Billions will die from being vaccinated.

Author: Wylted

Posts

Total: 25
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
A doctor reports that 2 billion will 100% die from vaccines in the next couple of years https://twitter.com/luigi_warren/status/1411449615216386050
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
First, twitter is a reliable source, DUH. OBVIOUSLY. Why bother your time looking up scientific articles spreading the propaganda that vaccines are good when you have evidence on a site where you can post anything? Why bother having large surveys and tests when one doctor speaking on the internet is enough?

Second, I do not know how bad the current-gen vaccine is, but the doctors would be stupid to not update the vaccines. We could make the vaccine safer. Not vaccinating until the vaccine gets safer is not unwise. Never vaccinating because the current evidence shows that it has side effects, however, is not.


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Wylted
From Luigi Warren Twitter Jan. 7

Don't know. I'm not a vaccine expert. I am a biologist -- Derrick Rossi, my former boss, founded Moderna based on my postdoctoral work -- and here I'm just integrating various points that seem pertinent to whether we should uncritically buy the sales talk around these vaccines.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wylted
You know how you constantly accuse people who accept vaccines to merely believe experts when they say, "X is true", this is you ACTUALLY doing that, this isn't evidence. Get some studies to make that claim friend. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Luigi Warren's twitter account was temporarily suspended last month for spreading false COVID info.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
typical. They are also talking about spying on texts and having somebody interject in a text message if somebody has an unapproved opinion on covid19. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
A Hillsong church member contracted the virus after skepticism about its impact and the vaccine
Tributes are pouring in on social media for Stephen Harmon, a 34-year-old congregant of Hillsong Church who died of COVID-19 after he posted jokes about the pandemic.
Harmon, a graduate of Hillsong College, died Wednesday after a month-long bout with the coronavirus, The Daily Beast reports. Prior to his death, he shared several social media posts in which he appeared to not take the pandemic too seriously.
It sounds like God wants you to get vaccinated.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Wylted
Death is usually 100%.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
Since everyone at some time has had the flu, we can say that 100% of the people will die having tested positive at some point with the flu.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted

Did you read the source article? Scary.

Guess a vaccine still won't protect you from old age or obesity making you a victim of the next strain.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,106
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
A doctor reports that 2 billion will 100% die from vaccines in the next couple of years
One doctor on Twitter, or the overwhelming majority of the medical industry? Gee, I can’t tell who I should listen to.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
you should always listen to the majority opinion. Fuck having critical reasoning skills when you can just make an appeal to authority
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
Science has nothing to do with consensus. Schooling has failed every American.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I just showed a study that proved consensus decisions were less accurate than non consensus ones. Police lineups were given as an example. When all witnesses pointed to the same person in a line up, they were typically wrong. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
Consensus opinion is objectively anti-science.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
Are you surprised at all that the crony US government after knowing for more than a year that obese people are at risk have issued NO health mandates for obese people? Either the government wants to kill obese people or the lobbyists that run government want people to stay dumb and fat and dead.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm starting to think, politicians value not pissing off their constituents over valuing doing good for society. This is evil. I can see their slimy logic right now.

"Well, how can I stuck around to do good things, if I piss people off and they vote me out for making the correct decisions"

Slimy fucks. 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,106
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
you should always listen to the majority opinion. Fuck having critical reasoning skills when you can just make an appeal to authority
The fallacy in an appeal to authority fallacy, is when you appeal to something that is not an authority.

The overwhelming majority of the medical industry is an authority on medicine.

Some guy on Twitter who claims to be a doctor… not an authority.

Disregarding the bulk of the medical profession while believing some dude on Twitter does not make you a critically thinking intellectual.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
nor does blindly believing what the majority of doctors say make you an intellectual. 

Maybe it's people's premises that make them right and wrong, not their titles.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
I'm absolutely sure a partisan hack like Double R didn't give the source material a passing glance, assuming he has the capacity to understand it.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
Consensus opinion is the last refuge of a person incapable of understanding science.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,106
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
nor does blindly believing what the majority of doctors say make you an intellectual. 
There’s nothing blind about taking the word of the experts, particularly when the consensus is overwhelming. What is absurd is to disregard the experts because you who has never studied this stuff a day in your life know better then they do and all you needed was for some guy in Twitter to tell you your right for you to think you’ve proven your case.

I suggest you spend some time studying what appeal to authority actually is, as well as when it is and is not a logical fallacy.

Maybe it's people's premises that make them right and wrong, not their titles.
That’s why we have a peer review process. Something non of these anti vaxers on Twitter have ever subjected their claims to.

Serious question: do you believe someone who has spent their entire life working in a field is more or less likely to know more about that field than you and/or the average person does?

Serious question #2: If you gather 10 experts and ask them what they think about a particular phenomenon, 9 experts say one thing and the 10th says another, which option do you think is more likely to be true?

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Serious question: do you believe someone who has spent their entire life working in a field is more or less likely to know more about that field than you and/or the average person does?

More likely, but it seems I often correct them on some things even in their own field they are unaware of. They are human and not perfect and many times you'll see the best in a field also have very unorthodox approaches. 



Serious question #2: If you gather 10 experts and ask them what they think about a particular phenomenon, 9 experts say one thing and the 10th says another, which option do you think is more likely to be true?
The 10th. It is how I made so much money sports betting. If you pick 10 good experts, you wait until one strongly disagrees with the other 9, and usually you bet on the team he is picking and it pays off. The reason being is that if his decision was close, it would be easier just to go along with the other 9. I made a ton in sports betting this way. 

I have a similar strategy for horse betting that gives me a positive ROI. I don't like sharing it, but here it goes. 

Wait until 5 minutes before you have to post your bet and pick the horse with the 4th best odds to place. That is ofcourse only on races where you see a lot of movement from big money betters prior to closing the bets. 


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wylted
Did.... did you just say that? Oh my god you're actually hilarious! You are going to people lecturing them about appealing to authority as you do that exact same thing... except... you're authority also has no evidence to support their claim... gee, I wonder why people consider you a joke....