The Last Covid-19 Megathread v. Hopefully...

[tryptakid]

99% of people can be in a consensus and 99% of people can still be wrong. Consensus doesn't actually mean anything.

Tyranny of the majority

All you've really said here is that you do not understand the difference between book smart and street smart. I couldn't give you an exact run down on the ingredients and technicalities of what was in the jabs. So what? If I do not trust the people that are designing and making it, the people that are pushing it on me and everyone else, then it doesn't matter about the technicalities of it.

I will say this - the vaccine greatly reduced death and suffering of people all around me at a time when my colleagues and I were becoming overwhelmed dealing with burnout and frustration.

Vaccines helped stop deaths, they helped prevent spread

Masks prevented spread and reduced deaths

They both reduced the amount of time that we ultimately needed to socially distance and shut down society en masse.

Was it the same everywhere in the world? I have no idea - was it is helpful to approach things in this way everywhere in the world? I have no idea - though most of the world seemed to get on board with these interventions just fine, and most of the world did all right because of them. The worst impacted people were those who were caught early/and were vulnerable, and those who resisted vaccination and masking long term. Some of those who did both developed an inherent immunity due to exposure - this is a strategy I also engaged in myself - low risk exposure in well ventilated areas. Much easier to enact as an individual, and likely more feasible for those who live outside of urban areas, but not so far into rural areas.

People took a very strong stance on it because it was being forced upon people, we were being propagandised.

There wasn't much choice - I'm just being realistic. Most of you were not seeing the stuff we were seeing. Nearly anyone working in a health center or clinic is going to tell you that there were times it felt like we were stemming an unbeatable tide.

No other alternatives were even considered - ivermectin, as one example. With all your book smarts you are perhaps overlooking an obvious data point that many 'uneducated' people with a stronger intuitive ability than you have perceived.

sometimes you gotta just pick a path and stick with it. I've yet to see much in the way of promising data from ivermectin use outside of grifters selling stuff online. Could the medical industrial complex be silencing the true research here? I suppose - but let me tell you - we were open to pretty much anything and were recommending anything that seemed to be helpful during the first 6 months. The docs I worked with were not picky about what course of action a patient might be open to taking, as long as it was likely to have some benefit - we'd support it.

Now, at the time I maintained one danger of it was the genetic component of the mRNA jabs. I couldn't give you a technical breakdown of how it is working at the cellular level in detail, but that is besides the point. I know enough to not trust such a mechanism, period, that I do not trust our ability to not fuck things up with such a technology. That's all there is to it. An uneducated opinion? In your eyes, yes. But for me, that is prudent self-preservation based on a strong intuition.. and I trust my intuition, the intelligence of my body-mind, far more than the advertising campaign of the pharmaceutical companies and their lackies.

I've had several, as had my friends, colleagues, and patients, and I've never seen any issues with receiving them. i've only heard anecdotal reports from strangers online who seem to have an anti-medicine agenda. I don't obviously know the full truth here but that's my experience.

 

[sHR00m]

Everything that the vaccines cause, covid itself causes 10-20x worse. Many studies show this, ones that have been posted here as well

Yeah in theory that is accurate. I used to "believe the virologists" too because if you can't trust science who can you trust?

By now we know however that we - at least in part - have been greatly mislead by them. Back then there was a statement published in the Lancet declaring the lab hypothesis as potential origin of COVID as a conspiracy theory, signed by 24 or so leading virologists.

By now we have leaked secret agency reports from the CIA and the German BND both estimating the lab hypothesis to be accurate with a high degree of probability. If science was "wrong" on this account (the correct term seems to be veiled) then maybe the experimental vaccines had hidden dangers we were not told as well.

Would I dismiss the studies asserting acceptable risks in mRNA vaccines? IDK. I'm not an expert. I do know that the pharmaceutical industry is essentially an organized crime syndicate that lacks oversight. Studies get manipulated (or unwanted studies not published like in the tamiflu craze during the bird flu pandemic). This is the same industry that claimed that oxycontin is only addictive in 1% of patients.

TLDR - Idk what to believe at this point because I have been mislead by the same people in charge that claimed the COVID vaccines are safe and necessary.

 

[-=SS=-]

There wasn't much choice - I'm just being realistic. Most of you were not seeing the stuff we were seeing. Nearly anyone working in a health center or clinic is going to tell you that there were times it felt like we were stemming an unbeatable tide.

