Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." I’m a massive nerd, I’m ALWAYS on the side of science… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance." No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. " This, over and over  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. " Exactly this… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. " You misinterpret my meaning. People are saying 'My peer reviewed double blind study is valid, but yours is not', 'My nobel prize winning scientist is infallible, yours is not'. It's bullshit - there is only truth ad no-one owns it, peer-reviewed double blind studies get it wrong all the time, people interpret them wrongly all the time, science changes daily and tomorrow's study may 'prove' the opposite, evidence in the field may totally contradict a study, sometimes studies do not look for that which they do not want to find, and people select evidence SUBJECTIVELY all the time. Arrogance is the enemy of science - true scientists have great humility because they know how often they are wrong. How much more so sex site weekend amateurs!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." There is no question really, propper genuine scientific proof trumps everything. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The peer review system is fallible too. Remember the Lancet paper that said HCQ was harmful and of no benefit? It was faked, not properly checked, politically motivated, and they had to retract it. And people died as a consequence." And I’ll still stick with science over social media. My point precisely because social media is totally unregulated and far more insidious and dangerous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. You misinterpret my meaning. People are saying 'My peer reviewed double blind study is valid, but yours is not', 'My nobel prize winning scientist is infallible, yours is not'. It's bullshit - there is only truth ad no-one owns it, peer-reviewed double blind studies get it wrong all the time, people interpret them wrongly all the time, science changes daily and tomorrow's study may 'prove' the opposite, evidence in the field may totally contradict a study, sometimes studies do not look for that which they do not want to find, and people select evidence SUBJECTIVELY all the time. Arrogance is the enemy of science - true scientists have great humility because they know how often they are wrong. How much more so sex site weekend amateurs!! "How dare you? I’m also a sex site amateur during the week as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The peer review system is fallible too. Remember the Lancet paper that said HCQ was harmful and of no benefit? It was faked, not properly checked, politically motivated, and they had to retract it. And people died as a consequence. And I’ll still stick with science over social media. My point precisely because social media is totally unregulated and far more insidious and dangerous " Of course. And yet when people on social media said the Lancet paper was bullshit - they were right. As I say, nothing is that black and white. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The peer review system is fallible too. Remember the Lancet paper that said HCQ was harmful and of no benefit? It was faked, not properly checked, politically motivated, and they had to retract it. And people died as a consequence. And I’ll still stick with science over social media. My point precisely because social media is totally unregulated and far more insidious and dangerous Of course. And yet when people on social media said the Lancet paper was bullshit - they were right. As I say, nothing is that black and white." Science.. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, biostatistician, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research Sunetra Gupta is an Indian-born British infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Michael Levitt, FRS is a South African-born Jewish biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, a position he has held since 1987. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry ^^^^^^ Florida Governor Ron Desantis held round table discussions with these eminent scientists to gain knowledge/perspective on the complexities of this disease, Ron Desantis is certainly no empty suit, he's proved himself to be a visionary and courageous leader. Desantis undoubtedly took the unconventional path and was criticized by the Democrats and some health experts as being irresponsible. "I mean, there's this like combination of...bravery, intellectual bravery and also willingness to take a stand and sort of a knowledge that I've never seen in a politician," Bhattacharya said of DeSantis' decision to ease restrictions. Ron Desantis ended all restrictions in Florida on the 25th September 2020 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The peer review system is fallible too. Remember the Lancet paper that said HCQ was harmful and of no benefit? It was faked, not properly checked, politically motivated, and they had to retract it. And people died as a consequence. And I’ll still stick with science over social media. My point precisely because social media is totally unregulated and far more insidious and dangerous Of course. And yet when people on social media said the Lancet paper was bullshit - they were right. As I say, nothing is that black and white. Science.. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, biostatistician, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research Sunetra Gupta is an Indian-born British infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Michael Levitt, FRS is a South African-born Jewish biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, a position he has held since 1987. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry ^^^^^^ Florida Governor Ron Desantis held round table discussions with these eminent scientists to gain knowledge/perspective on the complexities of this disease, Ron Desantis is certainly no empty suit, he's proved himself to be a visionary and courageous leader. Desantis undoubtedly took the unconventional path and was criticized by the Democrats and some health experts as being irresponsible. "I mean, there's this like combination of...bravery, intellectual bravery and also willingness to take a stand and sort of a knowledge that I've never seen in a politician," Bhattacharya said of DeSantis' decision to ease restrictions. Ron Desantis ended all restrictions in Florida on the 25th September 2020 " You're joking is it really that long ago?? Every health minister should be sending investigative teams to Florida to find out how they've managed that one!! I think there's been a lot of conflation and confusion of evidence in this pandemic. We can see there is gaslighting and fear-inducing propaganda on an epic scale, but God only knows where the actual truth is, on a number of issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mostly science. But some of the science fiction, fantasy, superhero, thriller, supernatural movies and tv shows are quite good. Normal people though can usually tell the difference between the X files and real life." Yeah but Stargate is real...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mostly science. But some of the science fiction, fantasy, superhero, thriller, supernatural movies and tv shows are quite good. Normal people though can usually tell the difference between the X files and real life. Yeah but Stargate is real... " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The peer review system is fallible too. Remember the Lancet paper that said HCQ was harmful and of no benefit? It was faked, not properly checked, politically motivated, and they had to retract it. And people died as a consequence. And I’ll still stick with science over social media. My point precisely because social media is totally unregulated and far more insidious and dangerous Of course. And yet when people on social media said the Lancet paper was bullshit - they were right. As I say, nothing is that black and white. Science.. Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, biostatistician, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research Sunetra Gupta is an Indian-born British infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Michael Levitt, FRS is a South African-born Jewish biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, a position he has held since 1987. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry ^^^^^^ Florida Governor Ron Desantis held round table discussions with these eminent scientists to gain knowledge/perspective on the complexities of this disease, Ron Desantis is certainly no empty suit, he's proved himself to be a visionary and courageous leader. Desantis undoubtedly took the unconventional path and was criticized by the Democrats and some health experts as being irresponsible. "I mean, there's this like combination of...bravery, intellectual bravery and also willingness to take a stand and sort of a knowledge that I've never seen in a politician," Bhattacharya said of DeSantis' decision to ease restrictions. Ron Desantis ended all restrictions in Florida on the 25th September 2020 You're joking is it really that long ago?? Every health minister should be sending investigative teams to Florida to find out how they've managed that one!! I think there's been a lot of conflation and confusion of evidence in this pandemic. We can see there is gaslighting and fear-inducing propaganda on an epic scale, but God only knows where the actual truth is, on a number of issues. " Amish communities here herd immunity. No lockdowns no science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a scientist, it's just the science " I'm starting to wonder if people know what science actually is  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." I blatantly stole this and make no apologies.
If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following.
On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough following decades of research and testing on tens of thousands of volunteers. All the data being independently verified and given regulatory approval.
On the other side there is person from Newport Pagnell wearing a tin foil hat who says they have watched ‘I am Legend’ and this is how the zombie apocalypse starts.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. I blatantly stole this and make no apologies.
If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following.
On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough following decades of research and testing on tens of thousands of volunteers. All the data being independently verified and given regulatory approval.
On the other side there is person from Newport Pagnell wearing a tin foil hat who says they have watched ‘I am Legend’ and this is how the zombie apocalypse starts.
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Sorry, the world is not black and white it's full of nuance. No! Not where something like this is concerned. You can have opinions about many things, but accepting the uninformed and frankly scurrilous JAQing off ‘opinions’ of social media personalities and grifters versus published, peer reviewed scientific research is dumb. This, over and over "Absolutely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." Ah, see, your looking at it from a two dimensional linear scale and everyone should know that the truth is a three edged sword. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E" Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E" Unfortunately things like herd immunity rely on all of us working together. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not." Polly says it right. Again. Polly for PM! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." completely and utterly on the side of science..the continued arguments people are putting up they have read on social media are getting more and more ridiculous..the science could be wrong /could fail who knows! despite that we need to follow it and not the crazy people out there telling lies and testing to create some sort of short-term fame and likes...vaccine has had 10 years worth of research done into it in just one year by some of the cleverest minds on the planet...I personally will believe them every time over the lady from number 8 who says what she saw on social media was really worrying her.. science every time... PS please now go and get vaccinated people! thanks 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not. Polly says it right. Again. Polly for PM!" It'd be a vast improvement on the hair situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not. Polly says it right. Again. Polly for PM!" Your starting to repeat that Parrot fashion  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say? "I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media "Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19"He's a person spouting bollocks. The scientific method is what I follow. Individual people may communicate that or not. He does not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19
He's a person spouting bollocks.
