Science is unreliable. Science is influenced by those with money and power. We can't rely on it. Discuss?

[Bob B]

The lack of comment on that post wasn't a mistake .... it was exactly what it deserved.

 

[Cdkipp]

The lack of comment on that post wasn't a mistake .... it was exactly what it deserved.

You said Kennedy’s like to ruffle feathers. Kennedys’ are the feathers. You will accept any ally or talking point as long as,it furthers your conspiracy.

 

[dweick]

In a few discussions recently it has been brought up time after time, over and over again. Some believe that since science is beyond us.... have you seen the COVID virus in a microscope to verify it is different than the flu?? That those who believe what scientists, studies, groups and established entities tell us is actually all filtered through the lens of money and power.

I am curious who believes that this could be so far-reaching, and so prolific, in this day and age, when so much equipment is available to so many people. A student in a lab can access more equipment than experts 40 years ago could. Tens of thousands are standing on the shoulders of those who preceded them and can easily accomplish and verify what those few pioneers established....

I posit the following:

What level of conspiracy would it take to have faked COVID-19 as a real virus, as a pandemic, as a cause for millions of deaths, in 2021....

What level of conspiracy would it take, to have mRNA vaccines accepted as safe, and effective, vs this virus?

What level of conspiracy would it take to hide the efficacy of an affordable, generic drug like Fluvoxamine (oops nm, that has studies showing its efficacy) Ivermectin?

Wow, you think you identify a different virus by looking at it under a microscope and if you haven't personally done so maybe all those scientists are lying to us? If that is your starting point then you are just flat out lost.

This is the website for you:

Birds Aren't Real | Birds Aren't Real

They used to be. Until the U.S. Government replaced them with drone replicas designed to spy on the American public. Founded in 1976.

birdsarentreal.com

to answer your questions:
1) 1 million times higher level than faking the moon landings
2) Same
3) Same

Too many independent, qualified eyeballs from almost every country looking at this. Publishing your research and data is trivial today.

Instead we get Dr Tenpenny's pretending we self-magnitize when vaccinated. What is the level of delusion needed to get a measurable number of people to believe whatever crackpot idea pops up and start reposting it on social media? Pretty low.

And Birds Aren't Real, really

 

[Bob B]

You said Kennedy’s like to ruffle feathers. Kennedys’ are the feathers. You will accept any ally or talking point as long as,it furthers your conspiracy.

You call anything you don't like a conspiracy ..... you are REALLY hung up on conspiracies for some reason.

I hate to break it to you, but everything isn't a conspiracy ..... You seem to think anyone who questions the status quo is into some sort of conspiracy group.
Doesn't it ever enter your mind that people might see things with their own eyes ... and then investigate it?
Maybe you just had a bad relationship with your mother?

 

[curiouscarbon]

love y’all!
all due respect

 

[dweick]

A good example of one who will never see.

There are at several things in play with scientific research that can cause it to be inaccurate ... pre-conceived ideas .... pressure from those funding the research .... outright faking results to achieve the desired conclusion due to an agenda ... peer pressure ... mistakes.

In the case of the CDC ... which controls billions of dollars of research .... if the study doesn't arrive at desired conclusion they starve that organization out of further studies ... and say ... well, we need more evidence ... we need another study.

We have seen over and over again how much things like dietary recommendation change over time .... so, why did they reach the wrong conclusion the first time ... and the 2nd and 3rd time?

Science is fluid.

Science is supposed to be fluid. It is theory that meets observation and then it attempts to either find contrary evidence or confirming evidence. Theories tend to be tweaked. That gravity is still a theory doesn't mean it isn't real and measurable.

Science progresses over time, pseudo science and quackery does not, it is always just about making stuff up.

That dietary recommendations change is just evidence that science is hard and that it is hard is not an excuse to abandon it for something that is even worse, just making stuff up.

 

[Bob B]

Science is supposed to be fluid. It is theory that meets observation and then it attempts to either find contrary evidence or confirming evidence. Theories tend to be tweaked. That gravity is still a theory doesn't mean it isn't real and measurable.

Science progresses over time, pseudo science and quackery does not, it is always just about making stuff up.

That dietary recommendations change is just evidence that science is hard and that it is hard is not an excuse to abandon it for something that is even worse, just making stuff up.

Believe it or not ..... I agree

 

[Cdkipp]

You call anything you don't like a conspiracy ..... you are REALLY hung up on conspiracies for some reason.

I hate to break it to you, but everything isn't a conspiracy ..... You seem to think anyone who questions the status quo is into some sort of conspiracy group.
Doesn't it ever enter your mind that people might see things with their own eyes ... and then investigate it?
Maybe you just had a bad relationship with your mother

Your are referring to secret plans and groups of people conspiring to to accomplish certain goals which include controlling others by nefarious means and perpetuating their power. In this case the conspiracy necessarily includes the not only the vast majority of the US scientific community but the entire world community despite them having a wide divergence in culture and interests. I am repeating current evidence based recommendations based on the scientific consensus to date. These are not my findings or ideas.

 

[Bob B]

Your are referring to secret plans and groups of people conspiring to to accomplish certain goals which include controlling others by nefarious means and perpetuating their power. In this case the conspiracy necessarily includes the not only the vast majority of the US scientific community but the entire world community despite them having a wide divergence in culture and interests. I am repeating current evidence based recommendations based on the scientific consensus to date. These are not my findings or ideas.

You are always wrong when you start trying to say what I'm trying to say ..... I have actually introduced evidence from other parts of the world where the virus has been almost eliminated. I have introduced evidence that the death rate in the US is in the top 19 out of about 200 countries .... I have introduced data the FDA used to approve the Pfizer vaccine .... do I think the CDC is doing a proper job ....NO.

Your "evidence" consists primarily of either vilifying an individual or making up things that other people didn't actually say .... or making up a strawman argument.
If you quit doing those things we could have a rational discussion on some of these threads instead of arguing about BS.

 

[MurphyGuy]

You call anything you don't like a conspiracy ..... you are REALLY hung up on conspiracies for some reason.

I hate to break it to you, but everything isn't a conspiracy ..... You seem to think anyone who questions the status quo is into some sort of conspiracy group.
Doesn't it ever enter your mind that people might see things with their own eyes ... and then investigate it?
Maybe you just had a bad relationship with your mother?

I've seen your other posts, but let me ask you..

1) Man made global warming: Real or conspiracy?
2) 911: Inside job or just terrorists doing their thing?
3) Area 51: Aliens or just military base doing development?
4) Trump: Election stolen or fair?

 

[Cdkipp]

I discussed everyone of the things you mentioned with you. Although you are from time to time lucid, like BMcl, you are at heart a conspiracy theories and source of medical misinformation. You get full responses and then move along only to pop up again with the same point. You cannot grasp the difference between correlation and causation, you seldom refer to actual studies and at least as far as medical science goes you are scientifically illiterate with no inclination to learn or recognition that you need to do so.

 

[Bob B]

I've seen your other posts, but let me ask you..

1) Man made global warming: Real or conspiracy?
2) 911: Inside job or just terrorists doing their thing?
3) Area 51: Aliens or just military base doing development?
4) Trump: Election stolen or fair?

Really? More strawman stuff?

 

[Cdkipp]

Really?

I am interested also as conspiracy theory people seldom stick to one theory. You believe ivermectin is good and the vaccine bad. Really no explanation for that linkage except that is how the conspiracy theory is packaged.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Really? More strawman stuff?

Its not strawman, I'm trying to prove a point that conspiracy folks always share certain attributes.. Religious beliefs and global warming denial are usually the two most obvious up front.. But where there's one, there's usually more.. 911 is a big one so I included it, and the most recent being the election was included because its still fresh.

The point is, the irrational nature and flawed logic of a certain people is so obvious that their beliefs can even be grouped as a demographic. I postulate that the predictions are almost as reliable as saying "Asian's have dark hair"..

The reasons are simple... once you teach a child to hold an irrational belief, they will be predisposed to other irrational beliefs later in life.. even though they have no education in any of the conspiracy subject matter..

 

[MurphyGuy]

I am interested also as conspiracy theory people seldom stick to one theory. You believe ivermectin is good and the vaccine bad. Really no explanation for that linkage except that is how the conspiracy theory is packaged.

To be more specific: "Packaged for them"

First it was hydroxychloroquine, and tens of thousands of idiots jumped on that bandwagon.. Now its Ivermectin, and more idiots are riding the new train.

I have to wonder what is next... I'm betting it shows its ugly head within 6 months.

 

[Bob B]

You guys are just proving my point from post #49 .... just keep it up ..... if there are any on here who don't know how ridiculous your are .... you can let them see.
But ... gosh .... we can reinforce each others ridiculous statements .. that proves we know what we are talking about.

 

[Cdkipp]

Really? More strawman stuff?

You said you know science is fluid.

At this point I am very fairly certain the following scenario will unfold.

(1) The third booster will be found to wane within 3-4 months and a fourth will be needed
.
(2) there will be a push for a non mRNA vaccine based on older vaccine technology

(3) the definition of fully vaccinated will be modified to include at least the 3rd booster

(4) Omicron will become dominant.

(5) the Merck drug will not make much difference

All of those things are likely scenarios based on science that has developed in the last two weeks but instead of recognizing the reasons, you will post talking points to support your conspiracy theory.

 

[Bob B]

You said you know science is fluid.

At this point I am very fairly certain the following scenario will unfold.

(1) The third booster will be found to wane within 3-4 months and a fourth will be needed
.
(2) there will be a push for a non mRNA vaccine based on older vaccine technology

(3) the definition of fully vaccinated will be modified to include at least the 3rd booster

(4) Omicron will become dominant.

(5) the Merck drug will not make much difference

All of those things are likely scenarios based on science that has developed in the last two weeks but instead of recognizing the reasons, you will post talking points to support your conspiracy theory.

I actually agree that most of those things are likely ..... sorry, but unlike you I don't have talking points.

Edit: I would add to that list that given that Omicron so far seems much less virulent .... there is hope that the virus is evolving in such a way that more boosters may not even be needed. Doesn't seem like hardly anyone is dying from Omicron .... it is more transmissable .... I see that as good news.

 

[Cdkipp]

I actually agree that most of those things are likely ..... sorry, but unlike you I don't have talking points.

Of course you do. You are almost word for word from blogs. Your India argument, RFK, HCL, ivermectin. Is that all coincidence. I can tie what I say to scientific developments. They are data points. Your points are based in fantasy and must rely on that for foundation and source.

 

[Bob B]

Of course you do. You are almost word for word from blogs. Your India argument, RFK, HCL, ivermectin. Is that all coincidence. I can tie what I say to scientific developments. They are data points. Your points are based in fantasy and must rely on that for foundation and source.

Are those the blog .... and conspiracy sites you are talking about .... well, bad news, I hadn't seen any of those things on a blogs .... I have seen some of those things insinuated by Fauci.

I edited my previous post after you relied to it .... I really don't know why you don't think a person can have a thought that originated in his own mind .... could it be because you can't do that?

Which of the things you listed do you think aren't likely happen?