Watching the MSM on your behalf

 

It’s still the Silly Season but even so, our glorious MSM present us with their favourite themes: ‘climate change’ and the Sacred Cow. A quick scan of the print editions’ front pages demonstrates this nicely: “Newspaper headlines: ‘PM failing on climate’ and ‘NHS on the brink’.” (link). A closer look reveals that the accusation of the PM’s failings on ‘climate change’ came from Greenpeace, via the grauniad – of course! – , i.e. the same people who were ‘protesting’ by climbing onto the roof of the PM’s private house a few days ago.

I am properly shocked about the PM’s ‘failings’, especially since the new ‘head’ of the UN’s IPCC is a Brit, Jim Skea, professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, who shows his ‘credentials’ in this quote from the Times’ report (emphases are mine):

“Leaders are failing to connect extreme events such as the wildfires in Rhodes with debates about policies to cut carbon emissions, according to the new head of the UN’s climate science panel.” (link, paywalled)

It’s now common knowledge that these ‘wildfires’ were due to arson. Why then should we take yet another ‘climate change warning’ seriously when the international head honchos fail to acknowledge this? Frankly, I stopped reading this puff piece. after this introduction.

Meanwhile, “we” must be kept on our toes whenever something affects our Sacred Cow. It is strange that the Westminster MSM are reporting on the cost of the doctors’ strike, connecting this strike to growing waiting lists, but refrain from criticising said strikes, for example in this report in the DT:

“Junior doctors’ strikes cost NHS £1bn – Steve Barclay warns health service is having to pay ‘significant amounts’ to cover absence as medics prepare for latest walkout” (paywalled link)

Better not have an accident or become ill, especially since our GPs are incapable of taking up the slack. Better not ask how paying for all this might increase the ‘cost of living’ crisis for us tax-paying peasants!

There are however some intriguing articles about AI and the NHS. It’s as if some shadowy figures are trying to make us accept Ai and bots as ‘a good thing’, saving time and money. To make this look extra palatable, the DT reports that NICE is giving the go ahead for the use of AI in cancer treatment:

It will be the first time that the NHS uses AI outside of trials. The clinical guidance says that AI should be used by doctors to speed up the contouring, or outlining, of tumours and avoid exposing healthy organs and cells to toxic radiation. Until now this has been carried out manually by oncologists, but AI could achieve this significantly faster and to the same standard, saving up to 80 minutes of planning time per patient.” (paywalled link)

So what happens to all those oncologists? Does the NHS save money when they can ‘work faster’? Will they be able to see more patients? Will these patients be treated faster? Does the NHS actually have sufficient machinery to treat yon patients or will they have to wait anyway?

Never mind: AI is ‘a good thing’, especially when it helps ill people as described for example in another ‘jam tomorrow’ report: “Scientists use AI to identify subtypes of Parkinson’s disease” (link, paywalled). Who could object to that! AI is simply so much better than our feeble brains. An accompanying article illustrates this under the headline “Bots can solve ‘captcha’ tests quicker than humans”:

“The research compared the performance of bots with that of 1,400 humans who were asked to solve 14,000 tests of various kinds. The machines consistently won. When humans were asked to solve distorted text captcha tests, for instance, they took between 9 and 15 seconds. They only got the answer right between 50 and 84 per cent of the time. By contrast, bots completed the same tests in less than a second and achieved 99.8 per cent accuracy.” (link, paywalled)

Blimey! How can we now ‘prove’ that we’re human? Is it actually too late for this anyway? There’s a strange omission in these gentle puff pieces aimed at making the use of AI less scary for us ignorant plebs: they don’t mention AI being used in the development of new drugs. I do wonder why!

Speaking of drugs: you might have heard of the wonderful ‘slimming’ drugs used by celebrities to shed a few pounds. The DT, turning ever more into a wimmins’ paper, has a piece by Ms Petronella Wyatt, an erstwhile mistress of BJ, headlined:

“A single Ozempic injection almost hospitalised me – why on earth isn’t it properly regulated? I tried the ‘revolutionary’ weight-loss jab, but all it did was leave me whimpering in pain” (paywalled link)

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind … After all, that particular drug has been regulated already, for use in fighting diabetes. I leave it to you to judge why we’re being treated to such ‘personal’ experience when our MSM refrain from writing about the far more harrowing and longer lasting experiences caused by the covid jabs.

I spare you Ms Wyatt’s hyperbolic attempts to connect the use of Ozempic with the state of western democracy. The concluding sentences of her piece are sufficient to show how intellectually mediocre she and the DT editors have become:

“Any drug holding out the promise of turning menopausal suckers like me into wood nymphs, is transient and lacks a goal. It’s merely an attempt to pave weight loss, like politics, with gold and precious stones.” (paywalled link)

Strewth! Are we expected to applaud this ‘menopausal sucker’ for fearlessly reporting her own idiocy because she produces a word salad connecting slimming to politics? How shameful.

That’s all I have for today. Regarding bots and AI, I leave you with a recommendation: watch Paul Joseph Watson’s video on the latest use of AI. Have fun watching – and have a good day.