The scientific method is what I follow. Individual people may communicate that or not. He does not"Some scientists worldwide are only as good as their government allows them to be. Government controls most of the aspects of their studies. So to think all scientists are for the betterment of mankind is absurd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not. Polly says it right. Again. Polly for PM!" Not sure that i really want the job. Does the position come with chocolate biscuits? And not the crap ones, the ones with a really decent covering. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The great thing about science, it really doesn't care if we believe it or not. I just carries on being science and is all out of fucks about what the unbelievers think or believe. E Yup. Whether you believe in gravity or not, you're still gonna be in deep shit if you fall off a cliff. And you might not believe in a virus, but the physical laws that drive the biochemistry of that little clump of protein and RNA sure don't care what you believe or not. Polly says it right. Again. Polly for PM! Not sure that i really want the job. Does the position come with chocolate biscuits? And not the crap ones, the ones with a really decent covering." Viscounts (mint) on tap  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19
He's a person spouting bollocks.
The scientific method is what I follow. Individual people may communicate that or not. He does not
Some scientists worldwide are only as good as their government allows them to be. Government controls most of the aspects of their studies. So to think all scientists are for the betterment of mankind is absurd. "I said the scientific method, not "scientists". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mostly science. But some of the science fiction, fantasy, superhero, thriller, supernatural movies and tv shows are quite good. Normal people though can usually tell the difference between the X files and real life." Some people can bridge that gap, from an idea to a reality and beyond. Arthur C Clarke is was a well respected author, scientist and tv Presenter, to name a few.. Best known is “Extra-terrestrial Relays”, a 1945 paper where he was the first to outline the principles of global broadcasting via communication satellites in geostationary orbit. His vision, imagined a dozen years before the Space Age began, became a reality in the 1960s. Clarke never patented the idea of communication satellites, and derived no financial benefits from the multi-billion dollar satellite industry that soon emerged. The geostationary orbit is now called ‘Clarke Orbit’ in his honour. GPS and sat nav owe a lot to this guy. As do we. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here." Then I’ll make a decision about which scientist I believe. I won’t be deciding which person on YouTube or Facebook I believe. None of this is complicated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here." That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19"Are you seriously suggesting Yeadon when he’s been so thoroughly debunked?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. " Exactly. Some people here don't seem to realise that. And medicine is an inexact science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. Then I’ll make a decision about which scientist I believe. I won’t be deciding which person on YouTube or Facebook I believe. None of this is complicated " Covid 19 is extremely complex. And some excellent scientists are interviewed and their work discussed on YouTube and other less censorious media, more fool you if you disregard the resource. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are right of course , most sensible people follow the data and regulated media vs crackpots on youtube. Because we believe the governments and big Pharma always tell the truth and main stream media always reports it correctly , they care about us , there are no secrets and lies and that is why we sleep well at night " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough " Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19
Are you seriously suggesting Yeadon when he’s been so thoroughly debunked?!"Yes I am...you aint thinking rationally you took the vaccine out of FEAR. You are also rejecting a fully qualified scientist in the field of respriratory diseases out of your FEAR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19
Are you seriously suggesting Yeadon when he’s been so thoroughly debunked?!
Yes I am...you aint thinking rationally you took the vaccine out of FEAR. You are also rejecting a fully qualified scientist in the field of respriratory diseases out of your FEAR. "Debunked. The clue is in the word. E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. " Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Id rather believe piers corbyn than boris a known liar...definition of insanity if you think hes suddenly truthful on this one...hisvixen you say?