I'm sorry but this is just flat out wrong. The data clearly showed, at the time, that the only people being adversely affected were the very elderly and the obese. There was absolutely no need to foist and force vaccines upon the entire population of the world, especially young people. EDIT: To clarify; something has to be said about the data itself, because the testing regime used to classify people as covid positive was absolute nonsense; excessively high PCR cycles and lateral flow tests that turn positive under fruit juice; and also the rates of influenza dropping to zero.. basically it was a statistical bait and switch.. there was nothing novel happening, which is exactly what the overall mortality statistics show and showed even at the time (with the exception of Mar/Apr 2020) - I still have the ONS data, I posted it here before.

It was all back to front. You isolate the vulnerable, not the heathy. The whole playbook of conventional understanding was discarded and turned upside down based on absolutely nothing but political will. Of course if they took the approach that conventional wisdom dictated, then they would not have been able to shill for billions in vaccines, transfer wealth upwards, develop and accelerate the bio-surveillance grid, condition the public into accepting tyranny under the pretext of medical emergency, etc, etc..

We were talking about ostracizing non-vaccinated people, some countries went as far to implement digital exclusions, people lost their jobs, Austria was contemplating forced vaccination (and others were not far behind), Australia built fucking concentration camps. And for what? If the vaccine actually worked, then the non-vaccinated would pose no risk to the vaccinated. So, how the fuck do you square that circle? We were a teetering on the verge of removing bodily autonomy for healthy people, forcing by state power to get a rushed medical product. Like with all due respect man.. pull your head out. It was tyranny, not a sincere compassionate medical response.

I've had several, as had my friends, colleagues, and patients, and I've never seen any issues with receiving them. i've only heard anecdotal reports from strangers online who seem to have an anti-medicine agenda. I don't obviously know the full truth here but that's my experience.

This is besides the point. We're talking potential modification of genetic material, of potential uptake of mRNA code, it's not necessarily going to manifest the day you get the jab or even shortly afterwards. Any potential damage it may cause would be incredibly difficult to detect unless a large percent of the [vaccinated] population suddenly developed some affliction all at once years down the line e.g. a specific type of cancer in a specific organ that perhaps was accumulating spike protein or something.

My point was that I do not trust that we'd get it right. We can't even handle introducing foreign species into non-native habitats, it's absolute madness to think we've cracked the ability to safely navigate natures genetic technology, especially when we haven't even mapped out the full terrain and activity at the cellular level.

 

[tryptakid]

I'm sorry but this is just flat out wrong. The data clearly showed, at the time, that the only people being adversely affected were the very elderly and the obese. There was absolutely no need to foist and force vaccines upon the entire population of the world, especially young people.

Frontline medical staff were dying from high loading doses of viral infections. Young/healthy clinicians without the kinds of health vulnerabilities that the elderly and unwell were dealing with.

Young people were just significant vectors of transmission - the goal of vaccination is both to reduce transmission and disease severity at the same time. You need to target all people to make it effective, and you need to consider all nexii of infection.

It was all back to front. You isolate the vulnerable, not the heathy. The whole playbook of conventional understanding was discarded and turned upside down based on absolutely nothing but political will. Of course if they took the approach that conventional wisdom dictated, then they would not have been able to shill for billions in vaccines, transfer wealth upwards, develop and accelerate the bio-surveillance grid, condition the public into accepting tyranny under the pretext of medical emergency, etc, etc..

You're forgetting that we had no playbook for this. It was a novel virus, likely lab created, that was spreading more quickly than anything we'd seen in generations if not ever. We had to shut down air travel and that resulted in no flu season as a result for the first time in generations.

We were talking about ostracizing non-vaccinated people, some countries went as far to implement digital exclusions, people lost their jobs, Austria was contemplating forced vaccination (and others were not far behind), Australia built fucking concentration camps. And for what? If the vaccine actually worked, then the non-vaccinated would pose no risk to the vaccinated. So, how the fuck do you square that circle? We were a teetering on the verge of removing bodily autonomy for healthy people, forcing by state power to get a rushed medical product. Like with all due respect man.. pull your head out. It was tyranny, not a sincere compassionate medical response.

This happened during TB and during other health outbreaks as well. Unvaccinated people have caused issues for public health for a long time. I have a hard time feeling a tremendous amount of sympathy for unvaccinated peoples whose desire for freedom means that people I cared about were more likely to die/suffer. I understand that I have a different perspective on this than others but that's my $.02

This is besides the point. We're talking potential modification of genetic material, of potential uptake of mRNA code, it's not necessarily going to manifest the day you get the jab or even shortly afterwards. Any potential damage it may cause would be incredibly difficult to detect unless a large percent of the [vaccinated] population suddenly developed some affliction all at once years down the line e.g. a specific type of cancer in a specific organ that perhaps was accumulating spike protein or something.

