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!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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