Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Perhaps you might want to read the stanford article posted above then come back to my post. No one is expecting a study's outcome to be perfectly replicated but if the trial is run again and gets very different results such that your confidence intervals are completely at odds with the original study, how is that not a bit of an issue? Perhaps for you it isn't - not sure you will find a lot of agreement on that though but everyone else I suppose might have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how data works compared to you.
And when you did your research and found articles that contradicted the stanford article, why did you decide to discard those? What was the critical thinking of doing so. And what articles were they?captain_cynic said:
paulguitar said:
There is a 'doctor' who is a big hero on the covid thread. He's a nurse I think, and got his doctorate in some other area.
John Campbell.Nurse trainer and got an honorary doctorate in Media Studies (meaning he didn't actually go to university to get the doctorate).
ks. A 2 minute search reveals that he has a PhD in nursing from University of Manchester. I'm guessing you've read that 'fact' from Facebook or similar, but anyway,back to all those gullible CT's...The YouTube grifter line is clearly a cope as well. You can see that his videos go back 18 years and those pre covid in 2018/2019 and early covid vids averaged more views than those recently.
I dip in and out and his about turn from lockdown enthusiast to frustration at not being able to report the Pfizer execs comments that the jabs don't in any way prevent transmission after all, due to YouTubes censorship rules, has been quite amusing to watch.
isaldiri said:
Perhaps you might want to read the stanford article posted above then come back to my post. No one is expecting a study's outcome to be perfectly replicated but if the trial is run again and gets very different results such that your confidence intervals are completely at odds with the original study, how is that not a bit of an issue? Perhaps for you it isn't - not sure you will find a lot of agreement on that though but everyone else I suppose might have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how data works compared to you.
OK I have had a quick read through and it doesn't actually say what you are saying.As I said, a good report structure which quotes the brief, the assumptions, the hypothesis being tested, the limitations and caveats and things like sample set would in their conclusions show the results based on all of that - for example its clear that for the opening point around heart attacks, it should have reported that the sample set had women of a particular size age etc.
If you repeat this, you should get some variation, but you shouldn't see huge variations. If you do, its because EITHER the first one or the second one was done differently. You have assumed the second one is right because you are being led by and leaning hugely on what you read in that report. That is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking. What proves the second one is right? This is where a good data person would make that extra step and question that.
Thats not to say mistakes dont happen, however, but to simply go from an observation that two tests are different to an assumption there is 'something bad being churned out on a far from irregular basis' is your own leap and yours alone. Unless of course you have recorded and collated total studies, compared briefs methodologies and outcomes and done a global analysis on this (which I would be interested to see) that proves this point?
coldel said:
OK I have had a quick read through and it doesn't actually say what you are saying.
As I said, a good report structure which quotes the brief, the assumptions, the hypothesis being tested, the limitations and caveats and things like sample set would in their conclusions show the results based on all of that - for example its clear that for the opening point around heart attacks, it should have reported that the sample set had women of a particular size age etc.
If you repeat this, you should get some variation, but you shouldn't see huge variations. If you do, its because EITHER the first one or the second one was done differently. You have assumed the second one is right because you are being led by and leaning hugely on what you read in that report. That is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking. What proves the second one is right? This is where a good data person would make that extra step and question that.
Thats not to say mistakes dont happen, however, but to simply go from an observation that two tests are different to an assumption there is 'something bad being churned out on a far from irregular basis' is your own leap and yours alone. Unless of course you have recorded and collated total studies, compared briefs methodologies and outcomes and done a global analysis on this (which I would be interested to see) that proves this point?
You should perhaps try to read what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying as I haven't assumed your hypothetical 'second one' is right but rather merely noted that there has been acknowledged difficulty by various scientists in being able to getting results similar to 'the first one' across quite a lot of different studies which is somewhat at odds with the earlier post that said 'the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results'...As I said, a good report structure which quotes the brief, the assumptions, the hypothesis being tested, the limitations and caveats and things like sample set would in their conclusions show the results based on all of that - for example its clear that for the opening point around heart attacks, it should have reported that the sample set had women of a particular size age etc.
If you repeat this, you should get some variation, but you shouldn't see huge variations. If you do, its because EITHER the first one or the second one was done differently. You have assumed the second one is right because you are being led by and leaning hugely on what you read in that report. That is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking. What proves the second one is right? This is where a good data person would make that extra step and question that.
Thats not to say mistakes dont happen, however, but to simply go from an observation that two tests are different to an assumption there is 'something bad being churned out on a far from irregular basis' is your own leap and yours alone. Unless of course you have recorded and collated total studies, compared briefs methodologies and outcomes and done a global analysis on this (which I would be interested to see) that proves this point?
isaldiri said:
You should perhaps try to read what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying as I haven't assumed your hypothetical 'second one' is right but rather merely noted that there has been acknowledged difficulty by various scientists in being able to getting results similar to 'the first one' across quite a lot of different studies which is somewhat at odds with the earlier post that said 'the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results'...
