Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
559 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 556 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,257 Year: 4,369/6,534 Month: 583/900 Week: 107/182 Day: 14/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief Versus The Scientific Method
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 466 of 513 (891096)
01-16-2022 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by AZPaul3
01-05-2022 2:05 PM


Re: Yet Another Attempt To Further reframe my arguments
AZPaul3 writes:

But not all observations are evidence. Collected data should not be considered as evidence until they have been verified, the role of peer review and duplication.

I think we agree but are using the same terminology differently. To me observations are evidence, but humans are horrible observers. There are a couple excellent examples. Percival Lowell observed canals on Mars, and many others thought they saw them, too. And Prosper-René Blondlot observed N-rays, and many others thought they saw them, too. But neither the canals nor N-rays had any objective reality.

At least one webpage agrees with me, Empirical Evidence: A Definition:

quote:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 01-05-2022 2:05 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 467 of 513 (891097)
01-17-2022 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Tangle
01-16-2022 4:15 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
There is also data showing the decreased effectiveness of vaccines, hence the boosters. As for the article I posted it actually said there were no effective control group. There are also a million adverse effects reported, and probably, by some estimates 20 times more than that. There are tens of thousands dead as a doornail, as a result of the vaccines, and probably again 20 times more than that. They are trying to mandate it for kids for heaven sake, that is ridiculous. The guy who claimed he represented science was caught lying to congress. Some of the companies doing the testing and making the product have been involved in multiple court cases for injuring people and fraud. So what science do you have to offer saying that the (ingredients unknown) pseudo vaccines are safe in the long term? Ha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2022 4:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Tangle, posted 01-17-2022 4:04 AM drlove has replied

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 468 of 513 (891098)
01-17-2022 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Percy
01-16-2022 6:45 PM


Re: wowsa
quote:
A former adviser to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has compiled a list of more than 150 studies and articles presenting data and evidence that universal masking is ineffective in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and causes harm.

"A former adviser to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has compiled a list of more than 150 studies and articles presenting data and evidence that universal masking is ineffective in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and causes harm."

150 studies show masks ineffective, harmful

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

If something may kill millions that is a bad thing.

"COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty"

COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty

Then there is this
"Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns"

Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns

or this
"Lockdowns kill: 30% more people died by overdose in 2020"

Lockdowns kill: 30% more people died by overdose in 2020

"Stanford doc: Lockdowns 'biggest public health mistake' ever"

Stanford doc: Lockdowns 'biggest public health mistake' ever

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

quote:
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.

"Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study"

Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study

Selevtive groups can meet and other groups cannot. How is that science? Support your bald assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 01-16-2022 6:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Percy, posted 01-17-2022 4:10 PM drlove has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(5)
Message 469 of 513 (891099)
01-17-2022 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by drlove
01-17-2022 3:06 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
drlove writes:

There is also data showing the decreased effectiveness of vaccines, hence the boosters.

Of course, all forms of immunity decline over time. The boosters have been used to protect further against the new wave of Omicron.

As for the article I posted it actually said there were no effective control group.

The article you posted said this

quote:
There was a 50:50 (vaccinated and unvaccinated control) allocation in the preauthorization studies of the COVID vaccines.

So I repeat, all the vaccine trials used the gold standard double-blind trials and completed all stages prior to authorisation.

There are also a million adverse effects reported, and probably, by some estimates 20 times more than that. There are tens of thousands dead as a doornail, as a result of the vaccines, and probably again 20 times more than that.

I'm not interested in your unsupported assertions. I've already explained to you the difference between the reporting system for deaths following vaccination and deaths subsequently attributed to vaccination. In the UK those deaths currently stand at 5.

How many people have died as a result of a COVID-19 vaccine? | National Statistical

So what science do you have to offer saying that the (ingredients unknown) pseudo vaccines are safe in the long term?

It's all the same science - the vaccines will be studied pretty much forever. But we've have a very large amount of information now that shows that the vaccines are both safe and effective.

On the other part of the equation we know beyond doubt that COVID is not safe and does have severe long term consequences for those lucky enough to survive it.

Here in the UK there have been 150,000 COVID deaths and 1.3 million suffering long COVID (2% of the population).

Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK - Office for National Statistics

Ha

How old are you?


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 467 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:06 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by dwise1, posted 01-17-2022 12:51 PM Tangle has taken no action
 Message 472 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:24 PM Tangle has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 470 of 513 (891115)
01-17-2022 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Tangle
01-17-2022 4:04 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
How old are you?

You forget that trolls never mature. They are born already in an advanced stage of putrefaction which only gets ever worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Tangle, posted 01-17-2022 4:04 AM Tangle has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 471 of 513 (891117)
01-17-2022 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by drlove
01-17-2022 3:22 AM


Re: wowsa
Thank you for your research efforts. Unfortunately the Internet is full of misinformation, and you have to be careful in choosing your sources. For example:

drlove writes:

"A former adviser to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has compiled a list of more than 150 studies and articles presenting data and evidence that universal masking is ineffective in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and causes harm."

150 studies show masks ineffective, harmful

The "former adviser" is Paul Elias Alexander, a Trump administration official at HHS who "pressured federal scientists and public health agencies to suppress and edit their COVID-19 analyses to make them consistent with Trump's rhetoric." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Alexander) He justified his actions by saying he wanted to make the reports " "more upbeat so that people would feel more confident going out and spending money", and that he "did not think agencies should contradict any president's policy". He believed scientists should back the president's positions instead of science.

You didn't actually go off and find studies showing masks ineffective. You instead found a webpage with a link to a webpage (More than 150 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms ⋆ Brownstone Institute) listing studies purportedly showing masks ineffective, and you didn't actually look at a single study.

If you had looked at a few of the studies it might have given you pause before posting that link. I looked at the first three, and they don't show masks ineffective. The first didn't attempt to pinpoint mask effectiveness but was able to approximate it at less than 50%. The second study of marine recruits didn't actually assess mask effectiveness but found that in a group of three or four thousand recruits wearing masks that about 2% came down with covid - there was no control group. The third was a meta study (a study of studies) and about their own results the authors said, "Our confidence in these results is generally low...", for specific reasons see the study (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/...651858.CD006207.pub5/full).

Since none of the first three studies I examined showed masks ineffective there seemed little point in continuing down the list. But obviously the headline that there are 150 studies showing masks ineffective and harmful is off by at least three and probably a lot more.

Why don't you take another stab at finding studies showing masks ineffective. This time do your homework. Provide links to studies (not to a webpage making inaccurate claims) that actually show masks ineffective. Don't believe what others say about the studies. Examine the studies yourself, then provide links for those you're convinced show masks ineffective.

That list of 150 studies included studies purportedly showing the harm from masks. I didn't examine any of these studies since it wasn't a claim you made yourself, but I did give that part of the list a cursory look and several of the summaries showed that those studies looked at masks people had worn and examined them for bacteria, parasites, fungi and so forth, not whether the wearers had become ill. Undoubtedly they did not become ill, or at least would have become ill anyway, because any pathogens on the inside of the mask could only have come from their own exhalations and therefore were already within their body. And any pathogens on the outside of the mask would have been inhaled had they not been wearing it.

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

If something may kill millions that is a bad thing.

"COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty"

COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty

You've gone in the wrong direction. No one questions that lockdowns have a negative impact on economic activity and can increase poverty. The question was whether lockdowns reduce viral spread, thereby reducing illness, permanent disability, and death. I made clear several times that that's what I was asking you about, and the one time I fail to reiterate that point you go off in another direction.

So I ask you once again, if when you say lockdowns don't work you mean they don't prevent viral spread, then produce links to studies showing this (after having examined the studies, of course).

World Net Daily isn't accurately characterizing the blog post from the World Bank (Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Turning the corner on the pandemic in 2021?), but I won't get into the details since you obviously didn't. Increased poverty during the pandemic is very sad, no one wants it, but death is also very sad and also negatively impacts economies. For example, a family will likely descend into poverty if their breadwinner catches covid and spends a lengthy time in hospital or dies. How does one make the tradeoff between disability and death versus lost income?

Just to add a sense of perspective, a hundred million people is 1.2% of the world population.

One helpful clarification about lockdowns. The impact of lockdowns on business will vary according to the type of business. For a restaurant a lockdown is equivalent to a shutdown. For a software company, a lockdown only means everyone works from home. When assessing the impact of lockdowns these varying impacts must be taken into account and can be the means of targeting government aid to the right businesses.

Then there is this
"Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns"

Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns

Boy, you sure like WorldNetDaily. Since they're a frequent source for you I'll look them up. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily:

quote:
WND (formerly WorldNetDaily)is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as "fringe" and far-right as well as politically conservative. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

You're still on the wrong track. I have agreed with you about lockdowns. In a very recent message to you I said that lockdowns do no good if they apply to some organizations and not others. I just said this to you a message or two ago:

quote:
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.