I wasn't aware that Boris was a scientist. Or that it was a choice between politicians and social media
Dr Yeadon a qualified scientist enough for you? or does he not agree with your fear based thoughts on covid19
Are you seriously suggesting Yeadon when he’s been so thoroughly debunked?!"Ah but you see he's a scientist. Because that's how science works. A scientist says stuff therefore they're right - when you want them to be. And anyone who disagrees is irrational 
Meanwhile over here in the real world... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E" Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media." I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. " Anyone ever go down the route of researching "peer-reviewed"? There are a lot of "scientists" themselves who will let you know that it is a potentially flawed system... just like with anything, it's often about who you know and where the money comes from... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. Anyone ever go down the route of researching "peer-reviewed"? There are a lot of "scientists" themselves who will let you know that it is a potentially flawed system... just like with anything, it's often about who you know and where the money comes from..." It's a bit like Churchill on democracy. It might be a flawed system, but it's better than any of the alternatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round." Both main stream media and YouTube can be channels for informative and educational articles. And both can supply a lot of utter crap. Information from any type of media and any source has to be examined through the lens of critical thinking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round. Both main stream media and YouTube can be channels for informative and educational articles. And both can supply a lot of utter crap. Information from any type of media and any source has to be examined through the lens of critical thinking." And there's the rub, isn't it? There's not an easy answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. Anyone ever go down the route of researching "peer-reviewed"? There are a lot of "scientists" themselves who will let you know that it is a potentially flawed system... just like with anything, it's often about who you know and where the money comes from..." If you've the expertise to contribute to the evaluation and progression of evidence, then it's a very valuable process that can circumvent your myopic vision, when you're investing heavily with your research. The publication of sound evidence, for the benefit of all of us, is a good undertaking. Like many things in life, there are ways of making improvements and the scientific and academic processes are not static. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round." That's the problem, a lot of people are accepting the bad science and propaganda without question, and failing to seek out that which is of value elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what happens when science disagrees with science? Which science do you choose to believe in? What about when a particular piece of science is proven wrong by a new piece of science? Were you wrong to put your faith in the first piece? There is a very simplistic view of science here. That's the nature of science, where evidence is produced that may or may not support either hypothesis, or another. New data may call older positions into question. The benefit of peer-reviewed research evidence is very strong, as it allows diverse perspectives and expertise to dig through it, improving on what we've had before. It's a process, not a finite position. Anyone ever go down the route of researching "peer-reviewed"? There are a lot of "scientists" themselves who will let you know that it is a potentially flawed system... just like with anything, it's often about who you know and where the money comes from... If you've the expertise to contribute to the evaluation and progression of evidence, then it's a very valuable process that can circumvent your myopic vision, when you're investing heavily with your research. The publication of sound evidence, for the benefit of all of us, is a good undertaking. Like many things in life, there are ways of making improvements and the scientific and academic processes are not static. " Quite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round. Both main stream media and YouTube can be channels for informative and educational articles. And both can supply a lot of utter crap. Information from any type of media and any source has to be examined through the lens of critical thinking." Exactly. That means questioning BOTH, and being aware of the reality of bias, censorship and suppression. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round. That's the problem, a lot of people are accepting the bad science and propaganda without question, and failing to seek out that which is of value elsewhere. " Yet I would say that is true for both sides of the argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get my medical advice from the NHS. They also have YouTube videos that addresses the myths and facts about vaccines. My attitude to the antivac groups seen on BBC news, is similar to my attitude to those that believe the earth is flat, and the moon landings were faked. Vaccines have been used for a very long time. Side effects of all the vaccines are published on the NHS site. They also have statistics. Still of the people who have had the vaccine, 10 have reported blood clots out of the 40,333,231 that have received their first dose (0.00000025%) Compared to the death rate for UK covid is 2.8% of those infected. I got my numbers from the NHS and .gov websites. Of those refusing to be vaccinated, 97.2% will be proven right while about 2.8% will be wrong, but not around for anyone to say "I told you so!" Having the vaccine may not prevent people being carriers who can still spread Covid. The stats on the ONS (office for national statistics) shows covid on death certs Vs everything else. It's way higher than everything else. Influenza is on there and that is very low in comparison. What has science ever done for us? Apart from heat & light available on switches, cars, televisions, vibrating dildos, can openers, jet skis, curling tongues, man made diamonds (no blood she'd getting those), my sofa, microwave ovens, PayPal, the interwebs, and even fake news. I've had both my jabs. Nothing too bad happened, but I swear my cock was bigger than it is now!" Far too sensible and evidence based. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you are unsure about having the vaccine it really comes down to the following. On one side there are world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists saying this is an amazing breakthrough Funny that, 'cos the world renowned virologists, medical experts and Nobel prizewinning scientists I've been listening to are saying that there are some serious concerns with both short and long term effects of these vaccines and far more caution is advised until there is more data especially with the young, who's risk is far lower, and who have far more to lose. Yes, scientists do disagree with each other, that's the nature of research. I'd still rather put my faith in science that a YouTube loon. Because that's the actual question posed by the OP, real science or social media. E Those are two different questions. Plenty of good science on YouTube. Plenty of bad science, bullshit and propaganda on main stream media. I think most sensible people would argue it is the other way round. That's the problem, a lot of people are accepting the bad science and propaganda without question, and failing to seek out that which is of value elsewhere. Yet I would say that is true for both sides of the argument." Undoubtedly, not everyone has a taste for PubMed or YouTube. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get my medical advice from the NHS. They also have YouTube videos that addresses the myths and facts about vaccines. My attitude to the antivac groups seen on BBC news, is similar to my attitude to those that believe the earth is flat, and the moon landings were faked. Vaccines have been used for a very long time. Side effects of all the vaccines are published on the NHS site. They also have statistics. Still of the people who have had the vaccine, 10 have reported blood clots out of the 40,333,231 that have received their first dose (0.00000025%) " You think that's it? The yellow card system is reporting over 12000 blood disorders reported with 10 fatalities, 9000 cardiac with 165 fatalities, 51000 generic disorders with 154 fatalities, 3000 visual problems with 50 cases of blindness, 79 spontaneous abortions, etc, etc, etc. Of course these may not all be due to the vaccine, but reporting is estimated at between 1 and 10%, so the figures could be far higher as well. Then there's the worldwide pattern of massively increased Covid death rate upon vaccine rollout - no solid answers on that one yet, not that it will ever be discussed on the NHS website or the BBC. Anyway, happy for you that your cock responded well - better report that as a side effect! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""You think that's it? The yellow card system is reporting over 12000 blood disorders reported with 10 fatalities, 9000 cardiac with 165 fatalities, 51000 generic disorders with 154 fatalities, 3000 visual problems with 50 cases of blindness, 79 spontaneous abortions, etc, etc, etc." Can you please supply the source of this information? The information I can source, doesn't suggest there have been that many Yellow Card reports, let alone that many serious reactions. Nita " Gov.uk website | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap. "A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." Im for everyone who wants good but Horses for courses really each to their own I dont like to just blindly follow masses without doing my own research and exercising the grey matter hearing as many sides as possible before making a judgement but Depends on which type of science ? What used to be good is now bad etc. Also some scientists are paid to push agendas. And what type of regulated media and journalism ? Wheres it ok to promote extremism racism classism and the rest but rarely anything positive or constructive Just a thought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap.
A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true."Actually it's quite a lot higher than 1% https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-real-world-uk-data-shows-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-provides-high-levels-of-protection-from-the-first-dose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap.
A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true.
Actually it's quite a lot higher than 1%
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-real-world-uk-data-shows-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-provides-high-levels-of-protection-from-the-first-dose
"Lol, your overall risk is so low in the first place it makes far less difference than you think, as a paper in The Lancet pointed out a few weeks ago. Absolute risk reduction 1.3% for Astra Zeneca, 1.2% for Moderna and J&J, 0.85% for Pfizer jabs. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room Piero Olliaro Els Torreele Michel Vaillant Published:April 20, 2021 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap.
A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true.
Actually it's quite a lot higher than 1%
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-real-world-uk-data-shows-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-provides-high-levels-of-protection-from-the-first-dose
Lol, your overall risk is so low in the first place it makes far less difference than you think, as a paper in The Lancet pointed out a few weeks ago.
