Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

[paulguitar]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

coldel said:

Yes I saw that. Not sure why they quoted me as pointing the covid debate back to the covid thread, is that not generally the right thing to do if a thread goes off topic? Very bizarre behaviour.

Absolutely - wouldn't want genuine debate going on in here

It just too easily turns into specifically a covid thread, and there is one of those already.

[coldel]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

coldel said:

Yes I saw that. Not sure why they quoted me as pointing the covid debate back to the covid thread, is that not generally the right thing to do if a thread goes off topic? Very bizarre behaviour.

Absolutely - wouldn't want genuine debate going on in here

The troll awakens!

So, asking for a debate about COVID to be had in a thread about COVID, rather than in a thread not about COVID.

Yes, you are right, what a ridiculous notion.

[Blown2CV]

the covidiots can't help it. It comes back over and over, every 2 or 3 pages max.

[coldel]

I mean if those are the rules, then I might just pop into the Spurs thread and start debating the pros and cons of Declan Rice and then look bemused as they point me back to the Arsenal thread...I mean, whats wrong with reasonable debate

[Who_Goes_Blue]

coldel said:

I mean if those are the rules, then I might just pop into the Spurs thread and start debating the pros and cons of Declan Rice and then look bemused as they point me back to the Arsenal thread...I mean, whats wrong with reasonable debate

says the guy who brought up covid 2 days ago

[AdeTuono]

STe_rsv4 said:

GeneralBanter said:

Personally I don't care who said what,

Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:17

Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:54

And here it is.
Its easier to deny or "forget" exactly what was said when it doesn't meet your agenda.

Or just make it up to suit yours.

As you seem to prove time and again.

[Ken_Code]

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientists can be rented to say what isn't true for not a lot of money, no different to all other professions. And of course, some of the worst humans to have walked the Earth were scientists. The existence of these 5p rent-a-liars and the full blown wronguns gives ammunition to discredit them all for some.

Which is why we read scientists papers and look at their data, methodology and conclusions.

We don’t just listed to their pronouncements and treat it like the word of god.

This means that your claim is close to meaningless.

[Boringvolvodriver]

captain_cynic said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

captain_cynic said:

LOL...

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.

So this is fake then?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unvaccinated-winte...

And

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-bi...

Thanks for proving my point for me...

At no point did he say you will 100% die within a year if you don't get the vaccine.

He said the risk was greater of illness and death of you didn't and guess what... It was true.

Also fauci, as much as you hate him is not the US president or any other world leader.

Thanks for demonstrating the thread title yet again. You have to be pretty thick to read that and determine that a world leader said you'd die within a year if you didn't get the vaccine.

Now toddle off back to your safe space that no one takes seriously.

That's not what I said - I was not agreeing that Biden said what the previous poster referred to.

The question I asked was whether the links I provided were fake? There certainly was an implication that you could well die if one was unvaccinated - surely you can see that.

[ooid]

Chromegrill said:

To complicate things, not every scientific question can be neatly answered with an RCT so we often have to do the best we can with the tools available and recognise where there may be uncertainty and how much uncertainty there is likely to be.

.

Come on Chrome.. You know whenever there is a tiny error made by professionals who spend their lifes in labs and done hundreds of experiments on extremely complex subjects, people should just ignore and listen to armchair experts like Overhead Projector Pseudo Dr Campbell.

(Anyone cares to dig further, search for dinosaurs in the bible and Dr Campbell's past activities with them before cashing in C19loons )

[coldel]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

coldel said:

I mean if those are the rules, then I might just pop into the Spurs thread and start debating the pros and cons of Declan Rice and then look bemused as they point me back to the Arsenal thread...I mean, whats wrong with reasonable debate

says the guy who brought up covid 2 days ago

Could you point out the post where I specifically pulled up COVID with an intention to discuss COVID on Monday.

[RemarkLima]

Ken_Code said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientists can be rented to say what isn't true for not a lot of money, no different to all other professions. And of course, some of the worst humans to have walked the Earth were scientists. The existence of these 5p rent-a-liars and the full blown wronguns gives ammunition to discredit them all for some.

Which is why we read scientists papers and look at their data, methodology and conclusions.

We don’t just listed to their pronouncements and treat it like the word of god.

This means that your claim is close to meaningless.

Seriously, who reads the scientific papers, or pours over the data?

A headline and maybe a paragraph for the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about as far as it goes... And social media has made any analysis even less likely when a pithy meme can do the heavy lifting for you.

So, you pay a scientist to say some horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

[Blown2CV]

RemarkLima said:

Ken_Code said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientists can be rented to say what isn't true for not a lot of money, no different to all other professions. And of course, some of the worst humans to have walked the Earth were scientists. The existence of these 5p rent-a-liars and the full blown wronguns gives ammunition to discredit them all for some.

Which is why we read scientists papers and look at their data, methodology and conclusions.

We don’t just listed to their pronouncements and treat it like the word of god.

This means that your claim is close to meaningless.

Seriously, who reads the scientific papers, or pours over the data?