Look familiar? If not it would explain why you're going off in the wrong direction.

Obviously lockdowns have both positive and negative consequences, and public health officials do their best to trade them off to get the best possible outcome. But as far as preventing viral spread, lockdowns definitely work. If people can't share the air, they can't spread the virus.

quote:
drlove writes:

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.


"Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study"

Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study

Selective groups can meet and other groups cannot. How is that science? Support your bald assertions.

You're still ignoring everything I explained in Message 460. Again, more briefly this time, public health policy is set by officials who take many considerations into account, including science, in this case that preventing the sharing of air reduces spread of the virus.

But that lockdowns are the best approach in a pandemic is not a position of science. I think your main problem is that you're failing to distinguish between science and attempted applications of science, in this case in public health policy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:22 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:46 PM Percy has replied

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 472 of 513 (891278)
01-23-2022 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Tangle
01-17-2022 4:04 AM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
Don't make it sound like science says one thing. The agenda that includes trying to jab little children is not science. Those who try to offer it as such are not honest.

WHO says healthy kids don't need booster shots for COVID-19


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Tangle, posted 01-17-2022 4:04 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 01-23-2022 3:08 PM drlove has replied

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 473 of 513 (891280)
01-23-2022 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Percy
01-17-2022 4:10 PM


Re: wowsa
quote:
Thank you for your research efforts. Unfortunately the Internet is full of misinformation, and you have to be careful in choosing your sources

As do you

quote:
The "former adviser" is Paul Elias Alexander, a Trump administration official at HHS who "pressured federal scientists and public health agencies to suppress and edit their COVID-19 analyses to make them consistent with Trump's rhetoric." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Alexander) He justified his actions by saying he wanted to make the reports " "more upbeat so that people would feel more confident going out and spending money", and that he "did not think agencies should contradict any president's policy". He believed scientists should back the president's positions instead of science.

Rather than a personal attack on some guy whose politics you apparently don't like, what does that say to the studies that were not done by him?

Do we hear you complaining about those that try to suppress voices in science and medicine? Today, thousands of them are in Wa DC testifying that we have been lied to about what is science or not.

quote:
Since none of the first three studies I examined showed masks ineffective

There are thousands of links for either opinion. The point is that if either side were fact and science, that could not be the case.
example
"study and paper issued by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks…It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”
First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT

All aspects of the agenda around the pandemic (lockdowns,vaccinations,boosters,mandates,vaccinating children,etc) are opinion based, not science. Either side claims science.

quote:
The question was whether lockdowns reduce viral spread, thereby reducing illness, permanent disability, and death.

If you put everyone into max security prisons that might reduce crime. It might even reduce some diseases. There is not one science opinion on all this. Some say one thing and others another. For example it is claimed natural immunity is better than vaccines.

CDC study affirms natural immunity superior to vaccines

quote:
But that lockdowns are the best approach in a pandemic is not a position of science.

That sounds like you are coming down on the side of the people claiming that lockdowns are not science based. How about vaccinating little children? How about vaccine mandates?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Percy, posted 01-17-2022 4:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Percy, posted 01-24-2022 2:17 PM drlove has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 474 of 513 (891284)
01-23-2022 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by drlove
01-23-2022 2:24 PM


Re: Foxes guarding henhouse
drlove writes:

Don't make it sound like science says one thing. The agenda that includes trying to jab little children is not science. Those who try to offer it as such are not honest.
WHO says healthy kids don't need booster shots for COVID-19

Does changing the subject when you can't answer the last points raised usually work for you?


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 472 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:24 PM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by drlove, posted 01-24-2022 2:13 AM Tangle has replied

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 475 of 513 (891288)
01-24-2022 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by Tangle
01-23-2022 3:08 PM


Getting down to it
The issue of immunity is somewhat settled these days.

CDC study affirms natural immunity superior to vaccines

At least we can safely say that no opinion has a monopoly on science. Even though natural immunity seems to be far more valuable than they admitted.

Other branches of science show us this same thing. That it is opinion of the data that is used, and not actual science to come down on one side or the other, such as evolution and creation, climate change and etc.

Has climate changed a lot lately? Yes. Why? That is opinion that uses data and science. It is not a matter of science itself. Same thing with the evolution of life on earth.

Does evolving happen? Yes. That is science. Is the process of evolving responsible for all life on earth? That is a matter of opinion where each side uses the data and science.

I kid you not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 01-23-2022 3:08 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2022 3:15 AM drlove has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 476 of 513 (891289)
01-24-2022 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by drlove
01-24-2022 2:13 AM


Re: Getting down to it
Changing the subject yet again eh? Don't think we don't notice.that you can't answer.

drlove writes:

The issue of immunity is somewhat settled these days.
CDC study affirms natural immunity superior to vaccines

At least we can safely say that no opinion has a monopoly on science. Even though natural immunity seems to be far more valuable than they admitted.

The difference between posting your garbage here and wherever else you go to spread your misinformation is that we will actual go to the original source that your nasty little website mis-uses and check. I suggest you do the same otherwise you look like someone who has no interest in telling the truth and we wouldn't want that would we? Anyhoo here's the report's summary and conclusion.

quote:
What is added by this report?

During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons. Additional future recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted as the virus and immunity levels change.


COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 ...

So then you dump evolution, creationism and climate change into the pot in the usual religious nutter's game of 'what about this' whack-a-mole. Sorry Chuck, seen it all before.

I kid you not.

You certainly don't.

I have a question for you. How old is the earth?

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 475 by drlove, posted 01-24-2022 2:13 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by drlove, posted 01-25-2022 2:49 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 477 of 513 (891312)
01-24-2022 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by drlove
01-23-2022 2:46 PM


Re: wowsa
I read ahead in the thread before responding to this message, and given the things you say it seems that "wowsa" is actually a pretty appropriate title for this subthread, as in, "Wowsa! The things you say!"

drlove writes:

quote:
Thank you for your research efforts. Unfortunately the Internet is full of misinformation, and you have to be careful in choosing your sources

As do you

Well of course I do, but I cited no sources except for quoting Paul Elias Alexander's comments from Wikipedia. Did you find anything in those quotes to be inaccurate? Are they not what Alexander actually said? Did he not argue that people should get out and spend money while we were still in the middle of a pandemic? Did he not argue that government scientists shouldn't challenge what the president says when it is contradicted by science?

Rather than a personal attack on some guy whose politics you apparently don't like, what does that say to the studies that were not done by him?

Nothing was said about Alexander's politics, and Alexander didn't perform any covid studies. While serving in the Trump administration Alexander censored "COVID-19 analyses to make them consistent with Trump's rhetoric." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Alexander)

Do we hear you complaining about those that try to suppress voices in science and medicine?

I think if you present the evidence of the suppression of voices in science and medicine that most people here will be upset about it. When will you be presenting such evidence?

Today, thousands of them are in Wa DC testifying that we have been lied to about what is science or not.

Today? You wrote this on Sunday. You're saying that thousands of scientists are testifying in Washington D.C. on a Sunday? To who? Neither house of Congress is in session and no congressional committees have meetings scheduled. A Google News search couldn't find a thing.

quote:
Since none of the first three studies I examined showed masks ineffective

There are thousands of links for either opinion. The point is that if either side were fact and science, that could not be the case.

But we weren't talking about links. We were talking about studies. Of the three studies I examined (and that you obviously didn't and still haven't examined), none showed masks to be ineffective. I didn't examine more studies than that because your claim was already zero for three and it was very apparent that examining more of the studies would be a waste of time. If you think there are studies in that list that support your claims of mask ineffectiveness then find them and link to them. If you prove masks are ineffective at preventing covid infections so we can stop wearing them, everyone will thank you.

So since you originally claimed there are many *studies* showing that masks are ineffective, your claim that there are "thousands of links" is a bait and switch. You haven't yet produced a single study showing masks ineffective.

But let's say, hypothetically, that masks are actually ineffective. How could that possibly be? Is it untrue that an N95 respirator captures 95% of particles 0.3 microns and larger? Or is it untrue that SARS-CoV-2 viruses are transmitted in the air by small droplets predominantly larger than 0.3 microns? Please, tell us how it's possible for masks to be ineffective. Give us some reason for seeing your claim as something that is possible in the real world.

Even putting a lace doily over your face would be be effective in stopping at least some virus. Probably not a lot, but more than zero. So why would a specially designed and manufactured mask be ineffective? Please tell us?

example
"study and paper issued by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks…It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”
First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT

You're changing the subject, but nearly two years ago I was already arguing against the six-foot rule. I began one paragraph by saying, "The six-foot safe distance is nonsense," see Message 576. We agree about the six-foot rule and social distancing. Unfortunately many people continue to believe the social distancing nonsense. Just last night in our kitchen we commented to friends (all of us masked) that we're still not going to restaurants, and they said they were still going but they always sit a table away from other people. Because we value them as friends we said nothing, especially since we doubt they'd change their behavior just because of anything we said. We hope they don't get sick.

But your point is that masks are ineffective, and you still haven't produced a single study showing that. You did provide a link to First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT which provides a link to the mask study (Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis) which contains this notice:

This article has been retracted.

I don't like wearing masks. I'm sure very few people like wearing masks. I would be absolutely delighted if it were shown that masks provide no benefit so that I could feel safe not wearing them. If you have evidence that masks are useless please bring it on. You'll be doing everyone a favor.

All aspects of the agenda around the pandemic (lockdowns,vaccinations,boosters,mandates,vaccinating children,etc) are opinion based, not science. Either side claims science.

You're repeating yourself and not responding to anything I said.

I can provide scientific studies for everything I say. In fact, that there are scientific studies is why I say what I say. But so far all your claims of links to scientific studies supporting what you say have found only a single study, and that one contained a retraction notice.

quote:
The question was whether lockdowns reduce viral spread, thereby reducing illness, permanent disability, and death.

If you put everyone into max security prisons that might reduce crime. It might even reduce some diseases.

I'll take this as grudging acknowledgment that preventing the sharing of air also prevents the spreading of respiratory diseases.

There is not one science opinion on all this. Some say one thing and others another.

I'm not sure what you meant to say here, but as written this is contradictory. If there are no scientific opinions, then how can some say one thing and some another since they don't exist? Please restate.

For example it is claimed natural immunity is better than vaccines.

CDC study affirms natural immunity superior to vaccines

This isn't a study, just an article at WND with links to other articles at WND. When you finally drill down to the actual Israeli study (Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections ) you find that it doesn't claim what the short headline makes it seem to be claiming.

To understand the study you have to remember that the vaccines were developed for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. For this virus these vaccines provide better immunity than natural immunity. But then variants evolved, and it was suspected that the vaccines might not perform as well against the variants. This Israeli study confirmed this, that infection with the delta variant produced stronger immunity against the delta variant than the vaccines, which remember were developed not for the delta variant but for the original virus.

Of course this Israeli study involving the delta variant is irrelevant now, because omicron has replaced delta. Studies are underway to see how well the vaccines perform against omicron, but initial indications are that they perform much less well, even worse than against the delta variant. Preliminary results seem to indicate that boosters are much more effective against omicron than just the two shot series.

This is all pretty much expected. Viruses evolve, we know that. Drug companies are developing variant specific vaccines now, and those will very likely provide superior protection from the variants than that conferred by infection by the variants.

In other words, you're forgetting (or at least WND is forgetting and is helping you forget) that the virus presents a moving target. The vaccines are for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. They provide less protection from alpha, even less from delta, and yet less from omicron.

quote:
But that lockdowns are the best approach in a pandemic is not a position of science.

That sounds like you are coming down on the side of the people claiming that lockdowns are not science based. How about vaccinating little children? How about vaccine mandates?

I think a significant issue for you remains confusing science with attempted applications of science, which I've explained several times now and which you're still ignoring. Briefly this time, science has found that preventing the sharing of air prevents the spread of respiratory diseases. Public health policy has taken information from many areas into account, including science, in deciding whether lockdowns are appropriate for fighting the coronavirus. Science doesn't have a position on lockdowns.

About vaccinating little children, just a few messages ago I wrote how hours old infants are vaccinated, and that there's a vaccine regimen beginning around one year. You write as if you never read any of it.

About vaccine mandates, science has studied herd immunity, and whether vaccine mandates are an appropriate way of achieving herd immunity is public health policy. Public health policy takes science into account, but public health policy is not itself science or a scientific study or anything like that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:46 PM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by drlove, posted 01-25-2022 3:22 AM Percy has replied

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 478 of 513 (891317)
01-25-2022 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Tangle
01-24-2022 3:15 AM


Re: Getting down to it
If vaccination is the safest strategy explain this

"Rate of infection more than twice as high for vaccinated people"

Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID

Once again, if something had been true it would not be shown false now. That means that it was not science. (unless you think it means science is a crock)

You mention climate change and the evolution of life on earth. Yes, that is also belief based, although you can feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Then you ask how old the earth is. Again that depends on what you believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2022 3:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2022 4:07 AM drlove has taken no action

  
drlove
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 01-02-2022


Message 479 of 513 (891318)
01-25-2022 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Percy
01-24-2022 2:17 PM


Re: wowsa
quote:
Well of course I do, but I cited no sources except for quoting Paul Elias Alexander's comments from Wikipedia. Did you find anything in those quotes to be inaccurate? Are they not what Alexander actually said? Did he not argue that people should get out and spend money while we were still in the middle of a pandemic? Did he not argue that government scientists shouldn't challenge what the president says when it is contradicted by science?

I am not interested in everything Trump said if he claimed hydroxocloride (or whatever it was) a good treatment. I would only be looking at what the basis for that claim was, or the basis for saying it was actually bad. If I see a report about studies or doctors etc I would not look at what some reporter supposedly said to his wife, etc.

Now as far as vaccines being a joke, here is an article from today.

"Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID
Rate of infection more than twice as high for vaccinated people"
Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID

So if the science said vaxes were good then science is wrong! Either that or those claiming science said that were wrong.

quote:
I think if you present the evidence of the suppression of voices in science and medicine that most people here will be upset about it. When will you be presenting such evidence?

No, it is the suppression of voices in education, media,government and etc. Not 'in' science (whatever that means)

You know, facebook, twitter, mainstream media, etc.

"MSM Blackout Of Medical Doctors Pandemic Response Roundtable Is A Crime Against Humanity"

https://www.infowars.com/...able-is-a-crime-against-humanity

"A group of doctors and other medical experts gathered in Washington, D.C. on Monday for a panel discussion on Covid-19 hosted by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

The specialists include Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Bret Weinstein, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Dr. David Wiseman.

Senator Johnson streamed the panel discussion live on Rumble, as other outlets would likely censor the conversation and do not support free speech in the first place.

The Wisconsin senator’s YouTube account was suspended on Friday after the video platform accused him of “making false claims over treatments for Covid-19.”

Must Watch: Censored Doctors Decry America’s Pandemic Response At Capitol Hill Covid Hearing

quote:
Today? You wrote this on Sunday. You're saying that thousands of scientists are testifying in Washington D.C. on a Sunday? To who? Neither house of Congress is in session and no congressional committees have meetings scheduled. A Google News search couldn't find a thing.
They were marching and speaking. Not inside congress.

"The massive protest was organized by the Children’s Health Defense, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical scientists, and the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance."

WATCH: Americans March in Washington DC Against Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

quote:
I'll take this as grudging acknowledgment that preventing the sharing of air also prevents the spreading of respiratory diseases.

Preventing breathing would do the trick also. I guess you could call that science.

quote:
In other words, you're forgetting (or at least WND is forgetting and is helping you forget) that the virus presents a moving target. The vaccines are for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. They provide less protection from alpha, even less from delta, and yet less from omicron.

They knew that when they made the first vaccine. What, they thought they would force people to get endless vaccines that don't work anyhow? If they do not work against new variants and we know that there will be new variants, what is the point, and where is the science?

quote:
unt, including science, in deciding whether lockdowns are appropriate for fighting the coronavirus. Science doesn't have a position on lockdowns.

About vaccinating little children, just a few messages ago I wrote how hours old infants are vaccinated, and that there's a vaccine regimen beginning around one year. You write as if you never read any of it.

About vaccine mandates, science has studied herd immunity, and whether vaccine mandates are an appropriate way of achieving herd immunity is public health policy. Public health policy takes science into account, but public health policy is not itself science or a scientific study or anything like that.


Who asked if young infants were vaccinated? Point? Does that mean it is good to do so or bad? If vaccines were a way to achieve herd immunity they would need to work, no? I just showed how double the sick are now vaccinated. That means it does not work. How would that result in herd immunity?

"New research indicates the 46 mutations found in the COVID-19 Omicron variant have rendered antibodies ineffective, accounting for the high number of re-infections and breakthrough cases."

https://www.jpost.com/...wellness/coronavirus/article-694237


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Percy, posted 01-24-2022 2:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 01-25-2022 5:14 PM drlove has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 480 of 513 (891319)
01-25-2022 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by drlove
01-25-2022 2:49 AM


Re: Getting down to it
drlove writes:

If vaccination is the safest strategy explain this
"Rate of infection more than twice as high for vaccinated people"

Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID

Sadly, your nasty little website has failed to reference the report that it alludes to - and, of course, you haven't bothered to look for it either.

If you'd like to provide the reference I'll show you how your puppeteers are misleading you.

You mention climate change and the evolution of life on earth. Yes, that is also belief based, although you can feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

YOU mentioned them.

Then you ask how old the earth is. Again that depends on what you believe.

I asked you how old YOU thought the earth was. Care to answer?


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 478 by drlove, posted 01-25-2022 2:49 AM drlove has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022