Absolute risk reduction 1.3% for Astra Zeneca, 1.2% for Moderna and J&J, 0.85% for Pfizer jabs.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room
Piero Olliaro
Els Torreele
Michel Vaillant
Published:April 20, 2021"Oh PS that's science, not social media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap.
A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true.
Actually it's quite a lot higher than 1%
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-real-world-uk-data-shows-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-provides-high-levels-of-protection-from-the-first-dose
Lol, your overall risk is so low in the first place it makes far less difference than you think, as a paper in The Lancet pointed out a few weeks ago.
Absolute risk reduction 1.3% for Astra Zeneca, 1.2% for Moderna and J&J, 0.85% for Pfizer jabs.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room
Piero Olliaro
Els Torreele
Michel Vaillant
Published:April 20, 2021
Oh PS that's science, not social media. "It was a commentary and not a study. Arr and rrr are different. Have you seen the authors responses when told their paper is being used to say vaccines dont really work? Here is one of the authors replies on Twitter. Els torreele 29th may As our article on vaccine efficacy seems to be used by anti-vaxxers to claim all sorts of things that are wrong, this thread to explain and further clarify our analysis. Most importantly: the Covid-19 vaccines work very well! Read all the 15 tweets in the thread it explains well where the numbers come from. She says that all the authorised vaccines work very well I have seen other responses from Piero also | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Social media running away with science not so much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right, come on then… I am absolutely sick of people making blanket statements against science or the media, two industries that while not perfect, are governed by laws and scrutiny. And no, I’m not talking about the tabloids. They can fuck off. However, these keyboard warrior fucksticks on the other side who are ‘just asking questions’ (not ever giving any actual useful answers mind you) are prepared to take the word of totally unregulated or thoroughly debunked voices on social media. It’s coming down to this: Are you with science and regulated journalism or are you with the likes of Naomi Wolf, Alex Jones, David Icke, Donald Trump and Piers Corbyn? It’s time to pick a side. And no, you can’t be in the middle, because that’s how we got into this mess in the first place." Just wow. Your diatribe definitely makes me want to support Trump | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is that the science experts and the cabinet think that the public will not understand the science behind their decisions. Maybe if Doris had take a leaf out of Maggies book when she had the Falklands War. For the daily press conferences she used the same panel of experts. Doris should of used JVT every day. His briefing are clear and simple to understand. He uses language and terms the public understand. No doubt he would be able to explain the logic for example of moving countries to different traffic light colours and not give a blanket excuse of its the science." I've never found anything too difficult to understand. It's a virus, its acting as a virus does. Its fast moving and a fluid time. I think one of the problems is the public's expectations, they want those pesky scientists to find a cure, dole it out, everything fixed. If it's not that easy, changing frequently and god forbid, cause me problems, everyone else is to blame. There have been many issues, but on the whole I think this country has done a fine job and has led the rest of Europe and indeed the world on a hugely complex exercise of vaccination. Let's hope soon everyone in the UK who requires a vaccine, will be and then we can move on to a global vaccination programme. No problem if you don't want the jab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OPERATION LOCKSTEP FROM THE ROCKEFELLER PLAYBOOK: The Plandemic: “1st Phase: Common/cold/Flu. Mild symptoms at most. Media endorsement of mass paranoia and fear. Flawed testing system utilized, which picks up any genetic material in the body and triggers a positive result. Inflation of Covid case numbers, through changing of death certificates, double-counting, and classifying all deaths including other diseases and natural causes as Covid19. Lockdown will condition us to life under Draconian laws, prevent protests and identify public resistance. 2nd Phase: The 1st Phase will lead to compromised and frail immune system through lack of food, social distancing, wearing of masks, and lack of contact with sunlight and healthy bacteria. Exposure to 5G radiation will further attack the immune system. Thus, when people re-emerge into society, more people will fall ill. This will be blamed on Covid19. This will all occur before the vaccination is ready to justify it. A longer and more potent lockdown will follow until everyone takes the vaccine. 