A headline and maybe a paragraph for the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about as far as it goes... And social media has made any analysis even less likely when a pithy meme can do the heavy lifting for you.

So, you pay a scientist to say some horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

Scientists read each others papers for one... it's kind of part of the job. Anyway the point is that the whole approach, design, data etc are all open for all to see. Just because a person's level of reading doesn't stretch past penguin books doesn't mean others can't consume it just fine.

Classic CT centric view, "because I don't understand it, this means no one understands it" and "just because I didn't read it, no one has"

Like... listen to yourself

[Ken_Code]

RemarkLima said:

Seriously, who reads the scientific papers, or pours over the data?

A headline and maybe a paragraph for the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about as far as it goes... And social media has made any analysis even less likely when a pithy meme can do the heavy lifting for you.

So, you pay a scientist to say some horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

I do. Don’t you?

[RemarkLima]

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat.

Not sure why I'm being classed as a CT, but I'll read and study in detail things to which I'm paid to do, and generally have some level of expertise in that field, or something that I have a genuine interest or intellectual curiosity about - the latter I profess no expertise in so is purely for personal interest. There's clearly little point in my reading of a paper on advanced avionics, or molecular biology as I'm neither an aerodynamic specialist, nor a molecular biologist.

Now, I could be snide and passive aggressive (as per the internet norm) and say clearly your superior intellects allow you to understand many years of learning put into a paper or study, and digest and fully comprehend detailed data and analysis on subjects that you have no knowledge or experience of... But hopefully, you can understand my point, and you understand the term Man on the Clapham Omnibus so shouldn't require a detailed dissection. You average joe will not read the detail, will see a meme and run with that as verbatim truth.

Not sure why the defensive stance from both replies, hopefully this helps explain my point.

[Ken_Code]

RemarkLima said:

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat…

…Now, I could be snide.

You were being snide, and were being snide about the fact that you’re incapable of or don’t bother going to primary sources.

It should be something to feel shame over, not smug about.

[RemarkLima]

Ken_Code said:

RemarkLima said:

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat…

…Now, I could be snide.

You were being snide, and were being snide about the fact that you’re incapable of or don’t bother going to primary sources.

It should be something to feel shame over, not smug about.

OK, I'll bite... What do you read that requires going to primary sources that isn't related to your work or hobbies? Concrete examples or links.

[Ken_Code]

RemarkLima said:

OK, I'll bite... What do you read that requires going to primary sources that isn't related to your work or hobbies? Concrete examples or links.

I recently read the Cass review, a research paper on reallocating housing rather than building more, some work on whether the acceleration of the universe is slowing and a summary of the data on the new generation of appetite suppressants.

If you aren’t going to primary sources or high-quality research or summations then where are you getting your information from?

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publicatio...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87174...

[RemarkLima]

Ken_Code said:

I recently read the Cass review, a research paper on reallocating housing rather than building more, some work on whether the acceleration of the universe is slowing and a summary of the data on the new generation of appetite suppressants.

If you aren’t going to primary sources or high-quality research or summations then where are you getting your information from?

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publicatio...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87174...

Thank you.

Sadly, with a young family, my time is work, family and anything left over for cars. A number of my family are in the medical industry so there's conversations around those subject - so I'd heard a lot about the appetite suppressants and how they have been transformative.

I recently attended the top 50 innovators conference in London for 2 of the 3 days, so lots of high level information - those trying to fundamentally change the microbiome, those manufacturing pharmaceuticals in microgravity, blood pumps that can fit into a heart, and large physics model (similar to LLMs) to massively speed up CFD processes (to almost real time in some situations). All incredibly interesting, but I'm cognisant to know that I'd never know more than the pub talk soundbites about most of these subjects.

My work requires constant learning, so much of the research efforts go into this. Otherwise, for news, generally the FT, Economist and New Scientist when times allows. But even publications like those are very much surface level information, requiring little expertise to get something from them.

I'll read the Cass one, as it's certainly a real issue with the UK at the moment!

As a case in point, Brexit - economists, financial experts, and most of the intelligentsia said it would be bad, yet you can listen to experts in their fields, or you can listen to Farage with a line of immigrants to the UK or Boris in front of a bus with a big number on it... So at least 51% of the UK didn't listen to experts

[Brother D]

captain_cynic said:

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.

Ok.
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

LOL...

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.

I don't have too much in this - but Biden kinda did say that, and this report is from a pro-democrat news outlet:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-biden-...

And he did say he gurantees that those vaccinated will be completely protected by infection:

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-heal...

[captain_cynic]

Brother D said:

I don't have too much in this - but Biden kinda did say that, and this report is from a pro-democrat news outlet:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-biden-...

And he did say he gurantees that those vaccinated will be completely protected by infection:

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-heal...

He didn't say you'd die within a year without them. That was the assertion that was made.

The second assetions he made was that multiple world leaders said it. We have a very tenuous statement from Biden taken out of context.

The CTers on this thread are doing what they usually do and throwing links out there and claiming they say something they dont, hoping no one actually reads them.

So flat out lies as per usual from the CT crowd.