Readit NewsI can't! That's the only thing you provided.
I do now understand your opinion of those quotes (and I don't disagree, FWIW) but that had been left out until now.
Quotes aren’t editorializing. I’m referring to the quotes + the fact that he has yet to provide any proof of those assertions.
I would assume the quotes are not fabricated. I'm also looking at corporate journalism and wondering why I should trust the messages in the articles it produces. This excerpt appears to be a pretty good example of exactly why I should not trust it.
> In a video circulating widely on social media, Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of COVID-19 vaccines who once researched mRNA vaccine technology, made the claim that the vaccines are “damaging T cell responses” and “causing a form of AIDS.”
The emphasis is on the part of that sentence that is supposed to prime the reader to start thinking from a certain perspective. (This person is against COVID vaccines and you're not supposed to like that.) The quotes in that particular sentence are also very likely cherry-picked out of their original context just looking at how they are fragments of a sentence interpolated into the author's thoughts.
> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”
This is the presentation of the doctor that is most fair. The quotes are full sentences, and it's notable that the meaning here is not disagreeable.
> In the interview, published April 1, Malone claimed that “lots of scientific data” support his claim, but cited no evidence. The claims are unfounded.
This quotes only the subject (either direct or indirect; we've lost that context) from a complete thought and attempts to suggest that it is ridiculous to believe their completion of the thought.
Anyway, maybe it comes across that I believe everything Dr. Malone has to say but I wasn't kidding when I said this topic is new to me. This excerpt of someone's opinion does a very poor job of convincing me that I should agree with the opinion. I do think it does a good job of priming readers to think a certain way but I don't consider that to be a virtue in journalism.
> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”
With concrete and compelling evidence, is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who is claiming expertise in a subject.
That’s the point. One can have a discussion about the integrity of the media in general, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the facts of Dr Malone’s public behavior. We’re talking about someone who clearly knows the ethics of his profession who is going around making extremely inflammatory statements without providing evidence, and tweeted out a video claiming a kid died from the Covid vaccine without actually making a basic effort to examine its provenance.
Y’all want to sit here and point fingers but my point was never about the integrity of the media nor tech companies. The original question was more or less “I don’t see why they have a problem with this guy“ and I answered it.
> In a video circulating widely on social media, Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of COVID-19 vaccines who once researched mRNA vaccine technology, made the claim that the vaccines are “damaging T cell responses” and “causing a form of AIDS.” “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.” In the interview, published April 1, Malone claimed that “lots of scientific data” support his claim, but cited no evidence. The claims are unfounded.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-covid-technology-s...
He's actually pro-vaccine as a personal choice, his objection to the public policy at the time centered on the need for informed consent to medical procedures. What well-meaning people find so dangerous about that I'd love to know.
> In an April 1, 2022 interview, Malone made the unfounded claim that COVID-19 vaccines are "damaging T cell responses" and "causing a form of AIDS". Malone claimed that he had "lots of scientific data" to back up his claim, but did not cite evidence.
No matter how “relevant” an ad may be, you’re still breaking context to insert yourself, and distract me from, the thing I’m actually interested in.
Your personal solution seems pretty good though.
Plus, there are practically no used EVs on the market and you have to worry about charging. The car companies also have very limited availability for EVs so you can't even necessarily buy one. This makes sense because most are being sold at a big loss:
> In fact, these vehicles often cost $12,000 more to produce than comparable vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines (ICEs) in the small- to midsize-car segment and the small-utility-vehicle segment (Exhibit 1).
The car companies haven't exactly figured out what to do about EVs and are selling a few half-baked products at a loss just for show, but its not sustainable at these price levels. I'll be fine, sure I don't want to pay 20-30k more for a car, but I can eat the cost if I have to. But a lot of people will be screwed
https://evadoption.com/ev-market-share/ev-market-share-state...
https://www.newsweek.com/best-selling-suvs-us-2021-1607192
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/...
Your article is 3 years old and the economics of BEV production have changed rapidly in that time span. It quotes battery pack cost per kWh at $190-$210, but current prices are averaging closer to $132. [1]
The costs are primarily a function of scale, and the reason why there is limited supply is that you can’t scale manufacturing that fast. Within 2-3 years, major manufacturers will be pumping out millions of EVs and the economies of scale will really kick in.
> Plus, there are practically no used EVs on the market
The restrictions are on the sale of new EVs by 2035, so this is irrelevant. And to add, there will be a significant used EV market by then.
> The car companies haven't exactly figured out what to do about EVs and are selling a few half-baked products at a loss just for show, but its not sustainable at these price levels. I'll be fine, sure I don't want to pay 20-30k more for a car
Multiple manufacturers have released good products in the last two years, and you can buy a perfectly fine EV today for under 30k. (Nissan leaf, Chevy bolt)
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/552010/electric-car-battery-price...
5,000 IU is most likely a daily dosage in this instance.