Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is an incomplete list of censored scientists.
John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Scott Atlas, Stanford University
Karol Sikora, dean of Buckingham U medical school
Prof Detlef Krüger, virologist, Berlin
Prof Johan Giesecke, former EU chief epidemiologist
Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize laureate, biologist
Prof Christopher Kuhbandner
Prof Carl Heneghan, Oxford University
Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, microbiology, Mainz
Prof Mikko Paunio, epidemiologist, Finland
Prof Dan Yamin, infectious disease, Tel Aviv University
Prof Karin Moelling, virology, U of Zurich
Professor Klaus Püschel, forensic medicine
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, physician, Germany
We are not allowed to trust THAT science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Everyone knows the real reason Donald Trump supporters are sceptical of climate change is that conservatives are fundamentally anti-science. Some doubt science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs; others because its implications might mean radically shifting the global economy in an anti-growth or heavily statist direction, which goes against their free-market ideology; others because, being conservative, they are prisoners of their dogmatism, need closure and fear uncertainty. I hear this all the time from lefties on social media. And there seems to be some evidence to support it.
At least there is if you believe studies like The Republican War on Science (Mooney, 2005), Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere (Gauchat, 2012), and ‘Not for all the tea in China!’ Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations (Nam et al, 2013).
But there’s a wrinkle here and you may have guessed what it is. The world of social science is overwhelmingly left-wing: so heavily agenda-driven, so rife with confirmation bias and skewed methodology that almost inevitably its studies will show conservatives as blinkered and dim, and lefties as open-minded and clever regardless of the evidence.
Lest you think this is my own bias showing, another recent study confirmed it: a survey of 479 sociology professors found that only 4 per cent identified as conservative or libertarian, while 83 per cent identified as liberal or left-radical. In another survey — of psychologists this time — only 6 per cent identified as ‘conservative overall’.
While Thatcher said the 'facts of life are conservative', how can we be sure the facts of science don't swing left?
Just occasionally, though, a more balanced study does slip through the net — like the one just published by a team from Oxford University. The study by Nathan Cofnas et al — Does Activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists? — pours scorn on the idea that conservatives are any more anti-science than lefties. It’s not science they distrust so much as scientists — especially ones in more nebulous, activism-driven fields like ecology or sociology. As Cofnas told Campus Reform, a site that exposes left-wing bias at universities: ‘Conservatives are right to be sceptical. Take any politicised issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple of decades where a major scientific organisation took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic party.’ He added: ‘What an odd coincidence that “science” always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview.’
Wait, though. While Margaret Thatcher said the ‘facts of life are conservative’, how can we be sure that the facts of science don’t naturally swing left? This is what left-wing scientists seem to believe. But as Cofnas shows, in order to reach that conclusion, they have to torture the data till it screams. Or even just make it up.
In 2014, a paper was published in Science called ‘When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality’. This demonstrated that instinctively homophobic, buttoned-up conservatives were more likely to become liberal on meeting a gay man. Their study showed that ‘a 20-minute conversation with a gay canvasser’ increased their acceptance of same-sex marriage nine months later. Great! Except as two graduate students subsequently demonstrated, no study was ever conducted. To the chagrin of the social scientists who had welcomed this paper and its heartwarming message, it had to be retracted.
Where are the peer-reviewers who are supposed to vet these things? Well, it turns out they’re generally willing to give a free pass to any thesis that accords with the liberal narrative. For example, over the course of more than a decade, Diederik Stapel ‘published dozens of sensational papers on such topics as how easily Whites or men can be prompted to discriminate against Blacks or women’. When exposed as a fraud, Stapel explained that he was merely giving social scientists what they were ‘waiting for’.
Stapel probably had a point. If research supports a liberal shibboleth — say, the notion that violence is a learned behaviour rather than innate — then it will be given huge prominence. In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics testified to Congress that ‘more than 3,500’ studies had investigated the link between exposure to media violence and actual violent behaviour. This was a lie. Even those few studies — fewer than 1,000 — that purported to find a causal link often did so on the flimsiest of evidence. For example, one established the elevated ‘aggression’ caused by watching an exciting film by asking a child ‘whether he would pop a balloon if one were present’.
If the evidence doesn’t accord with the correct ‘woke’ narrative then right-thinking social scientists tailor it till it does. This is what happened to a 2007 study showing racially diverse communities are more suspicious, withdrawn, ungenerous, fractured and fractious. Such an incendiary refutation of the well-known truth that ‘diversity is strength’ could not go unedited. So it didn’t. Publication was delayed until the author could ‘develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity’. To publish the facts on their own would be ‘irresponsible’.
