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

[Cheshire_Kat]

Given that it's taken from the Latin,

Greek, not Latin ... If you are going to give origins to prove a point, please be accurate
The translation in English is essentially correct in meaning; however it comes from the Greek prefex "a" meaning without, and the root word root " σύμπτωμα or súmptōma," which literally means happening or efffect.

 

[4DQSAR]

Greek, not Latin ... If you are going to give origins to prove a point, please be accurate
The translation in English is essentially correct in meaning; however it comes from the Greek prefex "a" meaning without, and the root word root " σύμπτωμα or súmptōma," which literally means happening or efffect.

My mistake - thank you for the correction.

My OED states:

Late Latin symptomaticus, from symptomat-, stem of symptōma

But I'm guilty of only checking a single reference.

 

[-=SS=-]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, one of the first experiments supporting germ theory was that fluids taken from an infected individual were shown to reliably infect animal models. Models isolated from envoronmental factors.

Pasteur's own diaries/lab notes show that he lied/cheated in his experimentation in order to further his [germ] theory. There was experimentation done during the Spanish-flu, I forget by who, where they deliberately tried to infect people using methods that probably wouldn't pass an ethics board today... and it conclusively failed to infect the people.

And of course, there's Covid itself. A supposedly novel high-infectious respiratory pathogen, that many people including myself have somehow mysteriously managed to avoid despite being in contact with those who in turn were around 'known cases'.

It's a theory for a reason.

I also stated that science is constantly evolving and even provided what I thought a good example in that Newtonian Gravitational Theory was considered accurate until instrumentation was developed that showed deviation and thus Einstein's Gravitational Theory was adopted. Science is in constant flux but is based on a weight of evidence. Skepticism is the basis of science.

I've done this to death on here. Science is not infallible, it is comprised of people and politics, and is just as vulnerable to biases, error, or malicious design, as any other system made of people. You can package and advertise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

My mistake - thank you for the correction.

My OED states:

Late Latin symptomaticus, from symptomat-, stem of symptōma

But I'm guilty of only checking a single reference.

I am fluent in Latin and Greek as well as having good comprehension and vocabulary in Hebrew. I learned them in school as part of my "formation" (education) in the seminary.

 

[4DQSAR]

I made no mention of Pasteur but did provide refernce a later experiment that to the best of my knowledge was repeated by many institutions over different continents and decades. It's easy to cherry-pick examples of bad science but first I would suggest Retraction Watch (which I provided a link to) actually provides a HUGE list but as a percentage of the papers they studied, it still represents a very small fraction. Again I say, one paper can never provide a significant weight of evidence.

In my first post I pointed to conformation bias being an eternal problem. If you choose to pick ONLY that minorty and ignore the vast majority, that's a classic example of conformation bias. Conclusion shopping.

I also specifically stated that science is in constant flux. nothing is known, only a weight of evidence. Doubt is inherent to the scientific process as is skepticism. But it's the fact that a given experiment is repeatable that provides weight along with more refined experiments. As an example I pointed out that the body fluid of an infected individual was shown to reliably infect animal models. Then weight was added by virtue of the vector being incubated in isolation and was also shown to reliably infect animal models. In essence, to try to rule out alternatives.

IF science was in possession of 'all the facts', that would surely be the end of science? But that is never the case. Science is supplanted by better science. I gave you possibly the most famous example of this.

NOWHERE did I assert science was infallible - but what is? What is the better alternative?

If you hold an unfalsifable belief that science is inherently flawed, you have no argument. Because it's a BELIEF, not even a conjecture and certainly not a theory.

 

[-=SS=-]

If you hold an unfalsifable belief that science is inherently flawed, you have no argument. Because it's a BELIEF, not even a conjecture and certainly not a theory.

You're talking is if science is its own thing, a thing detached from people. My whole point is that science is people, and people are not infallible. Science has to be inherently flawed because it is impossible to separate out people from science. It's not possible to do science without people, science can't come into existence of itself.

I'm not anti-science. It's better than nothing, and still better than the theological 'believe or die' mentality that is supplanted. But we have to acknowledge its limitations, and the people part is one aspect of that.

In an ideal scenario science would function in this noble manner that it is portrayed as being, exemplified by the snooty British scientific giants that make up a lot of its own history. Dignified, incorruptible, yearning for the truth. But that's just a projection, a human projection. It completely ignores the reality of people, of power and politics.

Stephen Hawking was supposedly a scientific giant with a 160 IQ. Held up as one of those types of people I just portrayed. And yet he turned up on Epstein Island, and Virginia Giuffre has stated he participated in an underage orgy..

As for Pasteur, his work and momentum is one of the foundation stones of the modern medical paradigm. You can't just blithely dismiss his own corruption as if its inconsequential. If it were known at the time then science may not have advanced in that direction at all and perhaps there would be another theory in place of Germ Theory.

 

[4DQSAR]

I feel I have explained the scientific process and how it deals with the falibility of individuals. In fact I've done so several times.

Your own prejudices are very clear for to all to see and thus I feel no need to elaborate.

One of the great things about the scientific process is that it doesn't care about YOUR opinion or indeed anyone's opinon - it's driven by repeated experimentation by diverse institutions to provide a WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. I've also detailed how bad articles are detected and weeded out. Not perfect - nothing is, but robust. Just try getting an academic paper published to discover just how robust the methodology is.

 

[-=SS=-]

Yeah yeah. This is the projection of what you would like science to be, of what I'd like science to be. But that's all it is, a projection.

This sounds exactly like an advertising soundbite to me. Throw in a scenic coastal road and the newest model..

it's driven by repeated experimentation by diverse institutions to provide a WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

We're not going anywhere with this. You're infatuated with science like a few others here. Let's leave it at that.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Yeah yeah. This is the projection of what you would like science to be, of what I'd like science to be. But that's all it is, a projection.

This sounds exactly like an advertising soundbite to me. Throw in a scenic coastal road and the newest model..


We're not going anywhere with this. You're infatuated with science like a few others here. Let's leave it at that.

Its an infatuation with learning and part of that is learning where our current understanding is wrong, I'm sorry you have lost your curiosity

 

[-=SS=-]

Its an infatuation with learning and part of that is learning where our current understanding is wrong, I'm sorry you have lost your curiosity

Once again, all backwards. I would not have entertained the possibility of my current perspective if I had no curiosity. I was curious enough to learn the conventional paradigm through school and into university, and I was curious enough to seek out alternative explanations when the reality that was presented during covid was so overwhelmingly incongruent.

And this little dog pile is really cute. Anyone else want to join in and lay on their facetious and vacuous insights?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

And this little dog pile is really cute. Anyone else want to join in and lay on their facetious and vacuous insights?

I lack the skills and intent to do any such thing. I just read the last 3 pages of this thread and think I'll just back out and stay out.

 

[Illyria99]

And of course, there's Covid itself. A supposedly novel high-infectious respiratory pathogen, that many people including myself have somehow mysteriously managed to avoid despite being in contact with those who in turn were around 'known cases'.

I've never had COVID, despite working part-time at a supermarket in 2020/2021. We were required to get weekly tests and I was always negative. And I never got the jab. Some of my coworkers caught it, but not me. I'm beginning to think that some of us are just immune. But who knows?

I remember reading a few articles claiming that cigarette smokers were less likely to be infected. And I'm a chain smoker. But I wonder...IF that virus was manufactured, perhaps all those people who happily sent their DNA to companies for an ancestry search...meh, nevermind.

 

[-=SS=-]

But I wonder...IF that virus was manufactured, perhaps all those people who happily sent their DNA to companies for an ancestry search...meh, nevermind.

The James Bond film 'No Time to Die' that was due to release just before the pandemic started, the plot in that film involved a nano-tech bio-weapon that targeted people based on their DNA lol..

Still haven't been ill since before 2020. No jab. No tests either.. no way was anyone going to be tickling my brain with giant Qtip, that was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. A virus so contagious they have to scrape the back of your sinus cavity, right beneath the brain? Can't just spit in a cup? Lmao. I bet whoever pulled the strings had a great laugh at that, watching everyone just bend over and take it.

 

[-=SS=-]

This article popped up on my news page today, relevant to what I stated a couple pages back about DDT and industrial poisoning: ‘Parkinson’s is a man-made disease’ - Politico

Linking the use of pesticides to Parkinson's disease. Same thing as DDT.. industrial poisoning, evidence is all there, manufacturers continue to say "when used safely", regulators still getting padded envelopes, third-world countries still being sold chemicals now banned in the first-world (and manufactured there), rates of condition climbing in said third-world countries.

There's just too much money involved in all of this, too much riding on the agri-chemical industry.

 

[Electrum1]

Remember when the rapid tests had like a 40 day cycle threshold so there would be a bunch of false positives. That motorcycle rider in Florida that died in a crash tested positive after dying and then they counted it as a covid death, lol

 

[-=SS=-]

The testing regime was utter, utter bollocks for so many reasons. It was also terribly convenient that the inventor of the PCR method (not a test!), Kary Mullis, just happened to die shortly before the whole nonsense began. If he had been alive he would have absolutely torn the whole thing to shreds and smacked down Drosten before he could launch his computer generated bullshit.

 

[4DQSAR]

And this little dog pile is really cute. Anyone else want to join in and lay on their facetious and vacuous insights?

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial - Cranky Uncle

In 2007, Mark Hoofnagle suggested on his Science Blog Denialism that denialists across a range of topics such as climate change, evolution, & HIV/AIDS all employed the same rhetorical tactics to sow confusion. The five general tactics were conspiracy, selectivity … Continued

crankyuncle.com

Note that 'ad hominem' is the very first tool discussed. You can't argue the fact, so attack the person asserting the fact.

 

[-=SS=-]

Oh wow, big brain argument. mUh sCieNCe deNiaL.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Oh wow, no argument at all beyond trival mumblings and no substance. Brings significant question to your motives, and if there's any value in engaging with you.

See how it works?

 

[-=SS=-]

Oh that's cute. Go on then, take on some of the points?

I've posted more than enough on this topic already and many times in the past at length, so when someone just throws out "science denier" what the hell do you expect? That's such a low bar it's not even worthy of a retort at all. Or I get shit about one post I made seven fucking years ago about abortion lmao.

No one has actually been able to rebuff the points that have been raised recently or in the past. Whether it be about the PCR cycle threshold for example as mentioned above by another poster, or whatever else was discussed at length (testing, the jabs, masks, etc etc). It always inevitably comes back to an appeal to authority or this bullshit of "science denier".