All I know is that CoVID definitely causes long term issues with neurological functioning, cardiovascular functioning, and leaves viral implants throughout the body which can be reactivated due to things like exercise, ailment, or injury. I'll take the potential for a vaccine side effect over the known chaotic uncertainty of dormant covid lingering in my corpus callosum for 20 years until I suddenly reactivate it and start losing short term memory functioning out of the blue.

My point was that I do not trust that we'd get it right. We can't even handle introducing foreign species into non-native habitats, it's absolute madness to think we've cracked the ability to safely navigate natures genetic technology, especially when we haven't even mapped out the full terrain and activity at the cellular level.

ETA: As a side note - I work in health care and I live in a city. I recognize that my experience in regards to both being a healthcare worker more likely to experience exposure, and living in a densely populated urban core means that my risk of infection looked different than someone who worked in a rural area, from home. Should we have shut down every element of society the same? Probably not. I think that what made it hard was that global communication systems allowed the most ignorant voices to shout loudly and turn up the emotional volalitility at a time when we did not need that type of thing.

20 years ago, medicine was much more paternalistic. Doctors would reject patient input when considering treatment options. You were told what course of treatment you'd receive and that was that. Now we live in a time where the patient's perspective is considered as part of the decision making process, even if that means sending an 86 year old man on his death bed in for surgery that almost certainly won't have any positive effects but 'in theory' could cure what ails him in a statistically insignificant number of cases.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

People are people. Just because one puts on a white lab coat does not make them immune to corruption. Again this is this exalted medieval thinking that the priest class is above reproach, which is absolute nonsense.

And there will always be one group or individual within that community willing to disprove a conspiracy or shaky research and greatly advance their reputation and career by doing so. You keep ignoring that part and cutting it off. That’s how the scientific community works and how people make their name, it is self correcting. It is hi highly competitive and proving others wrong is how people climb to the top of their field.



Also nobody said that someone wearing a white coat is exalted to some state of higher status in society - but I have been saying for like 5 posts that the laymen seems to beleieve this - not because it’s actually true / but because society has made people feel less than that don’t excel in academics. Just like society has made ppl feel less than who are not attractive or made males feel less than that are not physically strong, big, or athletic.

There are consequences to one’s self esteem when they are told since being a child that they must excel at academics (or be attractive etc) Those that feel they have failed react with jealousy, defiance, and hatred. And it’s all about them - not the academic.

nobody is exalting doctors above other people. It’s people placing themselves lower and reacting in defensive ways to feeling less than. “Stupid doctors don’t know anything, Jo Rogan says ivermectin works best and he’s smarter and more rich than the doctors and a high school graduate only just like me….dumb doctors” it’s a total cope to preserve one’s self esteem.

 

[-=SS=-]

Young people were just significant vectors of transmission - the goal of vaccination is both to reduce transmission and disease severity at the same time. You need to target all people to make it effective, and you need to consider all nexii of infection.

All backwards. You don't give medical products to people who are healthy, because there is nothing to gain and only potential to lose.. especially if the product is a rushed, genetic based one. And second, all that runs completely contrary to the idea of herd immunity, which is the conventional wisdom of virology.. that as a virus circulates more and more it loses its pathogenic quality. You want young people to get it, get over it, to effectively neutralize the pathogenic quality of the virus.

You're forgetting that we had no playbook for this. It was a novel virus..

This is not true. Pandemic preparedness plans had been developed and considered for a long time prior to 2020. What happened was media hysteria blew the whole thing out of proportion, providing the green light for the politicians to take a divergent path and enact all their corrupt nonsense. Or have you forgotten the clearly staged Chinese videos that were circulating? Or the Italian's and their exaggeration of the situation in their media with army trucks and coffins, etc?

Unvaccinated people have caused issues for public health for a long time. I have a hard time feeling a tremendous amount of sympathy for unvaccinated peoples whose desire for freedom means that people I cared about were more likely to die/suffer. I understand that I have a different perspective on this than others but that's my $.02

Yes, and that perspective is incredibly dangerous. You would, as per above, sacrifice the young and healthy to protect by and large those who are elderly, obese, and effectively used up dishrags. This is completely unnatural and peak selfishness.

