Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
160 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 154 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,901 Year: 1,013/6,534 Month: 1,013/682 Week: 66/182 Day: 11/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief Versus The Scientific Method
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 451 of 480 (891064)
01-14-2022 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Theodoric
01-14-2022 10:50 AM


So you think their big crime is not swallowing the climate change agenda whole? Therefore we cannot believe the doctors, virologists, medical professionals and etc who state their true opinions? Not sure what sort of nazi nightmare you are confusing with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Theodoric, posted 01-14-2022 10:50 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Theodoric, posted 01-14-2022 11:49 PM drlove has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7149
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 452 of 480 (891065)
01-14-2022 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by drlove
01-14-2022 9:38 PM


Peek Godwin
Well, I never lower myself to discuss things with anyone that pulls a Godwin. So goodbye, good riddance.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazi_analogies

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by drlove, posted 01-14-2022 9:38 PM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 2:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.9


(5)
Message 453 of 480 (891066)
01-15-2022 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by drlove
01-14-2022 9:32 PM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
drlove writes:

Can you show how the blind aspect of the test was done? To have a group monitored that was unvaccinated as compared to a vaccinated group, can you guarantee all that group never got vaccinated? If they or some of them did, then well, you know.

Ok, you have no evidence at all that the AZ vaccine trials were not properly tested. And I've shown you why and how it was possible to do it in the time scales. So now that you fully understand, I'm sure you won't repeat that baseless claim again.

So having failed there you instead want me to tell you how I know that the control group wasn't also vaccinated. You are more than a little paranoid aren't you?

Anyway, offhand I can think of a few reasons.

The first is that the scientific process prevents mistakes like that happening. And if somehow they happen anyway the process finds and fixes them. And, of course, we now have billions of people participating in the results of the trial which proves the efficacy of the original trials. So that's the end of that dumb-arse accusation.

But also, had you given it any thought at all, you'd have worked out that because there were no vaccines available before their manufacture, people in the control group had no access to them.

If you're accusing the scientists of being corrupt and vaccinating the control group too, the result would have shown that the vaccine was no better than no vaccine. And that any side effects would also appear in the control group. ie exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Do'h.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by drlove, posted 01-14-2022 9:32 PM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by vimesey, posted 01-15-2022 8:33 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 457 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 2:52 PM Tangle has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1283
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.0


(2)
Message 454 of 480 (891067)
01-15-2022 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Tangle
01-15-2022 4:56 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
But also, had you given it any thought at all, you'd have worked out that because there were no vaccines available before their manufacture, people in the control group had no access to them.

If you're accusing the scientists of being corrupt and vaccinating the control group too, the result would have shown that the vaccine was no better than no vaccine. And that any side effects would also appear in the control group. ie exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Do'h.

You have painted our Russian cub into a logical corner from which there is no rational way out.

That leaves him with 2 options. Repeat the lies - but we all know that's just bald assertion without evidence. Or move on to a different strand of disinformation. He'll have to try one or the other to avoid his handler's wrath.

(By the way drlove, I'd recommend coming across to the light from the dark side. Not only are the people much nicer, but whisky is so much better than vodka).


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2022 4:56 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20507
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 455 of 480 (891071)
01-15-2022 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by drlove
01-14-2022 1:28 AM


drlove writes:

Great Barrington Declaration and Petition

Though this was from a while ago, that fact doesn't change anything and the points are still valid. The declaration was made on October 4, 2020, even before vaccines were available.

They join 916,000 others in that opinion, and that is just one site! Let's not pretend science says we need lockdowns.

Science doesn't say we need lockdowns. Science says that the virus is a respiratory illness that spreads through the air, leading one to think that minimizing the sharing of air among people would restrict the spread of the virus, and numerous studies have confirmed this unequivocally.

Lockdowns are one approach to help minimize the sharing of air among people and have drawbacks. Where one makes the tradeoff between virus caused illness and death versus various approaches to restricting human interaction is a difficult question, and the equation changes with the length of time involved. When we thought that everyone would be on board in fighting the virus by wearing masks and avoiding other people whenever possible we thought measures like lockdowns would be a short term thing and that by the end of 2020 the virus would be in our rear view mirror. In that context such measures seemed reasonable.

But everyone wasn't on board in fighting the virus, a great many still are not on board, and here we are nearly two years later with the virus raging worse than ever and likely to do so through at least much of the first half of the year. We now realize, as we didn't a couple years ago, that the virus will be a permanent part of our public health landscape.

But all public health measures that were employed, whether lockdowns or masks or social distancing or whatever, have their place. Lockdowns still merit consideration whenever there's a severe and dangerous viral outbreak, whether this virus or any other.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by drlove, posted 01-14-2022 1:28 AM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 3:09 PM Percy has responded

  
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 456 of 480 (891072)
01-15-2022 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Theodoric
01-14-2022 11:49 PM


The lockdowns and covid related agenda has resulted is a loss of freedom and employment and travel. Much of this was based on lying about science and other things. If you think that is 'godwin' that is fine. That sounds like blather to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Theodoric, posted 01-14-2022 11:49 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 457 of 480 (891073)
01-15-2022 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Tangle
01-15-2022 4:56 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
"Ideally, there should be a 50:50 allocation of treated and control subjects. If only 30% of subjects are in the control group, the study loses significant power. If only 10% are in the control group, the power of the study is only 40 to 60%, writes Mark H. White, II, Ph.D. At the moment, about 30% of Americans have not taken the COVID vaccine. And government keeps trying to reduce that percentage to as close to zero as possible.

There was a 50:50 allocation in the preauthorization studies of the COVID vaccines. But the blinding has been broken, and those who received placebo are now eligible to receive active vaccine. Thus, there is virtually NO control group for potential late adverse consequences."

Why vaccine trials weren't responsible 'science' – not even close

As for scientists or doctors being corrupt, that all depends on what side of the issue we are talking about. The so called science here is for hire. It is only a matter of interpreting and belief. When we have drug companies wanting to hide results for many decades that should tell you something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2022 4:56 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2022 5:25 PM drlove has responded

  
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 458 of 480 (891074)
01-15-2022 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Percy
01-15-2022 2:08 PM


quote:
Though this was from a while ago, that fact doesn't change anything and the points are still valid. The declaration was made on October 4, 2020, even before vaccines were available.
It does suggest that the response to the problem should be different than it was. That would have changed a lot.

quote:
Science doesn't say we need lockdowns. Science says that the virus is a respiratory illness that spreads through the air, leading one to think that minimizing the sharing of air among people would restrict the spread of the virus, and numerous studies have confirmed this unequivocally.

Others suggested herd immunity would better be achieved without the pretense of separation. After all, losing your job and business and then going to a restaurant with less people in it doesn't really make sense. No mask needed at the table yet a foot away it is 'needed'. That was not based on science. No singing in a church but you can line up in a cosco round the block and round the store. Vaccinating little children! That is science? Whatever the virus was it is changing. The recent one for most people was like a cold, even lasting less time.

quote:
But everyone wasn't on board in fighting the virus, a great many still are not on board
The way to fight it, say many experts is early treatment. Most treatments known to work and recommended by some professionals were vilified and suppressed. Some say that covid deaths should for the most part be considered murders! Others suggested that masks were abused and not the way to fight anything. Some people try to vaccinate all the children and think that is the way to fight. That is not science. It has nothing to do with people not wanting to fight! It has to do with wanting to fight in a way that will win. The lying and oppression involved in the covid agendas has resulted in a little boy that cried wolf situation. Many do not believe a word they say any more and never will even if they happened to yell out the truth.

Lockdowns are selective. Some get locked others don't. Some scientist's say they do not work. Others say they do. Again this is belief and opinion, not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Percy, posted 01-15-2022 2:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Percy, posted 01-15-2022 8:02 PM drlove has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 459 of 480 (891076)
01-15-2022 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by drlove
01-15-2022 2:52 PM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
I read your links, do you read mine?

Jane M Orient MD, is the author of that article posted on your favourite misinformation website. She is the Executive Director of this obnoxious organisation of right wing nutters like yourself

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association that promotes medical misinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy. The association was founded in 1943 to oppose a government attempt to nationalize health care. The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Tom Price."

https://en.wikipedia.org/...American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

I'm afraid I'm not going to look any further into anything she says.

There was a 50:50 allocation in the preauthorization studies of the COVID vaccines. But the blinding has been broken, and those who received placebo are now eligible to receive active vaccine. Thus, there is virtually NO control group for potential late adverse consequences."

As your quote points out, the trials were done correctly.

The subsequent global roll out of the vaccines and the various yellow card systems have demonstrated both the effectiveness and the safety of the vaccines. I could post you dozens of these, but you're not interested in real information are you?

Multiple population scale studies have made the early small-sample trial studies totally redundant. Sorry.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 2:52 PM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:33 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20507
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 460 of 480 (891078)
01-15-2022 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by drlove
01-15-2022 3:09 PM


drlove writes:

Others suggested herd immunity would better be achieved without the pretense of separation. After all, losing your job and business and then going to a restaurant with less people in it doesn't really make sense. No mask needed at the table yet a foot away it is 'needed'. That was not based on science.

I think you're on the right track, but this isn't quite accurate. Public policy responses for combating the virus, such as masks, social distancing, closing bars and restaurants and non-essential businesses, cancelling social events, cancelling sporting events, etc., used what science tells about how to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, which is very simple: prevent people from sharing each other's air.

What wasn't based on science is the expectation that half measures would work.

Here you provide another example of not quite accurately capturing why what happened happened:

No singing in a church but you can line up in a Cosco round the block and round the store. Vaccinating little children! That is science?

First, a couple comments on the part about "vaccinating little children!". The Barrington declaration was issued pre-vaccine and took no stance on vaccinating children. And I hope you're not against vaccinating children. Shortly after birth babies are given a hepatitis B shot. The MMR shot is given around one year. Vaccinating children is very important.

And the example of singing in church and Costco (not Cosco) lines 'round the block isn't an apt comparison since church is indoors and lines 'round the block are outdoors.

But your point is clear and right on the money. It makes no sense to shutdown some businesses if many other businesses remain open (because they're essential) and if many people ignore the public health advisories. You don't need science to tell you that if your glass is full of holes that it won't hold water.

Advice from public health officials has been problematic from the beginning. The worst was also the earliest when we were told (including by Fauci) that the public didn't need to wear masks. This was patently untrue. The excuse given for telling this lie is that the nation had an insufficient mask supply, and masks were needed by the health care professionals tasked with treating infected (and very contagious) people. There weren't enough masks to go around for both health care professionals and the general public.

But many, many people knew that the public did need to wear masks and that telling them otherwise was a lie, and they said so. And when the lie was finally admitted it fomented distrust in public health officials, making dealing with the pandemic all the more difficult. I still can't believe Fauci participated in this. Here's a link to a CNN article explaining the whole affair, including what CNN seems to think are acceptable excuses, but they're not: Did Fauci say not to wear masks?

Public health officials are starting to do a better job of providing information to the public. The most common mistake made now, one Fauci is also making, is giving advice they think people will follow rather than advice they think will work. The advice they're giving now will definitely not work if the goal is to eliminate the virus, and they're starting to be honest about that, too, now saying that we'll be living with covid from here on out.

Whatever the virus was it is changing. The recent one for most people was like a cold, even lasting less time.

Yes, the virus is evolving. All viruses evolve, some fast, some slow, and some anywhere in between. The omicron variant has symptoms more mild and more cold-like than other variants, but it still has a much, much higher mortality rate than a cold (mortality rate 0.0003% max), and the actual mortality rate for omicron among nations will vary widely because of different conditions on the ground, different virus histories, and different vaccination rates. We don't yet have an approximate mortality rate for omicron, my guess is around 0.1%.

