Government Shutdown

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Still waiting on you to provide those facts and the evidence.

We can start here, but it's pointless.

Facts are hard for Jeff

[Jeff]

We can start here, but it's pointless.

Facts are hard for Jeff

And who runs that website? Some billionaire ex-Microsoft CEO.

What "facts" are on that page?

Did they disassociate the deaths that were labeled a "covid death" even though covid was NOT the cause of death?


Nice try.  0/10

[Smit]

Well, you tried. 

[Bucky Cornstarch]

And who runs that website? Some billionaire ex-Microsoft CEO.

What "facts" are on that page?

Did they disassociate the deaths that were labeled a "covid death" even though covid was NOT the cause of death?


Nice try.  0/10

Like I said, it's pointless. I literally picked the first subject, and one of the first sites to pop up in a google search, knowing full well that you would poo poo the source and question the "facts."

Trumptards in no way are willing to accept evidence or facts that go against what their puny little minds have been programmed to believe. We can explain what a fact is, point to peer reviewed studies, or reference known, legitimate news sources, and you idiots will continue to keep your heads lodged firmly in your own assholes.

[Jeff]

Like I said, it's pointless. I literally picked the first subject, and one of the first sites to pop up in a google search, knowing full well that you would poo poo the source and question the "facts."

Trumptards in no way are willing to accept evidence or facts that go against what their puny little minds have been programmed to believe. We can explain what a fact is, point to peer reviewed studies, or reference known, legitimate news sources, and you idiots will continue to keep your heads lodged firmly in your own assholes.

What "facts" did you link that prove what I said was incorrect? All you did was link some random webpage.

[CNCAppsJames]

"...Peer Review..."

... Despite its acceptance as a critical part of quality control, peer review is not a perfect process. In 2003, The Cochrane Collaboration published a review concluding that there is little evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs (Jefferson, Rudin, Brodney Folse, & Davidoff, 2007). There are few published, randomized controlled studies relating to peer review; therefore it remains ill-defined.
The peer-review process can be time consuming, costly, subject to reviewer bias, and inept at identifying fraudulent manuscripts. A well-known example of the failure of peer review is the publication of two fraudulent papers by Hwang Woo-Suk concerning stem cell research in the journal Science (Kumar, 2009).
In addition, there are no agreed-upon evidence-based guidelines as to what constitutes a qualified reviewer....

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4093306/

 

[CNCAppsJames]

Should "Peer Review" continue to be used? Sure. As long as one acknowledges and accepts it's shortcomings it is fine. But to hold it up as some "Gold Standard" is akin to saying foxes are great at guarding hen houses.

[neurosis]

But to hold it up as some "Gold Standard" is akin to saying foxes are great at guarding hen houses.

What do you hold as a higher standard?

[Bucky Cornstarch]

What "facts" did you link that prove what I said was incorrect? All you did was link some random webpage.

My gawd you are fucking dense. The whole point was to link some random webpage, because no matter what I linked, you were going to claim that it was some random website.

We can bring this further down to a level that even an idiot like you might be able to comprehend:

Did COVID 19 (or whatever epithet you've been manipulated to call it) kill people?

[CNCAppsJames]

What do you hold as a higher standard? 

Just because something is allegedly the best we've got, doesn't mean it should never be questioned or held to some degree of perfection. 

"Smoking is safe" was peer reviewed.

"We're entering an ice age" was peer reviewed in the 70's. 

Shall I go on? 

[neurosis]

"Smoking is safe" was peer reviewed.

"We're entering an ice age" was peer reviewed in the 70's.

We're not living in the 70's anymore.

There are 1000's of scientists out there that have an opportunity to make a name for themselves by discrediting settled science. And there are platforms for them to do that now.

That's what is so fascinating to me that people are willing to believe 4 crack scientists over 1000's of others.

[Zoffen]

There are 1000's of scientists out there that have an opportunity to make a name for themselves by discrediting settled science. And there are platforms for them to do that now.

That's what is so fascinating to me that people are willing to believe 4 crack scientists over 1000's of others.

Remember a few years ago... what was that thing that happened.... had alot of "settled science" that has been shown to be defunct since then... cant remember what it was tho.... i remember they were wrong on almost everything it turned out... still at the tip of my tounge.... what was it again...?

Science is no longer really about truth or reality its more about confirming the latest paradigm...

If you really want to challenge or change the status quo, the eye of sauron will be turned against you and your life will be ruined.

[Zoffen]

Should the "Science" even be considered "Science" as many studies used for headlines have not been reproduceable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[CNCAppsJames]

Indeed we are not living in the 70's.

So, let's just go back to the COVID year since the 1970's are allegedly irrelevant.

How many "settled science" issues were proven false that year? Too many to count. That's just one single issue.

Shall I go on?

[neurosis]

Remember a few years ago... what was that thing that happened.... had alot of "settled science" that has been shown to be defunct since then..

Is the argument that you can no longer believe scientists? Or Politicians telling us who to believe?