FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > No one really knows about COVID
No one really knows about COVID
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
. Most here won't have the interest to discuss this but those who do will, of course, have very diverse backgrounds and knowledge. It is what it is. As long as people behave respectfully to each other and post nothing that may cause harm, then it's perhaps the best you'll get, when extreme views prevail. | |||
| |||
"I enjoy reading and responding to posts submitted on topics in the virus forum. It does not matter the quality of the posts, they all provide substance for debate and conversation in a fair environment, which is what a forum should be. However, this has been brewing in me for a while and its time to let it out, particularly on the COVID and vaccine topics. Many of us have chosen the side of the fence we sit on regarding all things COVID. Its good that this forum has not succumb to stifling or censoring the discussions within. Through fair moderation, one thing that evidently stands out is the division amongst us and the divide is strong and quite astonishing. One side mock the "Youtubers" and label those who look to alternative media as conspiracy theorists, deniers, spreaders of misinformation and so on, whilst themselves being ridiculed for putting their trust in politicians and mainstream media, the sheeple hanging off every word the private unelected institutions farm out. There are those who use their personal experience or observations to try and shore up their beliefs on the side they have chosen. Then there's the professional, academic, healthcare worker or similar that elevates their knowledge to an assumed superior level. Nevertheless, whatever we throw at each other, its all anecdotal. The thing is, all of us only know what we have been told. That goes for just about everything that makes up our knowledge right up to this moment and beyond. Throughout our formative years, what we are told/taught, for the vast majority, moulds us in to who we are now. I'd hazard a guess that 99.9999% of us have never made or are on the brink of discovering something new to mankind. We all just parrot what we've read, seen or heard. Not just in our formative years, but throughout our lifetime we are discouraged from questioning what we have been told, particularly by organisations that are held in an authoritative light. Those that do are often singled out and portrayed as troublemakers, disruptive etc and are negatively put under the spotlight just long enough for the compliant to be told and see who they need to distance themselves from. Too much exposure of the dissenters can damage the foundations of the knowledge police. Throughout the journey of acquiring knowledge, there are many things that once stood as fact, which through scrutiny and challenge ceased to be fact and gave way to new facts. Most things considered fact are subject to change and change may take a lifetime or more to establish. Regardless of which side of the fence we sit on, we're here shooting out what we believe to be the truth using our chosen anecdotal evidence/facts as ammunition. Now, if we ally truth to fact, all of a sudden things are going to turn to shit, bullshit to be precise...and all of a sudden could be a lifetime but its the same difference. So,to finish off, not one single person here has the faintest effing idea about the whole COVID situation. The real truth about the who, when, what, where, how and why will only be known to a very small number of individuals and none of us in our lifetime will ever discover the real truth. Regardless of its source, we will only know what we've been told...and that won't be the real truth yet we will continue to argue and labour our points, maintaining the massive divide. I look forward to more of your COVID posts. Happy debating everyone. " How is scientific evidence anecdotal? | |||
" How is scientific evidence anecdotal?" Those of a conspiratorial mindset really need the disciplined, peer reviewed work of scientists to be reduced to the same status as their personal feelings and suppositions. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"How is scientific evidence anecdotal?" Anecdotal - Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Peer review of scientific articles before publication is often considered the "gold standard" of reliability, but its luster has become tarnished by greed – the desire of the research community to tap into research funds, the pressure on scientists to publish or perish, and publishers of scientific journals seeking to maximize profits. It is possible to make the science deliver the outcome you want, peer reviewed...sorted! People read or hear the scientific evidence and parrot it. But you're still truly none the wiser are you? You're putting your faith in everything being straight and above board from a system that is seriously flawed and abused. And the majority of the science surrounding COVID and vaccines was made to order and people that are part of other seriously flawed organisations repeatedly fed us this bullshit science through every conceivable channel, ensuring that the masses accept their crap, which then gains massive public support, which makes rigorous scrutiny even harder as anyone who questions the science is a tin foil hat wearing nutter. Thats how its anecdotal. | |||
"How is scientific evidence anecdotal? Anecdotal - Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Peer review of scientific articles before publication is often considered the "gold standard" of reliability, but its luster has become tarnished by greed – the desire of the research community to tap into research funds, the pressure on scientists to publish or perish, and publishers of scientific journals seeking to maximize profits. It is possible to make the science deliver the outcome you want, peer reviewed...sorted! People read or hear the scientific evidence and parrot it. But you're still truly none the wiser are you? You're putting your faith in everything being straight and above board from a system that is seriously flawed and abused. And the majority of the science surrounding COVID and vaccines was made to order and people that are part of other seriously flawed organisations repeatedly fed us this bullshit science through every conceivable channel, ensuring that the masses accept their crap, which then gains massive public support, which makes rigorous scrutiny even harder as anyone who questions the science is a tin foil hat wearing nutter. That's how its anecdotal." Way to go to prove yourself wrong  .
So peer reviewed is considered gold standard of reliability? If that was the case three years of degree study just went up in smoke  | |||
| |||
"So peer reviewed is considered gold standard of reliability? If that was the case three years of degree study just went up in smoke "I remember reading one of your posts in which you stated you had read a couple of papers regarding spike protein in the blood. You said the first paper wasn't peer reviewed, therefore implying that the paper lacked reliability. Maybe not gold standard, but you used the peer review or lack of peer review as a standard to be cautious about that paper. | |||
"So peer reviewed is considered gold standard of reliability? If that was the case three years of degree study just went up in smoke
I remember reading one of your posts in which you stated you had read a couple of papers regarding spike protein in the blood. You said the first paper wasn't peer reviewed, therefore implying that the paper lacked reliability.
Maybe not gold standard, but you used the peer review or lack of peer review as a standard to be cautious about that paper.
"Of course it carries weight, but there are multiple factors in critiquing papers. | |||
| |||
"So because you don't understand the scientific method or view it with suspicion, no one knows anything? Right." View it with suspicion is an accurate assumption. There are conflicting versions of the COVID story around, all pertaining to be the truth. They can't all be true, but they can all be false. We will never get to know the true story behind the pandemic, this war on the people..and the first casualty of war is the truth and truth is replaced by propaganda, but also, those that know don't talk. So the truth is going to be very hard to come by and anything offered as the truth must be treated with caution. However, if you can tell me where COVID came from and explain away all the differing views of the scientific community, medical and healthcare professionals, politicians and so on, backed by absolute proof, i'm all ears, fill your boots. If you can't, you don't know. Right? | |||
"So because you don't understand the scientific method or view it with suspicion, no one knows anything? Right. View it with suspicion is an accurate assumption. There are conflicting versions of the COVID story around, all pertaining to be the truth. They can't all be true, but they can all be false. We will never get to know the true story behind the pandemic, this war on the people..and the first casualty of war is the truth and truth is replaced by propaganda, but also, those that know don't talk. So the truth is going to be very hard to come by and anything offered as the truth must be treated with caution. However, if you can tell me where COVID came from and explain away all the differing views of the scientific community, medical and healthcare professionals, politicians and so on, backed by absolute proof, i'm all ears, fill your boots. If you can't, you don't know. Right?" I would be embarrassed if I had such a poor understanding of epistemology as you're displaying. | |||
"So peer reviewed is considered gold standard of reliability? If that was the case three years of degree study just went up in smoke
I remember reading one of your posts in which you stated you had read a couple of papers regarding spike protein in the blood. You said the first paper wasn't peer reviewed, therefore implying that the paper lacked reliability.
Maybe not gold standard, but you used the peer review or lack of peer review as a standard to be cautious about that paper.
Of course it carries weight, but there are multiple factors in critiquing papers."Maybe so, but the only one you hear about is peer review and the understanding of most people is a peer review carries the most weight. | |||
"I would be embarrassed if I had such a poor understanding of epistemology as you're displaying." You could have just said i can't and you'd be right alongside the rest of us, who can't either. But its pretty piss poor that you need to cover up your inability to enlighten me with all the indisputable knowledge you have on COVID by insulting my understanding of epistemology. I had one last week and it was very unpleasant | |||
| |||
"So peer reviewed is considered gold standard of reliability? If that was the case three years of degree study just went up in smoke
I remember reading one of your posts in which you stated you had read a couple of papers regarding spike protein in the blood. You said the first paper wasn't peer reviewed, therefore implying that the paper lacked reliability.
Maybe not gold standard, but you used the peer review or lack of peer review as a standard to be cautious about that paper.
Of course it carries weight, but there are multiple factors in critiquing papers.
Maybe so, but the only one you hear about is peer review and the understanding of most people is a peer review carries the most weight."Lay people, possibly. | |||
| |||
| |||