And further than that, without bodily freedom you have nothing. The state has no right what so ever to be involved in the health of the individual. If you do not have bodily autonomy then you are not free, you are state property, and you are a slave. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century would actually support transgressing bodily autonomy, it shows a complete intellectual failure of the person.

 

[tryptakid]

All backwards. You don't give medical products to people who are healthy, because there is nothing to gain and only potential to lose.. especially if the product is a rushed, genetic based one. And second, all that runs completely contrary to the idea of herd immunity, which is the conventional wisdom of virology.. that as a virus circulates more and more it loses its pathogenic quality. You want young people to get it, get over it, to effectively neutralize the pathogenic quality of the virus.

This is not true. Pandemic preparedness plans had been developed and considered for a long time prior to 2020. What happened was media hysteria blew the whole thing out of proportion, providing the green light for the politicians to take a divergent path and enact all their corrupt nonsense. Or have you forgotten the clearly staged Chinese videos that were circulating? Or the Italian's and their exaggeration of the situation in their media with army trucks and coffins, etc?

When was the last rapidly spreading global pandemic that was covered by a 24 hour news cycle while being livetweated and dissected on Reddit?

The confluence of factors had a non-zero impact on the severity of the overall pandemic. It wasn't just the disease, it was the social impact as well

Yes, and that perspective is incredibly dangerous. You would, as per above, sacrifice the young and healthy to protect by and large those who are elderly, obese, and effectively used up dishrags. This is completely unnatural and peak selfishness.

That's a different conversation. We lived in a society *until recently* that held all human life to be sacred and worth protecting.

Social darwinism is making a come back though, so maybe you'll get to see the next pandemic handled in the ways you're proposing.

And further than that, without bodily freedom you have nothing. The state has no right what so ever to be involved in the health of the individual. If you do not have bodily autonomy then you are not free, you are state property, and you are a slave. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century would actually support transgressing bodily autonomy, it shows a complete intellectual failure of the person.

The state has every right -it's part of the social contract. The fabric of society is based on the rights of the state over the individual in matters such as these. It's the same reason the state compels you to wear a seat belt, not speed, and to take classes before driving an automobile.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

And further than that, without bodily freedom you have nothing. The state has no right what so ever to be involved in the health of the individual. If you do not have bodily autonomy then you are not free, you are state property, and you are a slave. I

Despite other disagreements about the weight a layman vs a scientist’s viewpoints carry in matters of science…….i have to agree with you 100% on this issue of bodily autonomy.

I am totally against forced vaccination, even if forced vaccination is for the greater good and prevents mass suffering. I have to be against it on principle, because I wouldn’t be consistent with my principles of self ownership over one’s own body - if I didn’t concede that vaccination should be voluntary.

It’s fine for the private sector to exclude workers that don’t have a vaccine because the private sector can make up its own rules / but it can’t be illegal to not be vaccinated, however stupid it may be.

This freedom parallels right to die ( euthanasia) and abortion which I am extremely a strong proponent of. So I must be consistent even though I think not getting vaccinated for polio is a retard move.

 

[4DQSAR]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how science works. One paper will never shift the weight of evidence by much even if it's publiched in a high-impact journal. Yes, there certainly is corruprion in academia, but one would require that the vast majority of papers - papers publiched by institutions across the globe and with a large range of funding ALL to have been part of some vast conspiracy.

One should also remember that science is based on skepticism. People reading an article will always be looking for weaknesses. Always trying to discover if a given conclusion isn't bourne out by the data supplied. Just as importantly, they REPEAT the experiments to confirm - and we have even caught Nobel Nobel laureates faking evidence, so it's not a problem that is unknown or ignored.

There will always be outlier results which is why the meta-analysis is considered better evidence than a single paper. Outliers will occur without malign intent but if you ONLY read those outliers, you aren't 'doing science' - you are merely conclusion shopping. We ALL have subconcious biases and conformation bias is a well recognized example. People believe something rather than starting from the position of NOT believing something until the weight of evidence suggests a given rationale.



https://retractionwatch.com/ I think it always useful to check this site to see if a given article has been retracted. Because I have noted people relying on an article without knowing that in fact it had been retracted.

I thought this was a thread on the current US government, so can we take this discussion somewhere more appropriate.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The state has every right -it's part of the social contract. The fabric of society is based on the rights of the state over the individual in matters such as these.

no way. Just no. Seem my above post as to why.