3rd Phase: If majority of people resist the vaccine, a weaponized SARS/HIV/MERS virus will be released. A lot of people will die from this. It will be survival of the fittest. It will also be the ultimate push for everyone to be vaccinated, in order to return to normality. Those who have taken the vaccine will be at war with those who have not. It will be anarchy from all sides.” “Covid-19means the ‘certificate of identification of vaccination with artificial intelligence’ and ’19’ was the year in which it was created.” Facts or fiction bit like the bible " Absolutely delusional nonsense. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/14/fact-check-operation-lockstep-covid-19-conspiracy-theory/6567231002/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""You think that's it? The yellow card system is reporting over 12000 blood disorders reported with 10 fatalities, 9000 cardiac with 165 fatalities, 51000 generic disorders with 154 fatalities, 3000 visual problems with 50 cases of blindness, 79 spontaneous abortions, etc, etc, etc." Can you please supply the source of this information? The information I can source, doesn't suggest there have been that many Yellow Card reports, let alone that many serious reactions. Nita Gov.uk website " Have double checked. The numbers quoted are totally erroneous. By far the highest reported side effects are mild issues such as soreness and mild flu like symptoms. Given the high figure given for cardiac related problems, it seems that palpitations are included in your figure. In most cases, I suspect this will be stress / worry etc associated with needles/vaccination. On reading the report fully, I am even more convinced that havingvthd vaccine is the safest way to bring this to a conclusion. The following information has been taken directly from the most recent report: Up to 26 May 2021, the MHRA had received Yellow Card reports of 348 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) in the UK following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. These events occurred in 189 women and 156 men aged from 18 to 93 years and the overall case fatality rate was 18% with 61 deaths. Eighteen cases have been reported after a second dose. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was reported in 128 cases (average age 46 years) and 220 had other major thromboembolic events (average age 54.5 years) with concurrent thrombocytopenia. The estimated number of first doses of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca administered in the UK by 26 May was 24.3 million and the estimated number of second doses was 13.4 million. The MHRA has received 8 reports of capillary leak syndrome (a condition where blood leaks from the small blood vessels into the body) The MHRA has received 396 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 831 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 4 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 22 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a yellow card weekly summary available on .gov. The yellow card system is great at what it does but comes with a caveat. .gov says "Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time." So my winky shrinkage could be reported on a yellow card. It does not mean though that anyone having the same vaccine will get winky shrinkage too. Even if there were lots of reports of it. The NHS and BBC's reality checks are good (not perfect) sources of information. The vaccines are all tested and the one I had was a modified version of a vaccine that's been used for years. If I lose my lockdown weight, I'm sure my winky shrinkage will revert. Having a vaccine is still a far less risky choice than 2.8% risk of death. UK's population is 66.65 million, with no vaccine we'd be looking at just under 1.8 million dead from covid. But thankfully, for every 100 vaccinations given, we stand to save 2.8 people. With any luck we might slow the virus enough to avoid the variant that can wipe us all out, so get vaccinated asap.
A vaccine reduces your risk by about 1% it's true.
Actually it's quite a lot higher than 1%
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-real-world-uk-data-shows-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-provides-high-levels-of-protection-from-the-first-dose
Lol, your overall risk is so low in the first place it makes far less difference than you think, as a paper in The Lancet pointed out a few weeks ago.
Absolute risk reduction 1.3% for Astra Zeneca, 1.2% for Moderna and J&J, 0.85% for Pfizer jabs.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room
Piero Olliaro
Els Torreele
Michel Vaillant
Published:April 20, 2021
Oh PS that's science, not social media.
It was a commentary and not a study. Arr and rrr are different. Have you seen the authors responses when told their paper is being used to say vaccines dont really work? Here is one of the authors replies on Twitter.
Els torreele 29th may
As our article on vaccine efficacy seems to be used by anti-vaxxers to claim all sorts of things that are wrong, this thread to explain and further clarify our analysis. Most importantly: the Covid-19 vaccines work very well!
Read all the 15 tweets in the thread it explains well where the numbers come from. She says that all the authorised vaccines work very well
I have seen other responses from Piero also"No one is saying they don't illicit an immune response, among other effects. People are however misguided about just how much safer they are - this paper merely points this fact out. You reduce your actual risk by around 1%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