Mortality will also depend on how effective the vaccines are against omicron. We're know they're less effective, but how much? Consider this hypothetical. If omicron is 80% less fatal than other variants, but the vaccines are 80% less effective against it, then for vaccinated people omicron will be just as deadly. What will the actual situation be? We don't know yet.

The way to fight it, say many experts is early treatment.

Early treatment with what? Monoclonal antibody is in short supply, as are the newly available antiviral pills.

Most treatments known to work and recommended by some professionals were vilified and suppressed.

What "treatments known to work" do you mean? If it's hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin, they very likely do not work. Legitimate studies have so far found no benefit for either prevention or improved outcomes for either one.

And why would professionals who recommend treatments "known to work" be "vilified and suppressed?" That makes no sense. You're either making things up or someone has bamboozled you.

Some say that covid deaths should for the most part be considered murders!

"Some say"? More like, "Wingnuts say."

Others suggested that masks were abused and not the way to fight anything.

Gee, all those TV medical shows, all those wasted masks!

Some people try to vaccinate all the children and think that is the way to fight.

"Some say", "others suggested", "some people try," these are the lead-ins you use when you have no reliable sources of information.

That is not science.

Sounds pretty bogus to me, too. That's why it was all "Some say," "others," and "some people." This is the standard approach for introducing material from

It has nothing to do with people not wanting to fight! It has to do with wanting to fight in a way that will win.

Can't tell what this is in reference to.

The lying and oppression involved in the covid agendas has resulted in a little boy that cried wolf situation.

I agree that the public health response has been deplorable, but what you are proposing is far worse.

Many do not believe a word they say any more and never will even if they happened to yell out the truth.

To the extent this is true, they brought it on themselves.

Lockdowns are selective. Some get locked others don't.

Yes, exactly. Unless almost everyone is locked down and following the other protocols, the virus will still spread.

Some scientist's say they do not work. Others say they do.

If we're talking about preventing spread of the virus, of course lockdowns work. How could they not? You shutdown a workplace and make everyone stay home then none of those people can spread the virus at work. That lockdowns are 100% effective at keeping people from spreading the virus is just self-evidently true.

The problem is what people do aside from work, the aforementioned bars and restaurants and all that.

Again this is belief and opinion, not science.

You're right, it isn't science. It's public health officials attempting to define health measures to fight the virus using all the information at their disposal, including science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 3:09 PM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2022 10:00 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 463 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:39 AM Percy has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4818
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 461 of 480 (891079)
01-15-2022 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Percy
01-15-2022 8:02 PM


drlove writes:

Others suggested herd immunity would better be achieved without the pretense of separation.

Well, if he really wants to achieve herd immunity through getting everybody infected and he's OK with millions of deaths and disabled (disabled number more), then that just reveals what he is. Since he is so committed to natural immunity (which has become popular among deniers such as Dennis Prager), we should encourage him to seek natural immunity to ebola, rabies, and the bubonic plague.

And the example of singing in church and Costco (not Cosco) lines 'round the block isn't an apt comparison since church is indoors and lines 'round the block are outdoors.

I was in those CostCo lines pre-vaccine (fortunately I was less than halfway through my TP supply when it hit, so I wasn't affected by the TP shortage -- 1 CostCo bag of TP lasts me nearly 7 months). Like many grocery stores, they opened an hour early on certain days for seniors (I qualify) -- many other businesses, including restaurants, had you make your purchase on-line and then when you came to pick it up they put it in your car trunk). Especially since this was pre-vaccine, we all wore masks, grabbed a shopping cart, and got in line with the cart ensuring the six feet of separation. And since that line, which would go nearly halfway around the store, was outdoors, then using the indoors recommended separation distance was being overly cautious. Then an employee would meter our entry, allowing only so many in at a time such that they limited the number of customers inside the store at any given time (ie, once the allowed number had entered, then as customers came out with their purchases the traffic director would allow that many to enter).