Give them an inch and they take a mile. This is much bigger than vaccines and immunity and there are much bigger freedoms at stake.

 

[tryptakid]

no way. Just no. Seem my above post as to why.

Give them an inch and they take a mile. This is much bigger than vaccines and immunity and there are much bigger freedoms at stake.

You can't deny this - it's the basis on which the rule of law is formed. You can think it's unfair certainly, but this is the bedrock of how society of functions. The state is able to have a compelling interest in societal operation even at the expense of individual liberty, when permission of absolute freedom would inhibit the welfare of the state.

This is why courts exist in a common law system - to debate whether the state's interest should override individual liberty. In matters related to public health and prevention of disease, the state will almost certainly have widespread authority to enact prevention measures.

Should the state override individual liberty around bodily autonomy around matters related to things like abortion? I don't believe so. There is no compelling threat to public health by allowing abortions to occur - no disease is prevented when a woman has the final say on her body's function.

There is a difference between positive liberty and negative liberty - positive is what the state frees one up to gain, while negative liberty is what the state prevents from being taken from you.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how science works. One paper will never shift the weight of evidence by much even if it's publiched in a high-impact journal. Yes, there certainly is corruprion in academia, but one would require that the vast majority of papers - papers publiched by institutions across the globe and with a large range of funding ALL to have been part of some vast conspiracy.

One should also remember that science is based on skepticism. People reading an article will always be looking for weaknesses. Always trying to discover if a given conclusion isn't bourne out by the data supplied. Just as importantly, they REPEAT the experiments to confirm - and we have even caught Nobel Prize winners faking evidence, so it's not a problem that is unknown or ignored.



https://retractionwatch.com/ I think it always useful to check this site to see if a given article has been retracted. Because I have noted people relying on an article without knowing that in fact it had been retracted.

I thought this was a thread on the current US government, so can we take this discussion somewhere more appropriate.

I like how personal anecdotes are one of the top items listed in “not scientific evidence”

I had noticed this for many years prior, and a study just came out concluding this recently, but conservatives don’t seem to understand the difference between personal anecdotes and statistics and they give greater weight to personal anecdotes, because they experienced it themselves, vs to statistics (because they are just words on a paper and not tangible).

I’m convinced that the political divide is more than just people with different opinions on issues. It is a fundamental divide between two very different sub species of humans, you could place members of each group into two different psychiatric classifications their minds work so differently

The greater weight in personal anecdotes over stats

The refusal to change viewpoints when presented with new evidence

The role of faith (not religious faith necessarily but simply “beleieving without evidence”)

Lack of or excess of empathy

Defiance against accepted norms simply because they are accepted and not for merit based reasons.

There are a few other ones but the first two are the most striking.

I really beleive that the political divide may be a psychiatric or psychological divide at its core

 

[someguyontheinternet]

declaring the lab hypothesis as potential origin of COVID as a conspiracy theory, signed by 24 or so leading virologists.

I wouldn't call 24 people a consensus of a field

 

[-=SS=-]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how science works.

See, you people keep repeating this mantra as if it was true but it's not. Do I have to list out the revolutionary scientific and technological advances that came from dreams and visions? Literally coming from left field, not scientific in the slightest, and in fact those events in themselves actually pose more questions than they answer.. about the seemingly miraculous way such gifts drop into the minds of the receiver.

So when your little graphic says "gut feelings" (aka intuition) is not valid.. it completely ignores the tremendous contribution non-logical, non-rational, subjective experience has contributed to science.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the rotating magnetic vortex vision of Nikola Tesla. Who by the way, was told such a scheme (AC power) was an impossibility by his professors.

 

[tryptakid]

I like how personal anecdotes are one of the top items listed in “not scientific evidence”

I had noticed this for many years prior, and a study just came out concluding this recently, but conservatives don’t seem to understand the difference between personal anecdotes and statistics and they give greater weight to personal anecdotes, because they experienced it themselves, vs to statistics (because they are just words on a paper and not tangible).

I’m convinced that the political divide is more than just people with different opinions on issues. It is a fundamental divide between two very different sub species of humans, you could place members of each group into two different psychiatric classifications their minds work so differently

The greater weight in personal anecdotes over stats

The refusal to change viewpoints when presented with new evidence

The role of faith (not religious faith necessarily but simply “beleieving without evidence”)

Lack of or excess of empathy

Defiance against accepted norms simply because they are accepted and not for merit based reasons.

There are a few other ones but the first two are the most striking.

