This one reddit post shows everything thats wrong with the people that "follow the science" in a nutshell
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧠 These people are stupid!
Comments (142)
sorted by:
“They wouldn’t publish a bogus study.” You mean like the one the Lancet published last year demonizing HCQ only to pull it with a small retraction statement after the damage was already done? No, those CCP/Big Pharma funded journals would never publish self-serving bogus shit.
Reddit is CCP dumbassery. Fucktards there believe GME is the only thing the media lies about. So naive and stupid.
Everytime they see a redpill they think that is the only thing they have been lied to. The ignorance is by choice.
Oh they wouldn't scrub studies that go against their narrative. No they'd never do that.
They wouldn't suicide Aaron Swartz either. Had he lived reddit wouldn't have become such a garbage site.
Just remember that at some point, most if. It all, of us were asleep - it was a wild world back then and even more ridiculous now - cognitive dissonance is a security/protective thing
True, most of us were ignorant, not stupid. Reasonable questions were weighed and measured. We came to this realization when too many fact errors started to create an overall pattern. If there wasn't a pattern of corruption and deception, we wouldn't be here today. There are people who want to see and verify for themselves, others only want to be soon fed information. Stupidity can't be fixed, ignorance can
^This This This^
If they are telling you HCQ and Ivermectin are dangerous drugs, THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. But prolly just about that.
OMG it's like talking to a woman who's husband is obviously cheating on her.
Superstonk is planefagging.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/p4nqgn/tracking_kennys_private_jet_abnormality_for_ken/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Many are waking up,and their are many entrenched shills over their for the deep state.
That's the point I always feel is the most incredulous one. They always assume the published studies don't lie. They need to understand the problem occurs with the people who decide what to publish. The studies are cherry picked to promote a specific agenda. The editors of JAMA, NEJM, Lancet are the gatekeepers of information. The doctors trust them implicitly. Really? If 5 peer review studies show that Ivermectin works when used in the proper dose at the onset of symptoms and one study that uses too much or too little when the patient is already critical and concludes it doesn't, they publish the latter as proof that Ivermectin doesn't work and silence the people who submitted the other studies. Then all the doctors say trust the science Ivermectin doesn't work.
If you ask the doctors, who exactly chose to include this specific study to publish they'd say the editor or review committee of JAMA or NEJM or LANCET. Then if you ask them to name the editor or the people on the committee they wouldn't know. They blindly trust gatekeepers they don't know. They trust the publication as if were the Bible and God spoke to the editors in some manner. It's nuts. That's where their argument goes off the rails. They don't challenge "authority" at any level of publication or the ones who craft the "official" protocols. They follow and say it's science because it's easier. Going against the flow is not a way to advance their careers or curry favor with peers.
Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, considered one of the most respected medical journals in the world, said this about "science" --
A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, is saying that medical research is UNRELIABLE AT BEST IF NOT COMPLETELY BOGUS! Lancet editor, Richard Horton “… states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants.”
https://www.drugawareness.org/editor-of-lancet-medical-research-is-unreliable-at-best-or-completely-fraudulent/
Richard Horton also said, "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
https://www.thegwpf.com/lancet-editor-half-of-science-is-wrong/
Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, another top-ranked medical journal in the world said this about today's "science" --
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
And, "… she vetted manuscripts that omitted any mention of a drug’s side effects, and studies that were weighted to make a drug look good; she repeatedly heard about studies never submitted for publication because they made a drug look bad."
Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal said this --
"…most of what appears in peer-reviewed journals is scientifically weak."
Check out this statement --
"This is no small issue in the life of an engaged patient. e-Patients who bring googled articles to their office visits are often lambasted or subjected to eye-rolls by clinicians who say that we should only trust academic medical journals. But can we trust them??
"We got a rude update on why published science is shaky in our January 2011 post The Decline Effect: most published studies are never replicated by another lab! That’s absurd – heck, in high school I couldn’t get a science experiment passed if it wasn’t reproducible, but our journals do that??
"If a study isn’t replicated, how can we be confident of what will happen when we put the drugs in our bodies?"
You realize what this means, right? In the vast majority of cases, "peer review" means NOTHING BUT AN UNINFORMED OPINION.
"If we exclude tainted people ["experts" with financial ties to the companies that want to see specific results of trials], the NEJM won’t have enough authors [to publish articles in the NEJM]??"
The author of the article writes, "Knowing what I now know about the publication process, my perspective is as I said above: until a study has been replicated by another lab, I view it as nothing more than a first datum – an educated guess, not validated science. And it seems any science-minded clinician must do the same."
https://participatorymedicine.org/epatients/2012/03/former-nejm-editors-on-the-corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html
"Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell.
"During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.
"You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her:
"Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
http://www.robertscottbell.com/government/famous-medical-journal-editor-torpedoes-medical-journal-by-jon-rappoport/
Upvoated, Saved.
Upvote and save. Thanks.
I've been trying to articulate this concept forever. Thank you for this perfect & well written explanation!
They banned all the "mean and racist" subs, so all that's left now are retards.
Aahhh 👆🏼
This sums up Liberals quite well. Intellectually lazy and a deference to authority because they can't figure it out for themselves.
Some snarky, virtue-signaling, unquestioning, unthinking, "progressive" regressive, Left-leaning potato, probably.
(≖◞ ~🌼)
Tell them to talk to a scientist! Almost all real scientists know that more than 1/2 of published studies are bogus because of all the pressure in that community to publish. It's a known problem in the science community & they all know about it
"I didn't read the study you linked, but I can already tell you it's wrong because the TV doctor said so. No, I won't provide you with a study that disproves it because I don't actually read any studies."
pretty much sums it up
Galileo, I didn't read the study you linked, but I can already tell you it's wrong because Aristotle said so. No, I won't provide you with a study that disproves it because I don't actually read any studies.
As for scientific studies - I did years in university studying statistics and economics and I know how you can play with numbers to present whatever you want. I have doctors in the family and my sister is a PhD in biochemistry. I saw many times how researches are done. The best example is - my sister invited me to her lab and she told me in a way of a joke that it's common to repeat the test until they get the results they want. So first you think of a theory, then you prove it. And if you can't prove it, you try until you do. I'm immune to "trust the science" for life
And yet people take studies so seriously, even the social science ones where they can literally prove anything they want.
it's too scary to accept that we are often left to the mercy of incompetent and even malicious people.
If the current times didnt show that to us, we would never have learnt it en masse
This scares me so much right now, specifically going into a hospital for their expertise that I really need. Such as a broken bone. Broke my wrist a few years back and I was grateful for Dr. Chen. He knew what he was doing.
Nowadays? I’d probably chose to let it heal and have it look cosmetically bad because it would have been crooked a bit. But what happens if I’m in a car accident and…I guess Jesus is my answer. His will be done, if that happens, I will not go to the hospital except of course if I’m unconscious. Best to stay home as much as possible, and pray
yes! my GP tried to stop me from doing tests that I eventually did without his letter (in my country it's almost impossible to do) which revealed early stage of cancer, I was enraged. We didn't do anything about it, we just immigrated and didn't know much about procedures. Now this asshole tells me "we as doctors decided that everyone should wear masks and vaccinate and it's your problem if you don't agree". I just hope we won't need to visit hospitals anytime soon. If it comes down to "vax or don't get therapy" I'd choose not to get the therapy.
This is exactly how SARS COV2 was made.
"What if SARS jumped from a human to a bat? Sure, it's never happened. But, wouldn't that be terrible? What if it was so bad that everybody died?
Tell you what, I'll take millions of your dollars and play around with this idea, until I can CRISPR up a version of this hypothetical virus. Then we can make up a multi-billion dollar injection to market, just in case 😉😉 such a terrible virus were to emerge and jump the species barrier, cough, cough."
There is ONE (and only one) way to prove that you are wrong.
If somebody were to (a) extract the blood of a sick person, (b) isolate the specific virus believed to be the cause, (c) purify that virus so that ONLY that virus were in a test tube, (d) and then test that virus to find out if it makes animals/people sick.
If that were done, then somebody would PROVE that you are wrong. They would also win a nobel prize and be a household name around the world, showered with millions of dollars in grant money.
Funny ... nobody has ever bothered to do it.
Because they CANNOT...
Science worked best when it was sigma males doing mad shit in their back yard, the peer review was if the claim could be demonstrated in front of a crowd of skeptical fruit chucking public or not. Not a faggot journal where the editor probably rapes kids.
Bbuttt…a-chrome is scientific!!
"Try until you do." This is so common, and it's a very human thing. Scientists are no different from the rest of us when they try to force the facts support what they want to believe, rather than letting the facts prove or disprove it. Education is a two-edged sword. A brilliantly educated person can brilliantly deny what he or she doesn't want to believe.
Some are outright liars, of course. Some are giving in to pressure or perks. Others simply want to make a name for themselves at any cost. It's a modern crisis of morality, but it is this underlying human tendency to force the confirmation of their beliefs that leaves them open to manipulation from gatekeepers with an agenda. Students used to be taught to recognize this tendency so they could avoid it and have a better chance at discovering the truth, but not anymore. Now they are taught not to question established theory, and they are encouraged to disregard inconvenient evidence that it might be wrong.
It has happened before in science. The situation only changes when contradictory facts from better observation accumulate to the point that the cost of clinging to established theory outweighs the cost of abandoning our modifying it. No one like to be labeled a fool for believing something that is obviously wrong.
While this is true, I (and most other people probably) learned that this is NOT science when I was in grade school.
Nor I, but for me that was when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we had to get up and go over to the TV to change the channel. I will concede that the proper form of scientific method might still be taught in some schools, but it should be difficult to keep to it when honest inquiry is limited by theories that are presented as fact. Everything is framed by the theories establishment scientific community regards as fact. That is justified when a theory is abundantly proven, like the theories regarding electromagnetism have been. It is not justified when a theory is not proven. The Big Bang is a relevant example. The theory gets in more trouble every year from better observation and better deductive science that increasingly challenges its basic tenets. They are trying to save the theory when they come up with ridiculous things like pre-existing magnetic fields that cannot exist by themselves apart from an electric field and dark matter that can never be seen, measured, or tested. It's the epicycles the ancient Greeks invented to account for the crazy motions of the planets all over again. They were invested in a theory, too, and they were trying to save it. My point is that this framing itself leads some scientists into the error of trying to prove what they have been taught is the truth.
Oh, the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have to tell us how many times they've run a test before they got the results they wanted. Why do you think R&D is so expensive for them. R&D is cheaper for this though, since instead of paying the trial members, they're getting paid by tax dollars for every trial member.
That's a really long way for him to admit that he's retarded.
You have to admire the “retarded apes” over there on Reddit though. They admit it, and glory in it. I just wish they would apply the same genius principles and study of the situation in other fields, uh, say like the medical establishment? I’m thinking they will eventually. Those guys are not to far from a logins bulb coming on there, I hope and pray
Not true. many bogus studies are published and most are pharmaceutical studies. Remember the study that rubbished hydroxychloroquine which was published in The Lancet? That had to be retracted.
Retraction Watch is a list of retrtacted studies.
Do people advocating masks listen to the science? If so, how do they explain away these lists of up to 61 papers saying masks are ineffective and another 36 that claim that masks are dangerous?
https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VARIOUS-FACE-MASK-STUDIES-PROVE-THEIR-INEFFECTIVENESS-PDF.pdf
https://12160.info/m/blogpost?id=2649739%3ABlogPost%3A2035264
OK, but I think it is symmetrical. That is, if you breathe out a virus then someone else will be able to breathe it in regardless of mask wearing.
If you breathe out an infected droplet while wearing a mask then it most likely will not get past the mask. however, if you were not wearing a mask then another mask wearer would not be able to breate in the droplet through his mask anyway.
Also, if someone does get a droplet with a virus stuck to their mask, what is the guarantee that the virus will remain on the mask and not enter your body? If it does remain on the mask, shouldn't we be extremely careful how we dispose of all masks?
"Let the CDC and FDA do all the leg work for you..."
Well, I'm convinced. No need to think for myself. Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave.
Man, thanks for reminding this. I need to go back and rewatch that movie!
It's becoming more, and more like a documentary every day. ;)
Well I ain't seen no plant grow outta the toilet!
Don’t these folks know. The science data can be used to tell any story you want.
Why is this so hard to understand!!??
But trust the CDC and FDA!
I am a man of both faith and science. You need to be in balance with both.
The trust the science people are crazy! I just don’t know why they can’t see.
It’s up to the scientists to decide which variables are to be included in any experiment.
4 different scientists could all decide to include another variable that the others didn’t.
Therefore they all get different results. They could peer review each other’s work.
But who decides what are the most important variables to test.
Science is really scientific method for observation and theorizing those observations.
Deciding which theories are correct and which are not - they call it "Scientific Consensus" but in reality thats just gobblygook. It doesnt mean anything. But it makes the current science subjective and not objective, and makes it a religion.
In the old days, scientific understanding was constantly changing, and emphasis was about discovering new things, not creating a set of beliefs.
I couldn’t agree more.
It’s totally subjective now.
Probably the most important thing a scientist could do is: "I thought X was true. I did an experiment. I found out X wasn't true. Too bad, since the guy giving me the grant really wants X to be true."
That would take guts and courage.
And you will lose your research funding
Yup.
Scientific method needs an update for funding.
Its a weird thing most people born in the last 30 years seem to thing, they speak and act as if we live in a post-science world where we have definitively moved past all paradigm shifts and we now have a complete vision of reality that can be refined but not changed or expanded
It seems the old incentive "Publish or perish" has been injected with steroids.. documents laced with 'science speak' to impress the proles. Peer reviews filled with jealous contempt. Think Atlas Shrugged State Science Institute.
I work with data often. It’s not difficult at all to fudge numbers, cherry pick metrics, paint a biased or even outright false narrative etc
Agreed.. I am a software engineer. When creating reports. It’s easy to fudge the data for sure!
Yeah. Most people say "I've done the research" while they lack even the most basic background in scientific reading and statistics requires to validate and interpret a study. Studying a single paper easily takes 2 hours out of your day and that if its a short one.
For sure!
This guy was arguing with someone that Ivermectin has been proven ineffective in scientific studies (in response to the post that linked to studies proving it is effective).
He tried to provide links to these studies but turns out his links actually said "these studies have not been published or peer reviewed". Upon pointing this out, he came up with this gem of a post!
Red.dit is propaganda site. Good you prove again those truth.
There are a few last stand subs there - conspiracy and nonewnormal are two of them. I do find people there who are looking for answers and too afraid to come to places like this. Some of them are just dying to be redpilled. But then you have retards like this.
There are,but conspiracy is already almost lost after they removed axolotl_peyotl, and the rest are under siege. Takeovers of moderation are too quick there to think free speech would exist in red.dit darker corners long enough.
It is now partisan warfare on enemy territory really. In long term red.dit shall be destroyed or proven for all to be compromised to cause normies and conservatives evacuating from this communist propaganda hellhole.
If I can give you advice : If you recognise people to redpill on red.dit - do this on priv and advise them to leave red.dit. It is only way. Trying to do it openly would cause you getting ban faster.
Uh, NNN is now in quarantine and will be deleted soon.
You can find 'em here on .win now, 'fugees like the rest of us.
NNN quarantine is redpilling a lot of people. Everytime Reddit quarantines some sub, people flock to it out of curiosity and then they wonder "Hmm .. I dont see any terrorists here, wonder what the hoopla was about"
That means he didn't bother to read, or could not understand, the sources he was citing.
He was probably just copy/pasting from some propaganda site.
It is, and yet these very same people often think that all people are so corruptible that they need a nanny state to control them. They seem to think that once a corruptible person gets a government job, or a doctor's "license" or similar, that magic fairy dust is sprinkled on them and they are forevermore no longer corruptible. Until, of course, they get fired for stepping out of line, in which case they are back to being corruptible.
It is not just child-like, it is childish and juvenile.
This was me 6-7 years ago.
The way I broke free from this logic/thinking:
I had to realize the entire system was full of gatekeepers and that information that goes against the globohomo agenda was suppressed and smeared.
Started with topics like “revolving credit” then “electric car” then went to “tesla” then the “moon landing” then “fractional reserve banking” and on and on and on
Once I was able to see the machine at work, I was able to discern truth from fiction much more easily
(Still takes time, effort, and diligence, of course, but yeah, that’s what globohomo is counting on us not having)
Yeah, I really dont think this dude is capable of that kind of thinking.
See I was the same as well, but we have a fundamental difference from him.
We both believed the illusion, but, we also had our mind open to the possibility that anything is possible. That open mind is what allowed us to see through the cracks when we found them.
Lol “it’s hard to find studies, you can’t just Google it and get results”
GoogleScholar: exists.
S’much fear, insecurity, projection, hatred and anger in one post.
Right ?
If this had to do with the McMaster study, remember that:
The Gates Foundation funded it. They invested heavily into all of the vaccines and the upcoming “Pfizermectin.”
Reuters broke the news first. James C. Smith was the owner/CEO of Reuters until he very conveniently “left the post” in Feb. 2020 to focus on his work with the WEF. He also sits on Pfizer’s BoD, which is making its own version of Ivermectin because they can’t profit off of the current, off-patent version.
The study itself lumped its participants into just two age groups—18-50 and 50-90+, which is atrocious.
Anyone trusts Pfizer and gang after this whole fiasco deserves their “products”. I’ll stick with the yummy apple paste thanks.
I couldn't pass an 8th grade math class without showing my working out.
Suddenly though the Trust The Science crowd think science doesn't involve showing how you reached your conclusion over this one particular emotive subject. They are in a cult.
CCC…Common Core Cult.
It seems he has fallen for the logically unsound MSM arguments against ivermectin:
FDA: We will NOT let doctors prescribe Ivermectin
Also FDA: Why you eating the horse version, its not meant for humans
I've bought psychedelics online that were "not meant for human consumption" and they were great quality products.
Spoiler alert: you can have lethal doses of Vitamin C, or protein, or water for that matter (it's called drowning). Any substance in sufficiently high quantities is lethal.
This is why I don't bother debating.
But this is what makes it fun!
Paid pharma shill. I wonder if this person who knowingly caused pain, suffering, and death on humanity will think it was worth it when he’s cast into the lake of fire
Paid shills never disengage on their own. I get a strong feeling this is a truly blinded sheep.
"Let the FDA and CDC do the work for you"
What a tool...
If we had some degree of transparency and trust in our institutions, the ability to hold them accountable, hang the liars, etc then I would follow this advice
You think I enjoy spending the majority of my spare time trying to understand all this shit?
It’s exhausting having to do all this - but that’s the world we live in right now I guess so we have no choice
Exactly. Life was good when I lived in ignorant bliss and thought I could trust these organizations. Sometimes I wish I was blue pilled and still living in wonderland but I'm glad I'm not.
That sentence alone would have made me think that he was a shill. But taken with all the rest he wrote ... yeah, he is that kinda normie
....Spregs on for 3 more paragraphs about how terrible people are for asking questions.
Long winded for a waist of time, eh?
“Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.” Proverbs 18:2 NLT
“A truly wise person uses few words; a person with understanding is even-tempered. Even fools are thought wise when they keep silent; with their mouths shut, they seem intelligent.” Proverbs 17:27-28 NLT
The Lord has made everything for his own purposes, even the wicked for a day of disaster.” Proverbs 16:4 NLT
Everything is reversed in reddit land. The big clue here is "let the CDC and FDA do the legwork.."
That is exactly what this person has done, they haven't researched a single thing. It is just a long confessional that they're ignorant.
Them: "Do your own research."
Does own research.
Them: "Doesn't count."
You like apples...?well I got apple flavored horse ivermectin...how you like dem apples!
Lol🐸👌great movie
I really hope that was a troll... If it's not it has to be a 10 year old kid that can't even process information properly yet. They labeled themselves a wilful ignorant dumbass.
So…besides dissing out Bangladesh what’s the counter-argument? The horses ass doesn’t like apple-flavoring? Another “win” for the tard-nation. Here’s a point not really discussed below. With all the talk about real science, peer reviewed studies, AMA, JAMA, Lancet, and objective vs subjective findings keep in mind another motivator besides money? These days if your “science” goes against DS eugenics then you’re not just discredited or miss-out on that grant; you’re targeted. That’s a pretty big motivator.
My boyfriend and I listened to the Bret Weinstein / Pierre Kory Joe Rogan podcast on ivermectin.
After 2 years of me being awake and trying my best I had had given up on him and just about everything. But he was finally red pilled by that episode. And I mean his eyes were irreversibly OPENED.
What that episode did was present overwhelming evidence that the CDC, WHO and NIH are captured, meaning controlled by the very entity they are meant to control and regulate.
Once you know this, you realize none of your previous arguments are valid and everything is put into question.
It’s so late in the game but I guess some people can still wake up.
What a fucking retard
His narrative has a certain tone that makes me believe that it comes from a native Chinese speaker.
There are people on both sides that do the same. You bring them sources, they disprove each by just looking at the link. In some cases it's justified, it others not, but usually it's a waste of time indeed. I don't think internet battles have any use. Someone comes with an argument, you present your argument, they call you dumb and disappear, then comes next one with the same argument and does the same and next one and next one - it never ends.
Thorianb: dead man posting!
Science + Politics = Politics
Science vs God's truth.
If your five senses over rule God's Word then you are blind.
This person is a sheep by its very nature.
No, science has a self-affirming bias, for it builds on itself in perpetuity until it reaches a roadblock, after which we see either a paradigm shift or stagnation. it is biased to any scientific propositions within liberalism and it is biased to scientific propositions within conservatism.
Science is also innately amoral and unethical, as it does not concern itself with abstract and vague matters (Hence why the entire field of sociology is a joke), which is why using science to resolve a moral or ethical quandary is innately fucked
Exactly. Science simply answers why a natural phenomenon occurs, or how to perform some procedure to get a desired result. It does not provide any insight into questions like, "Should we be doing this?" or "What do we value?".
TIL apple is a “horse flavor”
Dunning-Krueger effect case study on full display.