Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
isaldiri said:
It certainly might be as extreme and arguemt to propose either of the above. The latter (especially when it fits an existing belief) certainly does not seem to be any less common than the former though does it?
And while it might be a little difficult to know what to make of a researcher who likes to argue most medical research is flawed, it's also a little difficult to know what to make of someone who likes to argue most medical research is sound but who also chooses to ignore or dismiss any studies or results that might have outcomes that conflict with what they believe in.
The stanford article that puts forward a couple of examples/studies (one of which I believe the Ioannidis has been cited in rather a lot of other studies so probably (at least imo anyway, ymmv obviously) can be considered quite a robust one) that show repeatability is and has been something of a problem across quite a few studies. That it seems has also been something that has been observed in various other scientific journals/articles. As such, imo, it isn't quite so extreme a position to then wonder at times how much of some established treatment/protocols are justified given the original starting point that determined those might well have had various conflicts of interest and not quite been as conclusive as they had suggested.
The Stamford article is not though supporting what you are saying. And while it might be a little difficult to know what to make of a researcher who likes to argue most medical research is flawed, it's also a little difficult to know what to make of someone who likes to argue most medical research is sound but who also chooses to ignore or dismiss any studies or results that might have outcomes that conflict with what they believe in.
The stanford article that puts forward a couple of examples/studies (one of which I believe the Ioannidis has been cited in rather a lot of other studies so probably (at least imo anyway, ymmv obviously) can be considered quite a robust one) that show repeatability is and has been something of a problem across quite a few studies. That it seems has also been something that has been observed in various other scientific journals/articles. As such, imo, it isn't quite so extreme a position to then wonder at times how much of some established treatment/protocols are justified given the original starting point that determined those might well have had various conflicts of interest and not quite been as conclusive as they had suggested.
The first example, the heart attack, was down to the interpretation and implementation - the test itself was sound. If you repeated that test you would find the same results if you tested it amongst that same group of thinner fitter women. What they were referring to was NOT the inability to repeat the experiment but the difference between the skewed sample set in the test vs the reality of a broad population.
The guy who found the error in the formula, this happens, but it is not a common trait of research. It is a mistake. And they do happen. But this again is not widespread when looking at research I am guessing. But again...
..Ive asked a couple of times, but when you looked into this and found conflicting articles to the Stamford one, what were they and why did you discard that evidence. Before coming to your conclusion of an 'not irregular' pattern of mistakes? You must have examined both sides of the debate to be so sure in your statment. You perhaps have some data that cites the % of mistakes of research therefore being able to state what you did?
Edited by coldel on Wednesday 22 May 09:30
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. 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.
Hands over eyes.
Nothing to see here folks.
Don't pay attention to the clown.
Classic case of denial to real world events.
STe_rsv4 said:
Fingers in ears.
Hands over eyes.
Nothing to see here folks.
Don't pay attention to the clown.
Classic case of denial to real world events.
Maybe put the debate to bed and just post the videos in the COVID thread? Hands over eyes.
Nothing to see here folks.
Don't pay attention to the clown.
Classic case of denial to real world events.
The whole pandemic globally had millions of things said by hundreds of leaders at different points - its hard to cut through it post event and find these things.
GeneralBanter said:
The vax doesn’t prevent transmission per se that would be impossible, but by reducing the time with the illness it would reduce spread as even a day less of being infectious is a day less giving it to others.
Ah! but this is not what was stated. If they (the powers that be) came out and stated at the time what you have said, that it didn't prevent transmission, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What a lot of people cant get their head around in this thread is that they unequivocally stated that getting the jab would 100% prevent transmission. Yes, that right. 100%
Not 99.9%
not 99%
100%
That is what's known as disinformation, especially when even the CEO of Pfizer admitted they knew the jab didn't prevent transmission in court.
Its not a CT to have evidence of pharmaceutical CEO's / CDC directors & POTUS saying this.
coldel said:
Maybe put the debate to bed and just post the videos in the COVID thread?
The whole pandemic globally had millions of things said by hundreds of leaders at different points - its hard to cut through it post event and find these things.
Unfortunately as I don't have the required 1000 post count, I cant post in NP&E.The whole pandemic globally had millions of things said by hundreds of leaders at different points - its hard to cut through it post event and find these things.
STe_rsv4 said:
coldel said:
Maybe put the debate to bed and just post the videos in the COVID thread?
The whole pandemic globally had millions of things said by hundreds of leaders at different points - its hard to cut through it post event and find these things.