Eventually, the author published it with a disquisition on how increasing diversity would lead to ‘significant benefits in the medium or long term’. This accords with ‘contact theory’ — a notion popular among social scientists that the more we’re physically exposed to diversity the more we’ll learn to love it. And if the hard evidence speaks otherwise, well never mind. You can just do what the author of that diversity report does: every time some unhelpful conservative type cites it to back up their argument that diversity causes social problems, he accuses them of selectively citing his findings because they’ve ignored the bit at the end where he explains that diversity will be good.
One day.
It’s not science I don’t trust – it’s the scientists.
Argument from authority always tells you to "trust science"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can only agree with the science that is not censored by elite controlled MSM.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought I was gonna be lynched dp1 for having such a useless role
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Nice 180 and the OMGUS. I'll gladly trade me for you.
VTL GREY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yours and my role are kinda anti town in utility.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Tucker exposed the nonsense of the punitive lockdowns way back in June, along with the misinformation to justify the lockdowns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Mharman's vote on oro is kinda sus, and Luna has him on his shitlist anyway.
VTL MHARMAN
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Mafia seems pretty pissed and probs helping the oro lynch
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Whelp now I know why you had sir anon as strong town.
UNVOTE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
VTL sir Anon for the obviously fake "Cool" sentiment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
No there is no reason to purposely infect 100% of the population, but at the end of the year, we will conclusively know just how small of an impact the lockdown actually was at protecting at-risk people.
Millions of lives were never going to be lost if we did not have a lockdown policy. The USA doesn't even have that many critically at-risk people that would fail to fight the virus off.
the death rate for those who get the disease, is like .7%
That's a statistic calculated before scientists discovered that the overwhelming number of infected people showed no symptoms. Many were getting the disease unknowingly.
There are currently only 9 million people over 70 in the USA. Even if all 100% were to get infected, given that we know around 10% do die in that age range, and discounting that most of this data comes from monitoring people over 70 with symptoms requiring hospitalization, that still does not even reach 1 million for total deaths. Even in the most worst-case scenario imaginable.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
which means millions die
Thoroughly debunked by all the statistics of cities and countries without a total lockdown policy.
You are perpetrating junk science with that "millions dead" fantasy.
Even if all the at-risk people managed to get COVID instead of 30-50%, we wouldn't even get close to a million deaths. It's not even remotely possible even if you tried.
Mind you, Trump's lockdown policies were all based on this now thoroughly debunked junk science, but it's too late to reeducate the public.
"The trouble with being too easily led by models is we can too easily be misled by models. Epidemic models may seem entirely different from economic models or climate models, but they all make terrible forecasts if filled with wrong assumptions and parameters."
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have developed a personal algorithm for weeding out junk science.
If people with much more to lose than I do like billionaires and Speakers of the House personally dismiss the science, then it's pretty safe for me to assume it is junk science.
Same thing about Global Warming. Millionaires don't see any actual danger to their personal wealth or quality of life. Why should I worry then about my paltry wealth?
Millionaires leave states over a few tax percentage points or noticeable increasing violence from riots but don't care about global warming? Junk science confirmed.
The vast majority of millionaires utilize fossil homes and fossil transportation without a worry in the world. Millionaires still investing heavily in real estate on coastlines for future wealth prospects. No hesitation at all, and boy do they have a LOT more to lose if they are wrong about the science.
Those rats have yet to abandon that ship.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The lockdown was absolutely unnecessary.
"SCIENCE" <tm> told us millions would die if there was no lockdown. That science was absolutely wrong and clearly overblown given what we now know from cities and countries that did not lockdown. It was about as effective on mortality rates as wearing a mask, but with a MUCH higher social cost due to the loss of employment, education, and quality of life.
What the science is now discovering as the lockdowns are lifted is that most of the policy efforts to fight COVID only delayed the inevitable deaths of people susceptible to dying from the disease, and may have made it much worse by not hastening the herd immunity of the healthy while also not isolating the at-risk people adequately. The lockdown policies actually ensured the virus would linger on long after the expected seasonal cycle of flu-like viruses. In a few months, we will conclusively have the annual death totals of all Americans from all sources from the CDC, but the data up to now already supports the predicted deaths from at-risk people.
The lockdowns across the country past the hospital curve flattening were proven absolutely unnecessary, and the disproved predictions of millions of dead originating from bad science should be held accountable.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
fact check article...
lol, still fact checking opinions in 2020. How Orwellian.
Created:
opinion article from cnn on the matter...
Guess we can safely file this under the "Trump destroys America" opinion shelf.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a poor way to go about it.
Created:
I only needed one to prove my point. Cherry picked or not.
It's not my problem you can't understand what my point is. That's your disability.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Horrible, lazy arguments, as expected.