So what the hell is drlove's problem with how that evolution was executed?

As for "singing in church", that was typically without masks and crowding the congregation together and even encouraging them to abandon any attempts at social distancing, avoiding contact (instead hugging and shaking hands), or any other precautions. At my doctor visits when he had to examine my face under my mask, then he would tell me to remove and not exhale or talk. But singing, like talking loudly, sprays more aerosol much farther, thus helping the virus spread faster and more effectively. All those churches were doing was to defy every single common sense health measure there is, caring less than nothing about their own lives and health or for anyone else's (most especially the ones closest and dearest to them such as friends and family) ... but then zealously harming and even killing others indiscriminately has always been the Christian way, hasn't it?

drlove writes:

Most treatments known to work and recommended by some professionals were vilified and suppressed.


What "treatments known to work" do you mean? If it's hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin, they very likely do not work.

Or drinking bleach. Or eating dirt. Or drinking your own urine ... though I'll bet that drlove is so abysmally stupid that he doesn't know that for the urine to be effective you have to have eaten lots of asperagus first and given it time to work through your system into the bladder.

Edited by dwise1, : Changed "Like many retail businesses" to "Like many grocery stores"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Percy, posted 01-15-2022 8:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 462 of 480 (891080)
01-16-2022 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by Tangle
01-15-2022 5:25 PM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
If there is no control group how is that being done correctly? As for the doctor you don't like apparently because they are not commies or something, they are still doctors! You do not get to disqualify professionals just because you do not like their opinions or politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2022 5:25 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2022 4:15 AM drlove has responded

  
drlove
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01-02-2022
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 463 of 480 (891081)
01-16-2022 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Percy
01-15-2022 8:02 PM


wowsa
quote:
I think you're on the right track, but this isn't quite accurate. Public policy responses for combating the virus, such as masks, social distancing, closing bars and restaurants and non-essential businesses, cancelling social events, cancelling sporting events, etc., used what science tells about how to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, which is very simple: prevent people from sharing each other's air.

There are also studies showing masks are a joke. Showing lockdowns are not the way to go. The selective closures are also not related to science.

Here is a passage from a man of science regarding the approaches taken.

"In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did to some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines."
Ehud Qimron’s Powerful Letter to the Israeli Ministry of Health

So following science has nothing to do with the response we have seen. Once again both sides claim science.

This post is getting too long, maybe look at the other points you made another time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Percy, posted 01-15-2022 8:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 01-16-2022 6:45 PM drlove has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.9


(3)
Message 464 of 480 (891082)
01-16-2022 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by drlove
01-16-2022 3:33 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
drlove writes:

If there is no control group how is that being done correctly?

All the trials had control groups. Your own article told you this. The vaccines have gone through all the regulatory, gold standard double-blind tests.

Now that the vaccinations are in the arms of billions of people, the control groups are the unvaccinated. Globally there are hundreds of studies proving the vaccine's effectiveness and safety. Multiple post-authorisation studies have been completed and many more will follow. It's what science does.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:33 AM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:06 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20507
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 465 of 480 (891094)
01-16-2022 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by drlove
01-16-2022 3:39 AM


Re: wowsa
drlove writes:

There are also studies showing masks are a joke.

This is a bald assertion with no factual support. Can you provide links to these studies?

Showing lockdowns are not the way to go.

This is another bald assertion with no factual support. Can you also provide links to these studies?

The selective closures are also not related to science.

This is yet another bald assertion with no factual support that ignores everything I just explained about public health officials including science in their policy making.

Here is a passage from a man of science regarding the approaches taken.

And here is a passage from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

If there are points from Qimron's letter that you'd like to make, please do it in the manner outlined in the Forum Guidelines and I'll be happy to respond.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:39 AM drlove has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:22 AM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022