I don’t think it’s an attempt at culling the herd
you don't. but plenty of people - including some here - do.
and you probably can't both be right so who's wrong?
alasdair
I don’t think it’s an attempt at culling the herd
Do you even have to ask ? Obviously they are, I’m never wrong, everyou don't. but plenty of people - including some here - do.
and you probably can't both be right so who's wrong?
alasdair
are you joking?Why haven't mods deleted this for spreading dangerous misinformation?
You guys that are all paranoid the government or whatever is using the vacs for population control.. why would they kill off us vaccine sheeple and let you obstinate decenters live?
Seems counterproductive to me
correlation does not imply causationare you joking?
no one can explain the excess deaths in THOSE countries where the vaccines have been deployed the most, whoever who can use logic and it's not self-deceived would at least consider the possibility...
No. It means the risk has increased by 22%. So if before you had a 10% chance of getting a clot, now its 12.2%.Are you saying that 1 in 5 people with covid get clots in the first week?
with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,correlation does not imply causation
Follow me for more life advice and my morning routine videos. Like and subscribe.
"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,
because, as David Hume explained, centuries ago, there's nothing in the events that one could point as being the "cause",
it's ALWAYS, correlation, and never causation, even in scientific terms, that's why Popper's falsificationism makes sense, there's always the possibility of "other stuff" to explain whatever, otherwise, it's just a trick (a dogma).
Not really, its just saying there is nobody can explain away the excess deaths, other than the fact that a bunch of people took a experimental vaccine in the last couple years so it’s highly likely to be the culprit"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"
...Is directly contradicting itself in it's own logic. It's almost a paradoxical statement.
No,"Nobody can explain all these excess deaths, therefor it must be the vaccine"
...Is directly contradicting itself in it's own logic. It's almost a paradoxical statement.
What? Are you saying its impossible to find casual links? Because it absolutely is not. You just need the right evidence, you need a mechanism. Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough, especially when 80% of the population has had a vaccine, or whatever the number is now.with that "correlation does not imply causation" one could deny everything,
because, as David Hume explained, centuries ago, there's nothing in the events that one could point as being the "cause",
it's ALWAYS, correlation, and never causation, even in scientific terms, that's why Popper's falsificationism makes sense, there's always the possibility of "other stuff" to explain whatever, otherwise, it's just a trick (a dogma).
"Cause" it's not a fact, cause it's a type of relationship that humans have to explain reality. Hume was considering that, when we see something, we find relationships and rules, but rules are types of relationships. We see facts, and then we find a rule that "explains" that with some kind of regularity, that we could apply in certain conditions, but we cannot see the "cause" itself, just facts that repeat themselves under some logic (and the logic it's real, but as real it's only a temporary linguistic description of the world). Then there's the eternal scientific discussion between realists and idealists, what's more real, the mathematical relationships or the facts we could grasp and see? The fact it's that both are filtered through language and human brain limits.What? Are you saying a causal link cannot be found? Because it absolutely can. You just need the right evidence, you need a mechanism. Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough, especially when 80% of the population has had a vaccine, or whatever the number is now.
For any evidence to appear first it's needed to be taken seriously an hypothesis, otherwise, it's not to be found. There's quite enough scientific papers on pubmed or nlm, etc to start investigating about both the spike protein in the vaccines and the vaccines itself, those problems that have appeared with the vaccines.Saying these people took a vaccine and then got xxxx disease isn't enough
Thats an interesting philosophical statement, and I get it, nothing can ever be proven 100%, it can only have evidence for or against it. Nevertheless In science there definitely is a difference between correlation and causation. Eventually a shade of gray gets so dark that the possibility of it being white is no longer taken seriously."Cause" it's not a fact, cause it's a type of relationship that humans have to explain reality. Hume was considering that, when we see something, we find relationships and rules, but rules are types of relationships. We see facts, and then we find a rule that "explains" that with some kind of regularity, that we could apply in certain conditions, but we cannot see the "cause" itself, just facts that repeat themselves under some logic (and the logic it's real, but as real it's only a temporary linguistic description of the world). Then there's the eternal scientific discussion between realists and idealists, what's more real, the mathematical relationships or the facts we could grasp and see? The fact it's that both are filtered through language and human brain limits.
For example, a mathematical relation between objects and series it's not "a thing" but a linguistic translation of a rule. We see an apple falling, we see that it accelerate at a certain way, and the we find a mathematical relation (gravity) to explain that event, but it's gravity the "cause" of the fall of the apple?. Yep, we say that, but, where it's the "cause" there? we see the correlation between facts and some regularity, when the regularity stops working, then we need a new rule/relationship to find.
This shit it's Wittgenstein-ian way of looking to Hume, so maybe it seems overly complicated, I'm sorry if that's the case, not my intention.
where DID I say that it must be the vaccine?
It’s almost like that’s why they typically do long term trials before releasing something to the population…….but we don’t have any long term data with a control group so good luck pinning anything to the vaccine directly, it’s almost like they did that on purpose :/ fuckin head scratcherNow, picture this: they say that covid it's the cause of all problems, (instead of the vaccine). They "oblige" a certain amount of population to inject the vaccine and at the same time the vaccines are so fucking useless that all that people end up having covid. So then, if the case is that the vaccine causes x problems, it's always easy to blame covid, cause everyone ended up with covid.. it's almost a win-win situation.
It would be easier to compare the problems on those countries that didn't have a big amount of population injected, that's for sure, but as you see, most people are not brave enough to do such big N studies yet. Mainly because those studies need quite a bunch of money, to be done seriously.
By commenting before even watching the video you've helped prove my point.Yea the wise people clearly took the vaccine and still believe it to be totally safe bahahaha