Unfortunately as I don't have the required 1000 post count, I cant post in NP&E.The whole pandemic globally had millions of things said by hundreds of leaders at different points - its hard to cut through it post event and find these things.
paulguitar said:
STe_rsv4 said:
the CEO of Pfizer admitted they knew the jab didn't prevent transmission in court.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/https://x.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377618480527257...
STe_rsv4 said:
Fingers in ears.
Hands over eyes.
Nothing to see here folks.
Don't pay attention to the clown.
Classic case of denial to real world events.
Yep, pay no attention to this clown and what he makes up.Hands over eyes.
Nothing to see here folks.
Don't pay attention to the clown.
Classic case of denial to real world events.
It's always hilariously ironic when CTers think that it's everyone else who paid no attention to world events.
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? 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.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unvaccinated-winte...
And
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-bi...
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.
paulguitar said:
Loads of people, from all positions, said stuff that was subsequently made to look inaccurate, or in many cases may have been dishonest/questionable at the time.
As Coldel says though, we're in danger of just turning into another CV thread which I doubt anyone wants.
Agreed As Coldel says though, we're in danger of just turning into another CV thread which I doubt anyone wants.
On subject, I think the gist is such that science isn't a pure art, and has the bias and subjectivity - whilst the method does try to remove this, the human element will always be a weak link. For example, back to smoking, if it was a marketing lead effort to suppress the knowledge, then a) the colouring in department has more sway than the actual science department and b) enough scientists were silenced, obfuscated, cancelled, funding withdrew etc to not create a clarion call for action.
I assume it's a similar strategy with climate change and EV's. I see so many of the anti EV arguments just make no sense, they're too heavy (unlike the massive SUVs?), hydrogen is the way forward (because using electric to crack water and then transport, store and convert back to water is going to be more efficient that just using the electric?), they're too quiet and run over pedestrians (never listened to a new petrol car which is virtually silent?), etc...
STe_rsv4 said:
GeneralBanter said:
The vax doesn’t prevent transmission per se that would be impossible, but by reducing the time with the illness it would reduce spread as even a day less of being infectious is a day less giving it to others.
Ah! but this is not what was stated. If they (the powers that be) came out and stated at the time what you have said, that it didn't prevent transmission, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What a lot of people cant get their head around in this thread is that they unequivocally stated that getting the jab would 100% prevent transmission. Yes, that right. 100%
Not 99.9%
not 99%
100%
That is what's known as disinformation, especially when even the CEO of Pfizer admitted they knew the jab didn't prevent transmission in court.
Its not a CT to have evidence of pharmaceutical CEO's / CDC directors & POTUS saying this.
Personally I don't care who said what, from my own knowledge its obvious the vax wouldn't stop transmission but it would help a lot by reducing it and so all was good. Subsequently its been shown to have saved hundreds of thousands of lives so QED.
We would be in a different world now but for the efforts of scientists and governments in getting a vaccine so quick. So well done to them for doing so in the face of the unparalleled threat to humanity.
Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:17
Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:54
Testing is a complex field for sure, but I think its important to separate out the process end to end. For example:
Brief created by one person
Planning by another
Execution by another
Test outcomes by another
Further communication of outcomes and contextualising by another
If you sat at home now and flipped a coin 10 times and counted heads and tails, then repeated it, you would quite possibly get a different outcome. That does not mean by any shape or form that there is something wrong with either test. Nor does it mean the test is not reliable nor repeatable. If you repeated that ten flips say 100 times though, the average outcome might sway slightly toward one side, and thats due to variables from technique to even small differences in weight of the coin possibly!
Now, if someone in the comms team decides to communicate something else, that doesn't negate the test process itself, nor does it mean it was done wrong or not repeatable.
Brief created by one person
Planning by another
Execution by another
Test outcomes by another
Further communication of outcomes and contextualising by another
If you sat at home now and flipped a coin 10 times and counted heads and tails, then repeated it, you would quite possibly get a different outcome. That does not mean by any shape or form that there is something wrong with either test. Nor does it mean the test is not reliable nor repeatable. If you repeated that ten flips say 100 times though, the average outcome might sway slightly toward one side, and thats due to variables from technique to even small differences in weight of the coin possibly!
Now, if someone in the comms team decides to communicate something else, that doesn't negate the test process itself, nor does it mean it was done wrong or not repeatable.
GeneralBanter said:
Personally I don't care who said what,
And here it is. Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:17
Edited by GeneralBanter on Wednesday 22 May 10:54
Its easier to deny or "forget" exactly what was said when it doesn't meet your agenda.
Ill probably bow out for a while as I can see that I'm banging my head against a wall in here.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff