Disease X

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
Aynirar27 said:
get outta here with that shit man. how can you even believe that viruses exist? You've never seen one and you never will. You can accept that we have cells in our blood that fight viruses, but not that we are able to see a planet that's like 700 times the size of earth? lol
Click to expand...
Huhwah?...I said I was skeptical that viruses exist and that it didn't matter because I was arguing within the framework that they do exist — and masks still don't "work".
 
acceptance said:
Huhwah?...I said I was skeptical that viruses exist and that it didn't matter because I was arguing within the framework that they do exist — and masks still don't "work".
Click to expand...
So you are saying you are happy to go online and argue that something doesn’t work to protect you against something you don’t think even exists? Wtf dude
 
Aynirar27 said:
So you are saying you are happy to go online and argue that something doesn’t work to protect you against something you don’t think even exists? Wtf dude
Click to expand...
Geez, for someone that loves to parse language for gotchyas it doesn't seem like you read very closely. I said I was skeptical that viruses exist, in the same way I'm skeptical about the astronomical claims. Furthermore, I can accept that a study finds that masks don't help, regardless of whether the virus model is true or not. It could be that these respiratory infections are caused by something else, and that masks still don't prevent them. And as I argued earlier, given the intervention itself is not without risks, it doesn't matter one way or another whether masks work or what causes respiratory infections. I still don't want to wear one.
 
Last edited:
acceptance said:
Geez, for someone that loves to parse language for gotchyas it doesn't seem like you read very closely. I said I was skeptical that viruses exist, in the same way I'm skeptical about the astronomical claims. Furthermore, I can accept that a study finds that masks don't help, regardless of whether the virus model is true or not. It could be that these respiratory infections are caused by something else, and that masks still don't prevent them. And as I argued earlier, given the intervention itself is not without risks, it doesn't matter one way or another whether masks work or what causes respiratory infections. I still don't want to wear one.
Click to expand...
What studies are you referring to? I’m curious what tests and trials were done for you to forgo your very belief of reality, and blindly follow the findings of
 
Aynirar27 said:
What studies are you referring to? I’m curious what tests and trials were done for you to forgo your very belief of reality, and blindly follow the findings of
Click to expand...
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
 
acceptance said:
Seriously though, why do you dismiss the conclusion of this meta study? Weren't you asking why I didn't think that masks 'worked'?
Click to expand...
It’s weird that you will happily suspend your beliefs for some studies but not others. It’s bizarre
 
Aynirar27 said:
It’s weird that you will happily suspend your beliefs for some studies but not others. It’s bizarre
Click to expand...
Okay so you think I'm being inconsistent or selective. Why not just say so? Anyways, yeah, people weigh scientific studies and their conclusions differently. Science is ultimately somewhat subjective that way and it's unavoidable. That's why some appeal to political processes and ideals like 'consensus.' But you also seem to think I am being biased, right? The truth is that we're all biased to some degree or another and no one can avoid it and people have great difficulty seeing it. You're as biased and selective as anyone else. So instead it'd be more productive to argue the merits of a particular study rather than making judgements about supposed cognitive or personal deficits.
 
acceptance said:
Okay so you think I'm being inconsistent or selective. Why not just say so? Anyways, yeah, people weigh scientific studies and their conclusions differently. Science is ultimately somewhat subjective that way and it's unavoidable. That's why some appeal to political processes and ideals like 'consensus.' But you also seem to think I am being biased, right? The truth is that we're all biased to some degree or another and no one can avoid it and people have great difficulty seeing their own biases. You're as biased and selective as anyone else this way. So it'd be best to argue the merits of a particular study rather than making sweeping generalizations about supposed cognitive or personal deficits.
Click to expand...

Science isn’t very subjective man. That’s what makes it important. You choose to “use” bits and pieces of data to support your own beliefs, but that isn’t scientific in any sense of the word.
 
Aynirar27 said:
Science isn’t very subjective man. That’s what makes it important. You choose to “use” bits and pieces of data to support your own beliefs, but that isn’t scientific in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
That's not true. How does one resolve conflicting data? How does one weigh the strength of a given study? How does one gauge the credibility of authors, study design and so one? What about conflicts of interest? I think the evidence favors my belief here. I'm not using it to support a preconceived idea or desire. That's what the CDC and pharma companies do. But anyways, why are you attacking me and not the study? I think it's because you're trying to change the subject given that I've offered decent evidence to support my belief. So either challenge or refute it, but otherwise we can move on.
 
acceptance said:
That's not true. How does one resolve conflicting data? How does one weigh the strength of a given study? How does one gauge the credibility of authors, study design and so one? What about conflicts of interest? I think the evidence favors my belief here. I'm not using it to support a preconceived idea or desire. That's what the CDC and pharma companies do. But anyways, why are you attacking me and not the study? I think it's because you're trying to change the subject given that I've offered decent evidence to support my belief. So either challenge or refute it, but otherwise we can move on.
Click to expand...
I’m just calling you out for being completely full of shit, which you are, and continue to prove.
Every single thing you say disproves own thing, you use as “evidence” to prove something else.
As I said, you only care about the agenda. Not the data and certainly not the science
 
Science is subjective by the mere condition that the scientists and researchers are funded by people and organizations with agendas. Climate change for example.

Riddle me this. How can "Climate scientists" say that 2023 was the hottest year in the history of the earth ? The answer is they can't. They are completely full of shit. 99% of climate scientists agree, they don't want to be defunded.
 
Aynirar27 said:
I’m just calling you out for being completely full of shit, which you are, and continue to prove.
Every single thing you say disproves own thing, you use as “evidence” to prove something else.
As I said, you only care about the agenda. Not the data and certainly not the science
Click to expand...
Again, you're attacking me. Why not dispute the study I cited itself? I think that'd do more to make your case.
 
Floyd Eye said:
Riddle me this. How can "Climate scientists" say that 2023 was the hottest year in the history of the earth ? The answer is they can't. They are completely full of shit. 99% of climate scientists agree, they don't want to be defunded.
Click to expand...
No doubt. They talk like they have weather data going back to the big bang and all they got is about 150 years worth. Not a big enough sample. It's like flipping the coin once and saying "SEE IT LANDS ON HEADS EVERY TIME!!!!" but refusing to flip it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top