|
Post by bswiv on May 24, 2024 19:54:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on May 25, 2024 4:48:37 GMT -5
"The science" has always been a dupe. "Scientists" also said that smoking cigarettes weren't harmful..... peer review means nothing
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on May 25, 2024 6:48:20 GMT -5
"The science" is only a dupe if you cannot recognize it's both an imperfect and iterative process. As are all human endeavors, it is not perfect nor should it be expected so.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 25, 2024 7:37:58 GMT -5
The problem is anyone can sue anybody for anything. She will lose the lawsuit, but cost Havard and the other professors several thousand dollars to defend it.
There is a reason why different scientists often duplicate experiments: to see if they reach the same conclusions and to be sure the original scientist didn't make a mistake or fabricate the result.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 25, 2024 8:19:17 GMT -5
"The science" has always been a dupe. "Scientists" also said that smoking cigarettes weren't harmful..... peer review means nothing Scientist never said that. In fact the tobacco companies knew from their own scientific studies that smoking caused cancer back in the 50s. The tobacco companies used doctors, well actors pretending to be doctors, in marketing campaigns and hid the facts of how bad cigarettes were. They had "doctors" claim their brand was less harmful, less irritating, etc, etc. One of the main reason the tobacco companies lost those hundreds of billions in lawsuit after lawsuit was the fact their own internal documents proved they knew cigarettes caused cancer and covered it up with marketing campaigns that lied to the public. They made smoking "cool" by paying actors to smoke on screen and sponsoring TV shows.
|
|
|
Post by richm on May 25, 2024 8:23:15 GMT -5
The whole deal is to find unbiased science.
The end result is often manipulated in the beginning if the scientist isnt careful.
Science is expensive and often the donors would like to see specific results.
Then we had a group of folks saying to follow the science but say that men can get pregnant.
It has made a mockery.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 25, 2024 8:36:10 GMT -5
The whole deal is to find unbiased science. The end result is often manipulated in the beginning if the scientist isnt careful. Science is expensive and often the donors would like to see specific results. Then we had a group of folks saying to follow the science but say that men can get pregnant. It has made a mockery. A lot of times it is the media reporting and not really the science. Biased media reports take segments or part of the study that makes a sensational headline and run with it knowing most people are not going to read the actual study. The science doesn't say a man can get pregnant, the media says it as it makes a great headline. The science correctly identifies the person as a former female who now gender identifies as a man. But that isn't a cool headline like "First Pregnant Man" is. A great example was the big news in the 90s about "Peak Oil" and how we had reached the peak of domestic production. Years later when they started drilling for shale oil, everyone said the science was wrong. the science was never wrong, the media left out the part of the study that said "using current technology and drilling methods" we had reached peak oil production. As technology and drilling methods improved, and the price of oil increased making these more expensive methods productive, we were able to drill for oil that was unrecoverable before. Even now, there is vast quantities of oil we can't get to with current drilling technology and costs. But as technology improves and the price of oil eventually rises, that oil will be recovered at some point in the future. People confuse the science with what is reported by the media as science. And for my fans out there, no google was used to write this reply.
|
|
|
Post by gandy on May 25, 2024 8:41:00 GMT -5
more
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 25, 2024 10:26:56 GMT -5
If it's funded, it's biased. Then it's used to shape the sheep into compliance and support.
Look what it has successfully done to the pro vaxxers, maskers, and distancers, the climate cultists, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on May 25, 2024 16:29:24 GMT -5
The whole deal is to find unbiased science. The end result is often manipulated in the beginning if the scientist isnt careful. Science is expensive and often the donors would like to see specific results. Then we had a group of folks saying to follow the science but say that men can get pregnant. It has made a mockery. Ill take my money to another scientist if your conclusions don't meet my agendas expectations....
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on May 25, 2024 16:33:38 GMT -5
"The science" is only a dupe if you cannot recognize it's both an imperfect and iterative process. As are all human endeavors, it is not perfect nor should it be expected so.
So will you admit that Fauci was wrong and lied to the American people about the origins of Covid?
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on May 25, 2024 16:44:59 GMT -5
Same category as who shot JFK. We all have an idea but will probably never know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on May 25, 2024 18:13:26 GMT -5
"The science" is only a dupe if you cannot recognize it's both an imperfect and iterative process. As are all human endeavors, it is not perfect nor should it be expected so.
So, why exactly do you follow it and insist that others do it also?
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 26, 2024 10:16:22 GMT -5
"The science" is only a dupe if you cannot recognize it's both an imperfect and iterative process. As are all human endeavors, it is not perfect nor should it be expected so.
So, why exactly do you follow it and insist that others do it also? If it validates his wish to tell others what to do, then its good science.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on May 26, 2024 17:22:32 GMT -5
"The science" is only a dupe if you cannot recognize it's both an imperfect and iterative process. As are all human endeavors, it is not perfect nor should it be expected so.
So will you admit that Fauci was wrong and lied to the American people about the origins of Covid? Neither you, me, or Fauci know where Covid-19 originated from.
|
|