Ykes. Rough times for posters that spent the last year saying "Protect yourself, get the shot'.
Ykes. Rough times for posters that spent the last year saying "Protect yourself, get the shot'.
I don't think we'll ever get the whole truth.
This has been my fear all along: Once they feel they have everyone 'vaccinated' that can be, then they will start to tell the truth about the shots.
Some of you cheerleaders will have a lot to live with.
The @Uniformed_ReRe in me fears they have far more diabolical motives...I don't think we'll ever get the whole truth.
It's a cash cow. Big Pharma said they're "basically living off Covid money" in leaked video (that apparently lacked context). Big Pharma are massive donors to both parties. As long as the lies continue and the mandates for boosters are pushed forward the financial circle jerk is intact.
![]()
More than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020, new STAT analysis shows
Seventy-two senators and 302 members of the House of Representatives cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry ahead of the 2020 election, according to a new STAT analysis.www.statnews.com
These people are fvcking sick, and the people that keep propping them up are even worse.
Dog killer and murderer.
As I've told you several times: Trust science, generally, yes*. Trust all scientists? No. The scientific method is not infallible, but it is the best available method for building knowledge.Trust the science. The scientific method is infallible. @SORT14
As I've told you several times: Trust science, generally, yes*. Trust all scientists? No. The scientific method is not infallible, but it is the best available method for building knowledge.
Also (and again), I can't stand Fauci or what he stands for. He isn't the only representative of science, especially not ethical science. And, he is a very poor representative, as he is politically compromised and likely very ethically challenged IMO.
Typically when a scientific study is proposed , it has to be reviewed by a board of ethics, usually an IRB (institutional review board). Here is an example of one IRB guideline: https://rsp.uni.edu/irb-manual-ethical-principles
But if Fauci somehow got his dog study ethically approved, the scientific method could still be applied. Ethics do not constrain the scientific method, only people's application of it.
*This is why I told you before to go with the general consensus of science, not absolute consensus. I say not absolute consensus because there is very rarely such thing - there should be disagreement within the scientific community, but replicated, reproduced, and meta-analyses studies will converge toward a common conclusion is that conclusion is scientifically supported. At the point of convergence is where we have the general consensus.
Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss science/scientific method.
It happens way too often, I agree. A while ago on this thread, I mentioned that there are a lot of internal battles going on in the scientific community, and part of it is just this. In instances where political agendas hijack research, it undermines the confidence of the public in scientific results. This was my motivation for starting a scientific journal (under way now, but difficult) that makes biased research obsolete.There is no scienticfic method in issues with big political leanings now. Their political leanings lean them to manipulate the conditions and results etc.
Dude it doesn’t matter what you say they’re going to misrepresent it and twist it and celebrate it in their own little circle jerk club, and no one outside that circle pays any attention to them. No need to waste your time 😊As I've told you several times: Trust science, generally, yes*. Trust all scientists? No. The scientific method is not infallible, but it is the best available method for building knowledge.
Also (and again), I can't stand Fauci or what he stands for. He isn't the only representative of science, especially not ethical science. And, he is a very poor representative, as he is politically compromised and likely very ethically challenged IMO.
Typically when a scientific study is proposed , it has to be reviewed by a board of ethics, usually an IRB (institutional review board). Here is an example of one IRB guideline: https://rsp.uni.edu/irb-manual-ethical-principles
But if Fauci somehow got his dog study ethically approved, the scientific method could still be applied. Ethics do not constrain the scientific method, only people's application of it.
*This is why I told you before to go with the general consensus of science, not absolute consensus. I say not absolute consensus because there is very rarely such thing - there should be disagreement within the scientific community, but replicated, reproduced, and meta-analyses studies will converge toward a common conclusion is that conclusion is scientifically supported. At the point of convergence is where we have the general consensus.
Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss science/scientific method.
Unfortunate. If anyone is interested in scientific discussions, then there should be a separate thread for that IMO.Dude it doesn’t matter what you say they’re going to misrepresent it and twist it and celebrate it in their own little circle jerk club, and no one outside that circle pays any attention to them. No need to waste your time 😊
Unfortunate. If anyone is interested in scientific discussions, then there should be a separate thread for that IMO.
Replying to my own post because @jfegaly ’s favorite poster laughed at it.Interesting theory in why vaxxing kids is risky.
![]()
More on Original Antigenic Sin and the Folly of Our Universal Vaccination Campaign
A deeper look at a decisive limitation of our adaptive immune systems.eugyppius.substack.com
Replying to my own post because @jfegaly ’s favorite poster laughed at it.
I’ve made it guys, I’ve finally arrived.
#feelsgoodman
The reality is, we have a few shot cheerleaders who tell us to 'trust the science, trust the studies', but they themselves only trust the studies that back up the efficacy of the shots. The studies and information that shows the downsides to the shots, they completely dismiss.The reason it is ITT is because folks (including yourself)have posted “trust the science”, here are “scientific studies” with links, here is the “scientific method” etc…..all in this thread. So discussing fauci and the fallibility of “science” and “the scientific method” is totally appropriate ITT. Not to mention, the first time someone brought up covid in that thread, your boy would run to the mods because it’s not in here.
IMO this is the perfect thread to be discussing, and showing the corruption that has been in the “scientific community” for years (well before covid)
After all, it would appear that a worldwide pandemic that has killed millions, led to an economic crisis, increased violent crime, mental health issues, and increased worldwide hunger amongst other things…..is likely to have been caused by…..wait for it…..science.
I thought the 'experts' here told us only 1% of covid deaths were vaccinated?