-2 cells in vitro, it would cause an overdose in humans;