|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 20, 2022 15:49:06 GMT -5
So I guess you're saying Dr Malone doesn't understand his own invention. I don't speak for him. He also didn't invent the vaccine. Instead of paying attention to singular people that can bolster up "alternate views", I suggest paying attention to scientific consensus. Look to statements by the NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO. Their track record is more reliable. Their statements tend to be reviewed by a variety of experts in their field. Science is not and (must not) be a democracy. Dr. Malone is the primary pioneer with respect to mRNA, not the vaccine. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume he is an expert when it comes to mRNA; he is the one who has expressed doubts about vaccines that utilize mRNA technology. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 20, 2022 17:22:53 GMT -5
garbulky, I respect your opinion but don't respect or trust gov't agencies any more. Follow the money, it's always about the money. Fauci has made $millions during this pandemic and has been wrong about everything. I want to know why the USA & the world hasn't held communist China responsible for what they did. The W.H.O. is a joke. The current pandemic has affected EVERY COUNTRY not just USA. So why not then mistrust every government in the world? It bugs me how selfish we humans can be. This is a PANDEMIC not a "this is affecting only me" situation. |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 20, 2022 17:39:09 GMT -5
Actually, we are dealing with a ChiCom bioweapon and the WHO helped fund the research (Fauci's NIH also funded the research) Deny it if you wish.
SARS Covid-19 Influenza is a SARS influenza with two protein spikes added that do not exist in nature. It is the two added protein spikes that make Covid-19 so contagious and do severe damage to the lungs.
Did it accidentally escape or was it released, that's the only question in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 20, 2022 20:44:38 GMT -5
So I guess you're saying Dr Malone doesn't understand his own invention. I don't speak for him. He also didn't invent the vaccine. Instead of paying attention to singular people that can bolster up "alternate views", I suggest paying attention to scientific consensus. Look to statements by the NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO. Their track record is more reliable. Their statements tend to be reviewed by a variety of experts in their field. Science is not and (must not) be a democracy. You say you "suggest paying attention to scientific consensus." But then you end your post by saying (and I believe correctly so), "Science is not and must not be a democracy." Consensus, i.e., what could you liken to a democracy, does not mean something is scientific fact. Given the nature of "follow the money" and the influence of political and other agendas, consensus is not necessarily a reliable indicator of reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Jan 20, 2022 20:50:24 GMT -5
Gus, sorry for your Mother's passing. My condolences. Thanks, may Jesus be with you always. |
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Jan 20, 2022 20:52:47 GMT -5
Sorry for your loss Gus. Knowing she is with Jesus should give you comfort. We shall all meet in the place where there is not darkness. Thanks, may Jesus be with you always. |
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Jan 20, 2022 20:57:04 GMT -5
Actually, we are dealing with a ChiCom bioweapon and the WHO helped fund the research (Fauci's NIH also funded the research) Deny it if you wish. SARS Covid-19 Influenza is a SARS influenza with two protein spikes added that do not exist in nature. It is the two added protein spikes that make Covid-19 so contagious and do severe damage to the lungs. Did it accidentally escape or was it released, that's the only question in my mind. I don't have direct evidence but I suspect the Chinese government has been trying different things, this is not a political statement, but I will never trust China's communist government. |
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Jan 20, 2022 20:57:59 GMT -5
Gus, sorry for your Mother's passing. My condolences. Thanks, may Jesus be with you always. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 20, 2022 21:34:00 GMT -5
Throughout history, science and fact has changed about as many times as money!
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 20, 2022 23:28:32 GMT -5
I don't speak for him. He also didn't invent the vaccine. Instead of paying attention to singular people that can bolster up "alternate views", I suggest paying attention to scientific consensus. Look to statements by the NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO. Their track record is more reliable. Their statements tend to be reviewed by a variety of experts in their field. Science is not and (must not) be a democracy. You say you "suggest paying attention to scientific consensus." But then you end your post by saying (and I believe correctly so), "Science is not and must not be a democracy." Consensus, i.e., what could you liken to a democracy, does not mean something is scientific fact. Given the nature of "follow the money" and the influence of political and other agendas, consensus is not necessarily a reliable indicator of reliability. Yes that is correct. A scientific consensus is not a democracy of every person's opinion given equal weight. It's a consensus of experts in their field. Throughout history, science and fact has changed about as many times as money! Absolutely, and we are all the better for it. A flawed approach would be one that doesn't change as findings change. People view stagnant dogma as a strength. But it's not. All scientific consensus has to be weighed against the findings we know currently. Newton's findings and ideas and Einstein's are a good example of how scientific consensus can adapt to form a better understanding as the field grows. We can't stick our feet in the mud when we get new valid data that must change our conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 20, 2022 23:35:04 GMT -5
I don't speak for him. He also didn't invent the vaccine. Instead of paying attention to singular people that can bolster up "alternate views", I suggest paying attention to scientific consensus. Look to statements by the NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, WHO. Their track record is more reliable. Their statements tend to be reviewed by a variety of experts in their field. Science is not and (must not) be a democracy. Dr. Malone is the primary pioneer with respect to mRNA, not the vaccine. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume he is an expert when it comes to mRNA; he is the one who has expressed doubts about vaccines that utilize mRNA technology. Consensus does matter and so does evidence that supports the consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 20, 2022 23:38:57 GMT -5
You say you "suggest paying attention to scientific consensus." But then you end your post by saying (and I believe correctly so), "Science is not and must not be a democracy." Consensus, i.e., what could you liken to a democracy, does not mean something is scientific fact. Given the nature of "follow the money" and the influence of political and other agendas, consensus is not necessarily a reliable indicator of reliability. Yes that is correct. A scientific consensus is not a democracy of every person's opinion given equal weight. It's a consensus of experts in their field. I would assume that a scientific consensus would be reached only among supposedly qualified scientific experts because we are talking about something specialized. And that would be a democracy as consensus is reached by a majority, not necessarily being unanimous. Perhaps some of those are considered more esteemed but a consensus is not reached by weighting each member, it is reached by a majority. That doesn't mean the majority is always correct. I agree science should not be a democracy but that isn't always the case. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 20, 2022 23:43:34 GMT -5
Hmmm...do you have an established definition? They are. They are. They are extremely effective against the original Coronavirus. Against the current strain they don't protect against symptoms or transmission. But they do substantially reduce hospitalization, death, and transmission compared to no vaccine. I.e. protects against substantial harm. Scientific consensus by experts - which they still are - is arguably our most important and reliable tool. You can believe what YOU want. First off I want to thank you for reaching out to me via a PM on my wife. That meant a lot to me. However, I was bewildered with your statement on Ivermectin. My wife is a doctor and an attorney (non legal practicing since the birth of our son). My wife works for a large insurance company and at the start of the plandemic both HCQ and Ivermectin were being approved and worked as treatments against the virus. What happened is hospitalists came out and spoke out against those cures. Why? MONEY. It was mostly hospitalists as they are incentivized. I don't trust big Pharma they wanted their money for their shitball. After our last PM my wife ended up back in the hospital and was there for 31/2 weeks with two, simultaneous, intravenous (sp?) antibiotics to cure the infected abscesses due to the sloppy work of the surgeon who did her gall bladder surgery. There came a point where I wondered if I had to tell my son that his mom may never come home. She's had about 11 radio-logical interventions to place drains in her to drain the crud. I asked the internal medicine doctor if she was ever going to get better. He said "we are trying'. They wanted her to go to a higher level of care but the hospital turned her down due to staffing issues. She was finally released late Christmas Eve with oral antibiotics. This began a week before Thanksgiving.
She had a follow up with the internal medicine doctor last week. She still needs help getting up and down stairs, eats little and is constantly nauseous even thou she takes a med for it. I asked the doctor if this amount of time is out of the ordinary for clearing up an infection. He said it wasn't normal. SO, I asked about the elephant in the room: and asked him if the J&J jab she took affected her immune system. He didn't speak for a few moments and said he was not supposed to address those questions but said "yes, it could be". I'll also mention they found that her heart is enlarged while doing a lung x-ray. Now we will have our son checked as they both went for the shitball together.
I remember when my wife was pondering getting a vaxx and said the J&J was most like a traditional vaccine but the others (mRNA) were not. So she recognized that even the J&J was not a traditional vaccine. I'm done with this discussion as I firmly believe these shitballs are of no use and I remain the most healthy in the family and I am unvaccinated and unafraid.
Follow the money.
Hi David! I am so glad that your wife is out of hospital. Still very sad to hear she is having issues  I wish her the very best in her recovery. That's concerning that your doctor reacted that way, when you asked about the elephant in the room. Unfortunately it is not surprising. I have heard reports of several healthcare professionals give advice about this stuff, in ways that makes my head spin. And it's unfair on the public who are counting on their medical training and authority to provide them valid and clear information. When they are told different, the basic reaction is "well I'm gonna trust my doctor, obviously." Which really should be the correct reaction, because healthcare professionals are supposed to know their @!#. So all I can say is it is an unfortunate time. I know at least one doctor, who gives excellent advice in a clear manner that is informed by medical science and practice. He now trains other doctors and is a leader in fighting COVID in his community. I remember one time when I was quite concerned and he calmly and clearly guided me with a pragmatic level headed explanation that set my mind at ease. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 0:23:20 GMT -5
Yes that is correct. A scientific consensus is not a democracy of every person's opinion given equal weight. It's a consensus of experts in their field. I would assume that a scientific consensus would be reached only among supposedly qualified scientific experts because we are talking about something specialized. And that would be a democracy as consensus is reached by a majority, not necessarily being unanimous. Perhaps some of those are considered more esteemed but a consensus is not reached by weighting each member, it is reached by a majority. That doesn't mean the majority is always correct. I agree science should not be a democracy but that isn't always the case. Well it is not like a 60% of all scientists voted for this, kind of majority.... I really do mean it's not a democracy. It's not supposed to be. In science there are plenty of disagreements among reputable people. Some reputable people can put out ideas that aren't supported by the evidence. So a consensus of experts, ideally backed by evidence and sound conclusions is what it takes. Science has been wrong on many many counts - most which sound like nitpicking but are actually important. Remember the Aether? That was scientifically accepted and was completely wrong. Yet, it was the ability of expert consensus to change with new data that was science's strength. When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Jan 21, 2022 6:42:23 GMT -5
I would assume that a scientific consensus would be reached only among supposedly qualified scientific experts because we are talking about something specialized. And that would be a democracy as consensus is reached by a majority, not necessarily being unanimous. Perhaps some of those are considered more esteemed but a consensus is not reached by weighting each member, it is reached by a majority. That doesn't mean the majority is always correct. I agree science should not be a democracy but that isn't always the case. Well it is not like a 60% of all scientists voted for this, kind of majority.... I really do mean it's not a democracy. It's not supposed to be. In science there are plenty of disagreements among reputable people. Some reputable people can put out ideas that aren't supported by the evidence. So a consensus of experts, ideally backed by evidence and sound conclusions is what it takes. Science has been wrong on many many counts - most which sound like nitpicking but are actually important. Remember the Aether? That was scientifically accepted and was completely wrong. Yet, it was the ability of expert consensus to change with new data that was science's strength. Remember when science said thalidomide was safe? When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Jan 21, 2022 6:43:11 GMT -5
Well it is not like a 60% of all scientists voted for this, kind of majority.... I really do mean it's not a democracy. It's not supposed to be. In science there are plenty of disagreements among reputable people. Some reputable people can put out ideas that aren't supported by the evidence. So a consensus of experts, ideally backed by evidence and sound conclusions is what it takes. Science has been wrong on many many counts - most which sound like nitpicking but are actually important. Remember the Aether? That was scientifically accepted and was completely wrong. Yet, it was the ability of expert consensus to change with new data that was science's strength. Remember when science said thalidomide was safe? When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinkingSorry, remember when science said thalidomide was safe? |
|
|
|
Post by tropicallutefisk on Jan 21, 2022 6:53:26 GMT -5
"When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking"
Garbulky, other than I dislike the term "consensus" I believe you are correct. I don't like consensus combined with "science" because it suggests science is something in which the mob rules. Majority support of something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Its not as simple as taking a vote to decide what is "true". This is just me being nitpicky because I believe what you were trying to say is that you have take a look at numerous sources to support a science based opinion or belief. What people need to remember is that science is a process. Its about pushing an idea, a hypothesis forward and subjecting it to numerous challenges. If it fails to be reproducible, its a failed hypothesis. If data supports it, then it continues to be challenged until its considered a theory, then ultimately a law if data continues to support the idea. At any point even a law can be determined to be false. Any good scientist should be prepared to be proven wrong and proven wrong frequently. In its purest form, science is humbling. Arrogant, dogmatic people claiming to be following the science are often just cheerleaders of a coveted position, not true scientists. Its up to each one of us to use critical thinking in our decision making and we must be prepared to challenge what is presented. Remember anyone can be a scientist. Its not restricted to people with academic or professional credentials. All its takes is a curious, open mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 21, 2022 8:47:43 GMT -5
"When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking" Garbulky, other than I dislike the term "consensus" I believe you are correct. I don't like consensus combined with "science" because it suggests science is something in which the mob rules. Majority support of something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Its not as simple as taking a vote to decide what is "true". This is just me being nitpicky because I believe what you were trying to say is that you have take a look at numerous sources to support a science based opinion or belief. What people need to remember is that science is a process. Its about pushing an idea, a hypothesis forward and subjecting it to numerous challenges. If it fails to be reproducible, its a failed hypothesis. If data supports it, then it continues to be challenged until its considered a theory, then ultimately a law if data continues to support the idea. At any point even a law can be determined to be false. Any good scientist should be prepared to be proven wrong and proven wrong frequently. In its purest form, science is humbling. Arrogant, dogmatic people claiming to be following the science are often just cheerleaders of a coveted position, not true scientists. Its up to each one of us to use critical thinking in our decision making and we must be prepared to challenge what is presented. Remember anyone can be a scientist. Its not restricted to people with academic or professional credentials. All its takes is a curious, open mind. Indeed. Sometimes major findings can be completely overturned. It doesn't happen often for things that have been extensively researched from multiple fields, but it can. Science is never omniscient. It can only make decisions based on evidence they have. Which keep in mind is a heck of a lot more than people with no evidence, shaky evidence, gut feelings, and anecdotal knowledge. And I think that's what I'm stressing when I say look towards reliable information from institutions that are respected by people in their field. There is a strength in deeply researched subjects supported by scientific consensus. There is strength in known quality scientific institutions that have been considered reliable and publish scientifically sound and relevant information. It doesn't mean they are infallible or haven't at times made horrible mistakes or done bad things. But it does mean they have a track record that is good and respected by experts within their field. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 21, 2022 9:28:32 GMT -5
The word "Science" has been bastardized by politicians and so called experts that are know to lie. When the say "The science says" they might as well be saying "The Easter Bunny says".
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jan 21, 2022 9:45:16 GMT -5
Without science we probably wouldn’t be in an audio forum discussing a vaccine, more likely down by the stream gathering water.
|
|