I really beleive that the political divide may be a psychiatric or psychological divide at its core

It's a mindset that trusts what can be directly observed over what can be learned through critical review. Rejection of scientific inquiry leads to people relying on what they understand and what is most proximal to them. This is inherently prone to certain biased perspectives as a result.

The scientific method is one that attempts to negate bias through rigorous self-critique.

 

[tryptakid]

See, you people keep repeating this mantra as if it was true but it's not. Do I have to list out the revolutionary scientific and technological advances that came from dreams and visions? Literally coming from left field, not scientific in the slightest, and in fact those events in themselves actually pose more questions than they answer.. about the seemingly miraculous way such gifts drop into the minds of the receiver.

So when your little graphic says "gut feelings" (aka intuition) is not valid.. it completely ignores the tremendous contribution non-logical, non-rational, subjective experience has contributed to science.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the rotating magnetic vortex vision of Nikola Tesla. Who by the way, was told such a scheme (AC power) was an impossibility by his professors.

This is where you and I do agree. Intuition and visionary guidance have value.

I had a powerful mushroom trip at the beginning of CoVID - I saw that CoVID was akin to a sort of Hydrogen Peroxide for the universe, which in time would start to cleanse some of the corruption in human society by exposing our most blatant liars.

Sadly, humans chose not to listen to the evidence right in front of them (because we're too distracted by shiny things) and those liars were welcomed right back a mere 4 years later.

 

[4DQSAR]

See, you people keep repeating this mantra as if it was true but it's not. Do I have to list out the revolutionary scientific and technological advances that came from dreams and visions? Literally coming from left field, not scientific in the slightest, and in fact those events in themselves actually pose more questions than they answer.. about the seemingly miraculous way such gifts drop into the minds of the receiver.

So when your little graphic says "gut feelings" (aka intuition) is not valid.. it completely ignores the tremendous contribution non-logical, non-rational, subjective experience has contributed to science.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the rotating magnetic vortex vision of Nikola Tesla. Who by the way, was told such a scheme (AC power) was an impossibility by his professors.

HItchen's razor applies here - if you assert a fact without providing evidence, people can freely ignore it without evidence.

BTW Tesla only underlines the fact that his teachers were skeptical - which IS how science works. Until provided with scientific evidence, they correctly asserted skepticism. Of course, the multitude of people who made hypotheses that proved to be untrue goes unrecorded. So I could also point out conformation bias along with a basic confabulation of belief and evidential fact.

So well done in undermining your own argument.

Double well done for giving a great example of conformation bias on your own part.

 

[-=SS=-]

The state has every right -it's part of the social contract. The fabric of society is based on the rights of the state over the individual in matters such as these. It's the same reason the state compels you to wear a seat belt, not speed, and to take classes before driving an automobile.

No, it does not. What you are describing is tyranny. When a person does not have the right over their own bodily autonomy, that is textbook tyranny.

You're entitled to the rest of your views, but this one is genuinely offensive. The role of the state is to protect the rights of individuals, not to remove them. Believing the state has the right to supersede the bodily autonomy of the individual is conceding you believe in the master-slave relationship paradigm, because that's precisely what it is. Slavery/tyranny.

I don't care what the pretext is. If the sanctity of the individual and their own body is nullified, then we do not actually have freedom at all. I don't know what else to say other than if you genuinely think it's acceptable then you have failed as a human being.

 

[-=SS=-]

HItchen's razor applies here - if you assert a fact without providing evidence, people can freely ignore it without evidence.

BTW Tesla only underlines the fact that his teachers were skeptical - which IS how science works. Until proven otherwise, they were not prepared to assert belief in it.

So well done in undermining your own argument.

Fucks sake man, you could spend 5 seconds googling to see what I said was true.

The Benzene ring, the periodic table, the structure of DNA, the laser, insulin. Tesla's whole career was practically built out of visions and minds-eye ability.

 

[4DQSAR]

Still no evidence - Hitchen's Razor. Sorry - it's not my job or anyone else's to prove ANTHING. So I remain skeptical.

How someone derives a conjecture may well involve dreams or indeed ANYTHING but it's only with repeated experimention that a given statment will be considered correct. Even then, it's still subject to NEW evidence. undermining it.

Newtonian Gravity agreed with the instrumental data for hundreds of years and only when the increase in precision of instrumentation showed divergence that someone took on the task of finding a new, testable theory. In that case Einstein. So science isn't some monolith that is unchanging.