Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
GMT13 said:
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?
GMT13 said:
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?
...and to repeat what was the purpose of vaccine mandates then?
I'm still waiting.
it's just utterly thick as f
k (thread title). How would a vaccine stop a virus at point of entry? It can only ever work inside your body. In your bloodstream... because that's where it is inserted. It doesn't morph into some virus-proof mouth and throat or whatever they are imagining.
It's a bit like getting caught in the rain but knowing you're 2 mins from home with a warm bath and dry clothes. Yes you got a bit wet and would have been dry with an umbrella but you didn't have one.
CTists are like WHERE'S MUH UMBRELLUH VACCINENERDS ALL SHEEP WIV DERE BAFFS AND HEETING ON ROFL ROFL.
just like arguing with toddlers. It requires a level of knowledge and education that just isn't there.
at least toddlers grow up.
k (thread title). How would a vaccine stop a virus at point of entry? It can only ever work inside your body. In your bloodstream... because that's where it is inserted. It doesn't morph into some virus-proof mouth and throat or whatever they are imagining. It's a bit like getting caught in the rain but knowing you're 2 mins from home with a warm bath and dry clothes. Yes you got a bit wet and would have been dry with an umbrella but you didn't have one.
CTists are like WHERE'S MUH UMBRELLUH VACCINENERDS ALL SHEEP WIV DERE BAFFS AND HEETING ON ROFL ROFL.
just like arguing with toddlers. It requires a level of knowledge and education that just isn't there.
at least toddlers grow up.
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.
Although at some point were the politicians saying that the vaccine would stop transmission - IIRC Biden said that.
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...
captain_cynic said:
otolith said:
In the use of multimedia for nursing education, if I remember rightly.
Yep, a 2 minute search reveals that.It was given to him for work already done, he didn't study for the PhD.
But he's a conspiracy hero so they'll go to any length to defend it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlr9uE3G_GQ
I mean it is from an official inquiry evidence unless that has been made up of course
isaldiri said:
Blown2CV said:
some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.
I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.
Apart from the minor problem that it is exactly that which isn't happening.... and it's not just 'CTs' who are pointing it out.I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/can-you-repeat-that/
The bigger questions therefore concern why there are these well-known examples of differences in study findings, why don't all research studies on a topic lead to the same results, how can you minimise sources of bias in a study, how can you assess the scientific robustness and credibility of a study etc. The studies of hormone replacement therapy were a classic example of how systematic differences in the groups being compared that were originally not picked up on could lead to potentially contradictory conclusions some years later because of the way the studies were designed. No study design is perfect, but some types such as double blinded randomised controlled trials are considerably more reliable than say a case series. In an RCT two or more groups of participants are randomly selected for either treatment or comparator and therefore, at least in theory, all potential factors such as age or educational level are equally distributed across both groups and cannot be an explanation for why one group does better or worse. A case series, such as a description of the first few cases of a new infectious disease is important for describing basic characteristics and for generating hypotheses but cannot reliably estimate the magnitude of effect of a new treatment. 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.
The related point that article omitted to explain is that in scientific-medical studies there is therefore effectively a hierarchy of quality of evidence, with meta-analyses from systematic reviews of RCTs at the top of the pyramid (ie, if after exhaustively searching for well-conducted RCTs you find they all point in the same direction regarding the evidence, that's as close to conclusive that something works or not as you could hope for). A single large RCT would be the next best thing, with cohort studies, case controlled studies, case series and finally expert opinion featuring in lower ranks of evidence.
That's not to say that even systematic reviews can't be wrong (thinking famously of the way fraudulent studies into ivermectin were presented at one point during the pandemic). The point is that it's not necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject every research study just because there's no such thing as the absolute perfect study. There are perfectly legitimate mitigations that improve the quality of research and reduce potential sources of bias; if there weren't we'd never be able to make any scientific advances. Plus it helps to have a few basic questions at the back of one's mind when reading any scientific paper to consider how robust it is when passing judgement on its conclusions.
Lannister902 said:
I don't understand how this thread is still going!?...
It must've been established by now the op is a little dim, but there can't be that many more naive lemmings on PH?
My goodness, an Andrew Tate fan has called someone dim. It must've been established by now the op is a little dim, but there can't be that many more naive lemmings on PH?
Lannister902 said:
I wouldn't pay for any sort of course, but I've looked into what he has to say, I agree with the majority of what he says.
Chromegrill said:
It's as extreme an argument to propose that pretty much nothing in scientific research can be exactly replicated and therefore much of what is published cannot be taken seriously, as it is to accept a research finding (or for that matter a claim about anything from a random Tiktok influencer) without any attempt at critically appraising it for its validity. It's a little difficult to know what to make of a researcher who likes to argue that most medical research is flawed, as logically that should apply equally to his or her own research findings too which suggests they cannot be taken as seriously as they would like to be.
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.
RemarkLima said:
But some vaccines are sterilising, e.g. Chicken Pox or Polio.
So, surely the answer is, it depends. And in the case of the 'vid ones, no they do not.
I suspect that's maybe where the confusion stems from. Now, one can either consider the difference and accept that this one is one that reduces the viral load so lowers the chance of transmission as well as symptoms rather than stops it altogether, or one can accept the real truth which is that lizards wanted to bum your gran. So, surely the answer is, it depends. And in the case of the 'vid ones, no they do not.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 21st May 22:23
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff