Belief Versus The Scientific Method

This kind of post Message 128 is curious to me. How can anyone be so wrong on so many levels in one post?I know there are a lot of stupid people in this world but this one takes on the color of a targeted stupidity.My opinion:This message was never intended to be a stupid rip by some stupid person trying to make a lame science point. This message was intended to drop a bit of poison into the mind of the public. The reich-wing hates Dr. Fauci because the man does his job and calls out their bullshit.Disguise the drop of poison as a science thing in a science forum where it’s sure to be noticed and read. EvC is a small, but useful target for the eyes we attract. Remember this kind of insidious messaging is probably happening at lots of sites across the American tier of internet society. Pump it out drop by drop: Fauci lies, Covid lies, government lies. Besides Trump didn’t like him either.EvC, we have just been gaslighted.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

ringo is right (I think) all evidence is objective.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.Second, evidence may change. That does not mean the past evidence was not objective. It may not have been complete but, if done right, it can be objectively obtained and analyzed, even if wrong (cold fusion comes to mind).IMHO, objectivity has little to do with the truth value of the evidence (also the function of peer review and replication) but in the nature of the data collection and its analysis. Once verified and the community agrees the data was objectively collected and analysed then it becomes evidence. Observation, data, unverified, does not count as evidence for the very reasons you cite.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Only if we are vigilant and call out each of his lies and twisted half-truths which he/she/it spews with every post.An issue is whether this Goebbels-ian poison is most effective in its repetition since its truth value is nil. The old story used to be that your best counter to bullshit was exposure in the marketplace of ideas relying on broader human intellect to prevail.I don't see that happening. I see the tsunami of repetition, this present fool being a wavelet in that effort, beginning to dominate the conversation.But they are out there now poisoning society and must be dealt with. The Nazis are coming. The brownshirts, like this idiot whether a foreign operative or not, are with us now.The only thing we have is the truth.But the truth does not need to be applied lightly, sans ridicule, sans punch in the face so, yeah, we should probably continue to poke, jab, slug, punch him in the nose, step on his face not so much for entertainment value as for self preservation.

There are all kinds of greed in this world.Your Barrington declaration is a self-serving right-wing display of bad science, bad judgement, bad motivations. It's the 1% telling the rest of us to get back to work. Die if you will but work until then.

quote:

---

The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.
...
The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free market think tank associated with climate change denial.

---

WikiCaught in yet another subterfuge to excuse your past lying. None of the rest of your posts can be considered valid since you have shown your propensity to lie like a fucking dog.You're just one fuckin nazi lying for another bunch of fuckin nazis.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : more nasty

That's just it, you lying nazi. There are not.The same old lying shit you reich-wing bastards try to pull on climate change for decades."Multitudes of real honest-to-god scientists say climate change is a hoax so keep burning that carbon cuz CO² is good for plants."You're a lier.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Your subterfuge continues.Your dysfunctional and dangerous Barrington declaration has nothing to do with vaccines or science. It is reich-wing political theater. It is a stupidity that needs to be exposed for the political rot that it is.Some group of scientists work for years developing a vaccine. Then one of them slips an intellectual cog and becomes an anti-vaxx crazy.And here you hold him up as your counter to Dr. Fauci. You lose big time.

It does. Wonderfully. Even with breakthrough infections, which, if they appear, are much milder an illness than the death zone the unvaccinated suffer.You and your masters don't want to see the facts.COVID-19 Vaccines Work | CDCI know you hate the CDC (which is hilarious since you cite them as a resource). Like Dr. Fauci, they keep exposing your conspiracy crap. I hold them up against anything you got, you fucking lying nazi.

Really? What certain beliefs led to this:The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science.Go ahead. Identify the beliefs used to reach the conclusions presented.What did this was science, the consensus of the world's climate scientists, devoid of the political BS you and your puppet masters want to use to obfuscate the truth.

Not sorry, boss, but I'll stop.

I don't care about your cherry picked misleading tripe. The CDC's assessment that the vaccines work is good enough proof of their efficacy.Add European Union to those opposing your bullshit.Covid-19 vaccine sceptics slammed across Europe as Omicron rages | The Straits TimesAgain with the lies. Do you ever stop being this dumb?

And if there are questions among a majority of the experts then the science is not settled.When the science is settled as it is with anthropic global warming then attempting to deny that settled science is just plain stupid. You obviously fit the bill.

Issue here is my link was about the science of vaccines and the physical harm you anti-human bastards are causing by being stupid and spreading the disease.Your links, and, no, I don't care how many you and your masters care to fake up here, are political screeds meant to obscure reality. Which it is but you cannot admit it since the science not only says you are wrong but you are fucking stupid. Every real scientist understands bias in the collection and analysis of data. That is why the protocols of real, actual, scientific study are so strict on methodology. And since we know humans are fallible and (as you show with your sources) dumb as a bag of rocks there is the requirement for a scientist to open the kimono and show all, the methods, the raw data, the analysis and the conclusions.Your side doesn't do any of that. You idiots don't do science.Science is what the consensus of the knowledge experts agree is shown from the facts. And the vast majority of the real immunologists the world over are telling you your anti-vaxx bullshit is not only wrong but is dangerous.Your anti-vaxx, anti-mask, anti-humane views are known by the real, actual, scientific community to be wrong, dangerous and just plain stupid. Can you admit that much?

God you are so ignorant. How do you think we know whether you’ve done science properly or not? Just take your word for it? How do we know these "facts" you say you uncovered are real?Here you are trying to destroy science and you don’t even know what it is, how it works in this species. You’re an idiot.We have knowledge experts look at what you did. Peer review. They will tear into the very bowels of your methods, data collection, analysis, conclusions to determine if you have done the science right. Then we have other groups of knowledge experts scrutinize the work of the reviewers. If the consensus among all these experts, those scientists that actually work and study in that field (not internet mis-educated politically motivated nazi wannabes like you and your handlers), if that consensus of the experts concludes the science is acceptable then your conclusions are tentatively accepted and the data, the facts and conclusions are used to predict future outcomes.Yeah, bunches of real scientists, acknowledged by their peers as experts in the field, determine whether your science is good or crap. And they do so by consensus, by the voice of thousands worldwide. You got some kind of problem with that, numbnut?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Seriously? At this point in the game do we really need to provide this forum with evidence of the obvious?If I'm talking about the JWST flying out to L2 do I really need to debunk flat-Earth theory first?Because of the hyper activity on this subject all over the planet vaccine effectiveness has been documented not just in scientific studies but in news media around the world and has been known for quite some time now. It should be an axiom not up for debate, especially in response to idiots who wouldn't acknowledge the data anyway.But if you insist:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2110605An early editorial about studies on the covid-19 vaccines, effectiveness and public policy in NEJM. Peer reviewed. Verified. Actual real conclusions on effectiveness.

quote:

---

As of June 19, 2021, Covid-19 vaccines are estimated to have prevented 7.2 million infections and 27,000 deaths in England alone.12 Similarly, in the United States, an estimated 279,000 deaths and up to 1.25 million hospitalizations have been averted as of the end of June 2021.13 As the delta variant affects various countries, including the United States, the current imperative is to vaccinate as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Underserved and at-risk communities must not be neglected when implementing this strategy.

---

And here is one early study on the effectiveness of available vaccines on the Omicron variant in South Africa.https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119270

quote:

---

During the proxy omicron period, we found a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62 to 76), a finding that was supported by the results of all sensitivity tests. This measure of vaccine effectiveness was significantly different from that during the comparator period, when the rate was 93% (95% CI, 90 to 94) against hospitalization for Covid-19

---

Others can slog through providing additional cites chapter and verse if necessary.The evidence of effectiveness has been provided, is known, has been known and should not be an issue in these discussions.

Ok, boss. But I just want you to know you are not being any fun at all.