Carry on with your lazy groupthinking and extrapolation of data to your "everyoneness"
That's on you if you want to pull shit out of thin air and extrapolate data not on the chart then slap the "everyone" label on your fantasy data to fit your narrative.
If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a poor way to go about it.
which says only 3 places are doing worse than Sweden.
That's 2 more places than I needed to prove my point.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
worse than pretty much everyone.
That's weird. I was unaware that Italy, Spain, UK, New York, and New Jersey were pretty much no one.
But I guess when you are looking for groupthink, "everyone" is a subjective term for sure.
The point is that not locking down didn't turn them into the New York death house, or the New Jersey slaughtertorium for old people.
It also didn't cause them to become the death camps of the UK, Spain, or Italy.
If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a bad way to go about it.
It's also insanely lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Eh, they still have to kill him at some point
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
They are doing better than some EU countries and worse than France. The point is that not locking down didn't turn them into the New York death house, who sent sick people to retirement homes.
The lockdown was totally unneccesary.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
With over 183,000 deaths and rising, I think I will not. And I always go with the science.
And the other 2,800,000 deaths meant nothing to you before coronavirus or Trump? That's okay, because 340,000,000 Americans agreed with you before the media manufactured the popular outrage.
Meanwhile, your favorite anti-Trumper miss Pelosi flips the bird at your 183,000 number as she slinks away, unmasked from her beauty salon.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Fake news wants to spin their own narrative, but you can read this graph and make your own judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
A+ is something no one has gotten to yet.
A+ is hiding out in Pelosi's freezer with the icecream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Coincidentally the most powerful Democrat atm.
The most powerful person in the USA if Biden somehow steals the election.
It's okay for Democrats to be above the laws they create. Just look at DACA. Ignore the laws you want whenever you feel like it.
Media won't ever bother a Democrat elite with such trivial matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There is a viral video out exposing a maskless Pelosi fleeing a Salon that was supposed to be under lockdown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Well...since over half of registered voters are going to be voting for Trump in November, it's likely you will bump into a few.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
We also don't know how many deaths can be attributed to the lockdowns until we get the final tally for 2020 on suicides and other health declines from atrophy, poor eating, and depression. We really don't know that the cure was worse than the disease until we see the final total deaths for 2020.
Then we can assess if the quality of life dropped much more disproportionally than the quantity of life in 2020.
If you don't want to wait on the science, you can just vote the guy in that wants us to go back to work instead of sitting around at home.
Created:
The difference I'm afraid, is that without the shutdowns that occurred all over the world, the death toll would have risen much, much higher (in theory of course since the shutdowns DID occur)
Or we could've done what Sweden did and never shut down. They pretty much have nothing to worry about over there and the herd immunity strategy seems to be working.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And why that number? What is so fucking special about 3,000,000 ?
And what is so special about a COVID death compared to the 99% of deaths from other sources? Are those other Americans not just as dead regardless?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
CDC numbers:
As a base number before Trump..
In 2015, a total of 2,712,630 resident deaths were registered in the United States—86,212 more deaths than in 2014.
During Trump:
In 2019 (pre Corona) Number of deaths: 2,813,503
Now we don't know what the actual final CDC count is for total American deaths for 2020 yet, but assuming we could add 200,000 due to Covid without taking any deaths away from other co-morbidities in 2020...
2020 deaths might look like 3,000,000 (although it's probably going to be alot closer to 2,900,000) considering the number of total deaths seems to increase by around 80,000 per year normally due to population increases.
So what I am asking is that 2,800,000 deaths means we can go to work normally but 3,000,000 deaths means we do not go to work normally?
Is this the actual threshold?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because I would like to know what the threshold of yearly American deaths is before we decide to imprison the population in their homes.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
@Dr.Franklin
@ebuc
are 3 million Americans dying every year an acceptable loss?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
My part to stop the spread is to boost my natural immunity and eliminate co-morbidities so that my body can kill the virus until we get a vaccine for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
While most politicians don't sue each other for libel because it's simply not worth the time and the hassle and it is usually counterproductive, Kyle isn't a politician.
Pressley probably fucked up with that tweet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I only voted next to last because it's highly, highly unlikely for there to be 2 hated roles in a game.
And I wanted people to see that.
Created:
Posted in:
VTL MHARMON because it's unlikely there are 2 hated roles.
Created:
Posted in:
I have a theory that Pie made scum team the Confederate generals that stayed in the Democrat party instead of converting to Republicans after the war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Maybe we should ask pie if we are using revisionist history or the history that was written in 1865.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It seems like Kyle will have even more opportunity for a libel lawsuit against fake news like Nick Sandman.
Created: