Considering that we know what they do to wrong thinkers, how could you possibly believe anything that's written in any of those journals anyway?
There were published studies showing that cigarettes didn't cause cancer because the cigarette companies were pushing the needle for their own benefit. Given the biggest power and money grab in the history of the world, this particular lobby is a lot stronger than the cigarette companies.
There were published studies showing that cigarettes didn't cause cancer because the cigarette companies were pushing the needle for their own benefit. Given the biggest power and money grab in the history of the world, this particular lobby is a lot stronger than the cigarette companies.
@jeffcliff @sj_zero If they try to research these topics, most people will just go away more confused than they started out, and probably do nothing.
Each side will say "you cannot listen to those (greedy pharma people/irrational anti-vaxxers).
Other than using violence to suppress one side or the other (which some people want) there doesn't seem to be any way to drive this toward honest consensus.
Same for the other political issues. Humans just cannot reason about tribal identity markers.
Trudeau has spent more debt than every other prime minister in history combined, most of it during the pandemic. By definition that's an unprecedented amount of debt, and it also happens to be an unprecedented amount of money. Canada spent more money than most per capita, but it wasn't alone in spending unprecedented amounts of money. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-to-pile-on-record-debt-steering-canada-out-of-pandemic-1.1591899
During this time, the middle class shrank and the rich got 40% richer during the pandemic. The sheer amount of wealth transferred to them represents an unprecedented growth in the wealth of the rich. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/05/richest-americans-became-richer-during-pandemic
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented money grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global money grab from all corners (except the poor and middle class)
Governments around the world seized powers they never used before. They directly intervened in private communications on social media. https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/
Governments around the world colluded and implemented policies that had never been put in place before. They shut down the entire planet. They put a billion people out of work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/348722/covid-put-billion-work.aspx
Trudeau used a law that had never been used before to seize the bank accounts of people for participating in a peaceful protest. That's unprecedented (and horrifying). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented power grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global power grab.
None of the facts I've cited are in question. They were reported by all news organizations, and I've specifically picked organizations hostile to my viewpoint.
So the only thing left is whether we should trust studies out of Nature as trustworthy.
Well, given that the above is indisputable, can we say with certainty that Nature was publishing without any push from government officials?
In fact, we know that Nature was pushed by government officials to publish stories supporting the official narrative: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/email-shows-fauci-prompted-science-paper-casting-doubt-wuhan-lab-leak
We also know that people who disputed the official narrative were made into pariahs, mocked by the government and the media controlled by those governments. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
We also know that medical doctors who disputed the official narrative were under threat of losing their medical license https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-16/doctors-coronavirus-misinformation-license
We know Nature picked sides in partisan matters, endorsing a presidential candidate during this same time, choosing a certain ideological viewpoint. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
So there seems to be reason to believe there could be a bias in this particular publication due to pressure from governments. But at least the process of science is sound, right?
Problem: Even prior to the pandemic, the majority of scientists agreed that there was a crisis in science, particularly regarding reproducibility and regarding the known biases from p-hacking and industry funded studies introducing biases. https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198 https://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/477921050/when-great-minds-think-unlike-inside-sciences-replication-crisis https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-bad-science-is-plaguing-health-research-rigor-mortis-richard-harris https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1919906117
The science worshippers who blindly followed because a study was published are in fact not scientists nor are they utilizing science because that's not how science works. Believing something blindly because it's written in a book is how religion works.
Which brings me to the most important thing, and it doesn't require any citations. It's an ought, not an is.
You ought not to attempt to micromanage everyone just because you're scared. Their lives don't belong to you, no matter how scared you are.
Let's say you're beyond right about COVID. Let's say it's actually airborne Ebola AIDS, and everyone else is beyond wrong. Well, then protect yourself. You can wear a mask, and quit your job, and go live in a cave, and stop seeing your friends and family, and get vaccinated every 6 weeks. When you're out and about you can wear a space suit and douse it in bleach before you walk back into your cave. Great. Good job.
Maybe you get it so right that you're the Omega man, wandering the land and the master of all you survey because everyone else is dead and you are brilliant. Great. Good job.
That's your choice. And to live otherwise is everyone else's choice. If they're going to choose wrong, that should not be within your power to force, any more than someone should be allowed to force you to take your mask off because they think you're choosing wrong by wearing a mask, or force you to go see your friends and family in person.
You think you're smarter than everyone else. Great news: Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else. And in terms of being themselves, they're right. They know how much they value for example not getting COVID, and they can balance that against all the things they'd need to give up to try not getting it. Some people still walk around in masks. Others have given up on all restrictions. That's their choice, it isn't your choice.
And if someone says "I'm willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID? Guess what? That's life. And if someone says "I'm not willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID after their 6th booster shot? Guess what? That's life. Neither one is a gotcha. The moment you're born you're at risk of dying every single moment of every single day, and it's a choice individuals have to make as to what level of risk they're willing to take for the cost of taking the risks and the cost of not taking the risks. Some people smoke and get lung cancer in their 20s, and some people smoke and live to be 114 years old. Between 15 and 20% of people never smoke a day in their lives and still get lung cancer.
Anyway, that wall of text should get blocked from most federated services, eh? 6500 characters?
During this time, the middle class shrank and the rich got 40% richer during the pandemic. The sheer amount of wealth transferred to them represents an unprecedented growth in the wealth of the rich. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/05/richest-americans-became-richer-during-pandemic
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented money grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global money grab from all corners (except the poor and middle class)
Governments around the world seized powers they never used before. They directly intervened in private communications on social media. https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/
Governments around the world colluded and implemented policies that had never been put in place before. They shut down the entire planet. They put a billion people out of work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/348722/covid-put-billion-work.aspx
Trudeau used a law that had never been used before to seize the bank accounts of people for participating in a peaceful protest. That's unprecedented (and horrifying). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented power grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global power grab.
None of the facts I've cited are in question. They were reported by all news organizations, and I've specifically picked organizations hostile to my viewpoint.
So the only thing left is whether we should trust studies out of Nature as trustworthy.
Well, given that the above is indisputable, can we say with certainty that Nature was publishing without any push from government officials?
In fact, we know that Nature was pushed by government officials to publish stories supporting the official narrative: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/email-shows-fauci-prompted-science-paper-casting-doubt-wuhan-lab-leak
We also know that people who disputed the official narrative were made into pariahs, mocked by the government and the media controlled by those governments. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
We also know that medical doctors who disputed the official narrative were under threat of losing their medical license https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-16/doctors-coronavirus-misinformation-license
We know Nature picked sides in partisan matters, endorsing a presidential candidate during this same time, choosing a certain ideological viewpoint. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
So there seems to be reason to believe there could be a bias in this particular publication due to pressure from governments. But at least the process of science is sound, right?
Problem: Even prior to the pandemic, the majority of scientists agreed that there was a crisis in science, particularly regarding reproducibility and regarding the known biases from p-hacking and industry funded studies introducing biases. https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198 https://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/477921050/when-great-minds-think-unlike-inside-sciences-replication-crisis https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-bad-science-is-plaguing-health-research-rigor-mortis-richard-harris https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1919906117
The science worshippers who blindly followed because a study was published are in fact not scientists nor are they utilizing science because that's not how science works. Believing something blindly because it's written in a book is how religion works.
Which brings me to the most important thing, and it doesn't require any citations. It's an ought, not an is.
You ought not to attempt to micromanage everyone just because you're scared. Their lives don't belong to you, no matter how scared you are.
Let's say you're beyond right about COVID. Let's say it's actually airborne Ebola AIDS, and everyone else is beyond wrong. Well, then protect yourself. You can wear a mask, and quit your job, and go live in a cave, and stop seeing your friends and family, and get vaccinated every 6 weeks. When you're out and about you can wear a space suit and douse it in bleach before you walk back into your cave. Great. Good job.
Maybe you get it so right that you're the Omega man, wandering the land and the master of all you survey because everyone else is dead and you are brilliant. Great. Good job.
That's your choice. And to live otherwise is everyone else's choice. If they're going to choose wrong, that should not be within your power to force, any more than someone should be allowed to force you to take your mask off because they think you're choosing wrong by wearing a mask, or force you to go see your friends and family in person.
You think you're smarter than everyone else. Great news: Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else. And in terms of being themselves, they're right. They know how much they value for example not getting COVID, and they can balance that against all the things they'd need to give up to try not getting it. Some people still walk around in masks. Others have given up on all restrictions. That's their choice, it isn't your choice.
And if someone says "I'm willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID? Guess what? That's life. And if someone says "I'm not willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID after their 6th booster shot? Guess what? That's life. Neither one is a gotcha. The moment you're born you're at risk of dying every single moment of every single day, and it's a choice individuals have to make as to what level of risk they're willing to take for the cost of taking the risks and the cost of not taking the risks. Some people smoke and get lung cancer in their 20s, and some people smoke and live to be 114 years old. Between 15 and 20% of people never smoke a day in their lives and still get lung cancer.
Anyway, that wall of text should get blocked from most federated services, eh? 6500 characters?
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1