Can you outline these studies, what the reasoning was for not being repeatable, and what percentage of studies this affected in the field of interest. Can you then quantify this categorically please. Also, you didnt respond to my earlier comment, which articles that didnt agree with standford did you find in your research and under what terms did you discard them as counter evidence.
Open methods and repeatable results is true, the article you referred to talks about flawed analysis and mistakes of very specific circumstances, it doesn't state that the methodology is incorrect.
GMT13 said:
What a load of bks. A 2 minute search reveals that he has a PhD in nursing from University of Manchester. I'm guessing you've read that 'fact' from Facebook or similar, but anyway,back to all those gullible CT's...
The YouTube grifter line is clearly a cope as well. You can see that his videos go back 18 years and those pre covid in 2018/2019 and early covid vids averaged more views than those recently.
I dip in and out and his about turn from lockdown enthusiast to frustration at not being able to report the Pfizer execs comments that the jabs don't in any way prevent transmission after all, due to YouTubes censorship rules, has been quite amusing to watch.
Whoever believed that any vaccine for something like Covid would prevent transmission are on a whole new level of gullible.ks. A 2 minute search reveals that he has a PhD in nursing from University of Manchester. I'm guessing you've read that 'fact' from Facebook or similar, but anyway,back to all those gullible CT's...The YouTube grifter line is clearly a cope as well. You can see that his videos go back 18 years and those pre covid in 2018/2019 and early covid vids averaged more views than those recently.
I dip in and out and his about turn from lockdown enthusiast to frustration at not being able to report the Pfizer execs comments that the jabs don't in any way prevent transmission after all, due to YouTubes censorship rules, has been quite amusing to watch.
Notch 8 said:
Whoever believed that any vaccine for something like Covid would prevent transmission are on a whole new level of gullible.
So then what was all of the 'get it for grandma' type rhetoric? Why did you need to show a pass showing you'd had a vaccine to go to a football match?
Why were unvaccinated care workers forced to leave their jobs?
If you were young, getting the vaccine was supposed to be about doing your bit for society. It was all built on the vaccine reducing transmission.
Notch 8 said:
Whoever believed that any vaccine for something like Covid would prevent transmission are on a whole new level of gullible.
Seriously?There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
STe_rsv4 said:
Seriously?
There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again. There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
coldel said:
isaldiri said:
You should perhaps try to read what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying as I haven't assumed your hypothetical 'second one' is right but rather merely noted that there has been acknowledged difficulty by various scientists in being able to getting results similar to 'the first one' across quite a lot of different studies which is somewhat at odds with the earlier post that said 'the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results'...
Can you outline these studies, what the reasoning was for not being repeatable, and what percentage of studies this affected in the field of interest. Can you then quantify this categorically please. Also, you didnt respond to my earlier comment, which articles that didnt agree with standford did you find in your research and under what terms did you discard them as counter evidence.
Open methods and repeatable results is true, the article you referred to talks about flawed analysis and mistakes of very specific circumstances, it doesn't state that the methodology is incorrect.
This article from Nature also seems to suggest the stanford article isn't exactly suggesting an outlier https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a but again I'm quite open to your superior research skills to point me to any articles contradicting that one too before you demand that I do so again.
STe_rsv4 said:
Notch 8 said:
Whoever believed that any vaccine for something like Covid would prevent transmission are on a whole new level of gullible.
Seriously?There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
captain_cynic said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Seriously?
There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again. There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
I guess the dozens of videos I have saved on my phone showing these exact events are either deepfakes or I imagined having them at all.
Just checked.
Theyre still there
STe_rsv4 said:
captain_cynic said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Seriously?
There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again. There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
I guess the dozens of videos I have saved on my phone showing these exact events are either deepfakes or I imagined having them at all.
Just checked.
Theyre still there
Edited by Notch 8 on Tuesday 21st May 16:54
captain_cynic said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Seriously?
There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again. There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
In fact you yourself have a posting history that includes contributions to a thread named '30 something's - will you get the jab?' claiming that the 'only excuse' for not getting it was if you had a rare medical condition. Presumably you made this claim because you errenously believed that getting the vaccine reduced transmission?
I appreciate this is not specifically related to any conspiracy theories, but I really dislike it when people that got particularly pushy about everybody having vaccines and supporting the restriction of their liberty if they chose differently, now try to pretend that none of it happened.
STe_rsv4 said:
captain_cynic said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Seriously?
There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again. There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"
Or are you just gaslighting?
I guess the dozens of videos I have saved on my phone showing these exact events are either deepfakes or I imagined having them at all.
Just checked.
Theyre still there
Loads of videos of the US President and others claiming "you'll be dead in a year if your not get the vaccine"...
Never actually happened. You've made it up or more likely the videos you've been watching made it up and you swallowed it whole.
Thanks for demonstrating the thread title yet again but we didn't need you to.
Now flounce off back to your safe space where you can keep sharing your fantasy videos amongst yourselves.
captain_cynic said:
Notch 8 said:
Blimey. I guess you’re new to airborne/transmission based viruses then.
Not new to, completely ignorant of.Edited by Notch 8 on Tuesday 21st May 16:54
What was the purpose of vaccine mandates then?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff