/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14971343

It's the vax and all the other bullshit associated with lockdowns and anxiety and stress from it all. Nuremberg 2.0 when?

>>14971357
Cannot come soon enough.

>>14971343
>turns out it wasn't long covid after all
Yeah no, this particular study that I mainly see spammed on fake news websites and contradict dozens of well-made previous studies is far from enough to prove anything.
I mean if you know several people who got Covid before the vaccines, it's pretty obvious that cardiovascular side effects weren't rare.
But hey, at least they admit that their study has several limitations.

>>14971524
that's nice and all but I'm still not taking the vax sorry

>>14971524
>it's pretty obvious that cardiovascular side effects weren't rare
nobody talked about those until the vaxx lmao

>>14971343
Turns out you didn't learn anything at all, since you apparently still think scientific studies are going to convince the malevolent Pfizer hordes of anything.

>>14971524
Make sure to post your views on COVID under your real name on every social media platform. Your likes will be dealt with when the time comes.

>>14971524
>fake news websites
what are those websites and why are you browse them?
>is far from enough to prove anything
why?

>>14971662
Because it's settled science that COVID vaccines are safe and effective and that antivaxxer chuds are spreading Putin-funded studies to harm the west by discrediting peer-reviewed experts and reputable corporations.

>>14971524
Hey, can we stop it with the anti-semitism? No need to discredit the study because it's Israli.

>>14971678
Where's your proof that these so-called Israelis aren't working for Putin?

>>14971357
>Nuremberg 2.0 when?
why would you want a show trial

>>14971679
Fallacy. Address the paper.

>>14971681
There's no need to address your chudpaper. The science was settled long ago.

>>14971680
Because these "people" don't deserve any justice or any chance to defend themselves. They need to be made an example of, used to make a point and then killed brutally. It should be made extra clear to these so-called elites that they are completely under the mercy of the population and that laws and courts exist to defend people from them, not to defend them.

>>14971343
>>14971344
>Israel
kek. nice try JIDF

>>14971687
>KEK JIDF SHILL AGAINST THE VACCINE
learn to 4chan before you shitpost

>>14971694
>thousands of studies saying one thing
>Israel study saying the opposite
so transparent kek. of course the maga retards will side with the Jew study.

>>14971699
israel data supposed to be the most accurate since they use one type of the vaccine and was one of the earliest countries that distribute the vaccine on large scale of the population

>>14971703
yes, very accurate. make sure you don't take any vaccines, goyim!

>>14971708
why you are so obsessed with /pol/?

>>14971712
>/pol/ is jew
wat

>>14971718
you don't make any sense

>>14971343
professionals who examine this shit needs to narrow the vector to a laser like accuracy in order to stop the "anything but the vax" mentality and make other people to notice.
and even that is not promising people are so fucking retarded it's unbelievable

>>14971343
Why do people come here on lie about the vaccine they took, saying it's safe and effective ect only to get btfo every time? Is it because they now have mystery jew cum floating in their veins? Is it narcisism? What exactly drives them to try to win an argument they're wrong about?

>>14972005
its the combined power of all the likes that they recieved on their doing-my-part selfie on facebook and all the updoots on reddit that wont ever let them consider the possibility that it might have not been teh rIgHtEsT tHiNg to do...

>>14972005
Why do you care about the dangers of something you never got? And still so invested in it long after its fade from relevance

>>14972199
>y no gibe amnesty

>>14972005
They're either paid or they have buyer's remorse. They can't ever be pure-blooded again no matter what they do, so they have to shill hard in the hopes other people will go down with them.

>>14972005
i do this to practice rhetoric

>>14972215
If you shill for vaccines on sci you're obviously not very good at rhetoric. I've never seen a good argument from one of you.

>>14972227
it's hard because you need to argue for the sake of irrationality and wickedness instead of truth.
so you need to constantly find meaningless flaws and make them seem important, intimidate, and laugh at your opponent, finding any possible way to cause emotional imbalance, circle jerk your own post using sock puppeting, lying, spamming in order to obscure the conversation, causing confusion, misinterpret everything, pretend to support the opposite opinion just to sabotage it from within by involving it with politics, religion or weird schizo stuff(aka control position) etc etc...
this art is about making the lie look rational and reality laughable.

>>14971357
>Nuremberg 2.0 when?

They won't prosecute themselves.

>>14971343
>turns out it wasn't long covid after all
This has already been discussed in numerous threads. This study is an anomaly out of worldwide data all affirming the contrary, and it is an anomaly due to the demographics of the study. Unlike antivaxxers, sane people look at the whole picture. Not cherrypicked outliers. If you don't bother learning about the study and its place in the whole of the research, don't be surprised when people point and laugh at you for your stupidity in drawing worldwide conclusions from a single paper.

Dipshits like you do the same thing with that dementia study on amyloid. A single study, of a single type, had altered images. It literally does nothing to alter the hypothesis as a whole nor the other more significant one that has been under research. You retards, however, cherrypick and go "Durrr whole science wrong". You can see why this would be a problem.

>>14972618
Okay yeah now I see! That's a good example >>14972417

>>14972621
>A single anomaly due to demographics in your selection sample
How is that "meaningless" as a flaw? How is it intimidation? How is it misinterpreting? Go ahead and explain to me how "Durrr I have a single study" is anything but laughably childish.

>>14972618
every single time

>>14972662
>every single time
I'm using simple words because you, antivaxxers in general, are mathematically illiterate. You are confirming that I am writing it simply enough for even you to understand, and your narcissism cannot cope with it.

>>14972674
>I'm using simple words
you used relatively "high" words to wrap up your pile of bullshit, and this is a perfect indication for inferior intelligence, you can't say something smart so you are trying to look smart, pathetic.

>>14972690
>you used relatively "high" words to wrap up your pile of bullshit
And yet a lexical complexity analysis, which you ignorantly believe translates to IQ rather than situationally (write for your audience), shows it was very simple writing.

What's the matter? Can't understand "91 IQ" language? What does that say about you?

>>14972693
>shows it was very simple writing.
no it shows that you are subhuman below 100 iq retard

>>14972697
>no it shows that you are subhuman below 100 iq retard
Yet you self-admittedly cannot understand what was very simple writing. Your narcissism doesn't fool anybody, and frankly I'm astonished you let yourself be so easily tricked by it. Drop the act.

>>14972708
Another very good one! >>14972417 At first I wasn't sure what you meant, but now I think I understand perfectly. Thank you for providing a few great examples.

>>14972718
>Another very good one!
>Insults people
>Claims people explaining what you're doing is an insult to validate your insults
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_defences

>>14972674
>I'm using simple words because you, antivaxxers in general, are mathematically illiterate.
>He thinks math is what they use to tell people the truth.

Numbers are numbers. They conveniently have whatever explanation the book learned retards who conjured the quantities want them to have. I'll believe "the numbers" when I actually see proof of corona virus itself (they have none so far).

>>14972708
every shill text i input into this site always resulted in a low iq. why is that?

>>14972728
>Why am I so addicted to equating explanations to a metric used by a groupthink of people who do fuck all.

idk, please tell us (if you can).

>>14971343
So this mean the vaccine doesn't cause myocarditis either? Because it's already been established that covid causes it 4x as often

>>14972727
>Numbers are numbers.
I wasn't referring to numbers. With statistics, you can do things like assess the likelihood of a given finding being an outlier in what is called a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis can do many things, but most often at its most basic seeks to evaluate what a swath of research indicates and its reliability. There is validity and reliability. Validity is whether you're hitting your mark, reliability is how often you hit where you're hitting. You will have to google for more information if you want to learn more.

Point is, here you are concerned about the likelihood of a given result among a body of samples for being a false negative or false positive. These are known as type I and type II errors. Are you getting the picture yet? I can go on, talk about meta-science, and the methods of statistical analysis like z-score and funnel plots and file-drawer effects. I am not talking about "numbers as numbers", I am talking about analyzing information critically to get at the truth. OP posted a study, an outlier, that contradicts dozens upon dozens of studies. Why do you think it contradicts those other studies?

And here's the real problem: You being illiterate when it comes to statistics means you can be tricked by bad information. If you know fuck all about it, you fall for shit like this. Where /pol/tards post propaganda and you have no way to even check if it's worth considering. Let alone even reading the cited paper where it's fairly self-evident from the authors OWN considerations why it was a null finding.

>>14972734
>please tell us
i can't, i don't know how this system work but it seems pretty accurate, each time a shill post more than 5 sentence is always show the same thing that everybody intuitively think

>>14972742
>i don't know how this system work but it seems pretty accurate
I do. It's just a language complexity algorithm. Probably one of the popular ones like L2SCA. Language fluency can be an indicator of IQ, but that is not how language fluency is assessed on IQ tests. Otherwise you could just dump a thesaurus and have an IQ of 180.
>People use "high words" and you insult them
>People explain things simply and you insult them
Tell me, when can you falsify your hypothesis that you are speaking to "a shill"? Because it seems like the answer is "never".

>>14972739
>I wasn't referring to numbers.
With statistics, you can do things like assess the likelihood of a given finding being an outlier in what is called a meta-analysis.

Your brain is in some sort dualism mode, probably from being polarized by a political tool used by the rich to abscond with (even more of) the wealth in the world.

>A meta-analysis can do many things
It uses math, which is supposed to be objective to synthesis bullshit based on groupthinks. Literally.

>You being illiterate when it comes to statistics means you can be tricked by bad information
Me completely ignoring all information means I can't be tricked at all.

>If you know fuck all about it, you fall for shit like this
Fall for what? The psychosis of not buying into the broken record repeated stat? Who fucking cares?

>Where /pol/tards post propaganda and you have no way to even check if it's worth considering. Let alone even reading the cited paper where it's fairly self-evident from the authors OWN considerations why it was a null finding.
So can I get the proof for coronavirus yet or are you going to keep insisting I trust accurate statistics regarding a shadow? I get that you can talk endlessly about the fancy ways you can measure and record statistics about the shadow...but that doesn't mean anything. You're just talking to hear the sound of your own voice at that point.

>>14972742
>i can't
>but it seems pretty accurate,
It is this easy to convince the population of made up horseshit. Now go lock down your economies and put your faith in science again when it decides to settle itself down tell you chitin is digestible by a human being

>>14972755
>You're just talking to hear the sound of your own voice at that point.
No, just talking to a brick wall in this case.

>>14972744
>I do
lamo no you don't, you probably just read about it in wiki a few minutes ago
>thesaurus
well in your case bad expression is not the issue, but the content and the craft of your wording.

>>14972764
>lamo no you don't, you probably just read about it in wiki a few minutes ago
Other people know things you don't. Grow up.
>well in your case bad expression is not the issue, but the content and the craft of your wording.
Your unwillingness to understand is not a flaw in others.

>>14972766
>Other people know things you don't.
fine, write a pseudo code of this algorithm please
>Your unwillingness to understand
what? i just say that everything you write here >>14972618
is perfectly abstract as 90 iq or even less

>>14972759
I'd rather be unmoved than bent out of shape by the unmoved.

>>14972773
>fine, write a pseudo code of this algorithm please
I know of it, I don't work with it.
>is perfectly abstract as 90 iq or even less
Yet you don't understand it. Says something about you.

>>14972779
>I'd rather be unmoved than bent out of shape by the unmoved.
I would rather know truth.

>>14972783
>know truth
And what is more unmoved than that?

Well I got my shots... why haven't I gotten myocarditis yet? Anybody? I am making a logical argument here

>>14972787
>And what is more unmoved than that?
Just so. Just a shame you don't take my words as attempting to be instructive, rather than some evidence of brainwashing. If you only knew.

>>14972780
>I know of it, but i can't do it
so you don't know how it works
>Yet you don't understand it
what should i understand? all you said was that this research is not relevant because there are researches that say that this vaccine is safe, this assumption is fundamentally defected

>>14972799
>so you don't know how it works
Different levels of "how it works". There's using a library or package and then there's making it yourself. You didn't even know the KIND of thing it was doing.
>>14972799
>all you said was that this research is not relevant because there are researches that say that this vaccine is safe
Nope. I also pointed out two reasons for that: One, the demographics. Two, what the author of the paper himself wrote. Go read the paper.

>>14972795
>Just a shame you don't take my words as attempting to be instructive, rather than some evidence of brainwashing.
The "brainwashing" is trying to think yourself out of a box you thought yourself into.

>If you only knew
Knowing fake shit is as good as knowing nothing at all. It may be accurate even "true", but only when you view it from the lens of imagination land with no basis in reality.

>>14971524
>I mean if you know several people who got Covid before the vaccines, it's pretty obvious that cardiovascular side effects weren't rare.
Same goes for people I know who were vaccinated, major health issues afterward for some of them.

>>14972852
>a box you thought yourself into.
The situation is kind of the opposite. Which poses a problem. How, then, do you determine what the actual case is beyond your mere assertion of it?
>Knowing fake shit
And on what basis do you determine it is "fake shit"?

>>14972674
You're also terrible with use of punctuation.

>>14972735
>Because it's already been established that covid causes it 4x as often
That's the issue, it's been "established" by people who want to promote vaccination for profits, and then any study that doesn't go along with it is decried as an outlier and bad science. It was established the spike proteins stayed in the shoulder (false), it was established the spike proteins only lasted a few weeks (false), it was established the vaccines stopped transmission (admitted by Pfizer that they never even studied for this, and later false), it was established that the mRNA degraded in a few hours (false), it was established that the vaccines didn't affect menstrual cycles (false). The thing about something being "established" is it's only true until it's proven false.

>>14972855
>The situation is kind of the opposite.
It really isn't. Wake up.
>Which poses a problem. How, then, do you determine what the actual case is beyond your mere assertion of it?
Just take off the mask. Just go back to your normal life. It's really that simple.

>And on what basis do you determine it is "fake shit"?
What basis do I trust their unproven fake shit? How about this inste3ad:

1. Shut the fuck up about anything covid related
2. People stop investing their mental energy into some demented magical tulpa particle that defies logic because of what some heavily sued pharmaceutical company said.
3. You go back to your era of abundance and prosperity where there are no manufactured shortages of supplies because you all stopped believing and wasting your time and energy into geomancing and making offerings to the reified tulpa.

I'm sure if that actually happened, we wouldn't even care if the book learned retards who carried out the psychosis never admitted they lied. Too bad that's never going to happen because you have a statistic to quote me to say otherwise.

>>14972868
>What basis do I trust their unproven fake shit?
No. On what basis do you find it "unproven fake shit"

>>14972804
>Different levels
no, there is only one level of understanding that is why it is called understanding. you know it very superficially but you don't understand anything about it.
> I also pointed out two reasons for that:
these reasons are insignificant, this research is extensive and shows very clearly that there is no relationship between covid and heart complications

>>14972875
>prove this unproven claim

Not my problem, tyrant.

Okay but where are all the bodies, was covid even worse than the actual flu? Speaking of which where is the flu and why do you still need a flu jab if covid measures wiped the flu out?

>>14972890
>>prove this unproven claim
Nope. I am asking about your epistemology. On what basis do you claim it is fake?
>>14972887
>these reasons are insignificant, this research is extensive and shows very clearly that there is no relationship between covid and heart complications
Not what the author says. Guess you know more about his work than he does?

>>14972893
>Not what the author says
so what he say?

>>14972908
>so what he say?
So like you have no understanding of syntactic complexity analysis... you have no understanding of the paper you're blindly defending. Yeesh.

>>14972892
Over 1M dead in the united states alone

>>14972917
what he say?

>>14972920
Where are the bodies? We have them from the jab, but the CDC hardly lists any people as confirmed dead of covid.

>>14972920
>gets shot
>dies of covid

>>14972893
>Nope. I am asking about your epistemology.
You want my thought process regarding a fantasy? I already laid it out pretty well in my previous posts. I don't believe in them, until proven true of course in which case they're no longer a fantasy now are they?

>On what basis do you claim it is fake?
"The lack of basis". As it "it has no foundation in reality". The claim it exists as far as I'm concerned is just shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Okay...so "where is the fire?" Where is this "corona virus"?

>>14972929
>"The lack of basis". As it "it has no foundation in reality". The claim it exists as far as I'm concerned is just shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Okay...so "where is the fire?" Where is this "corona virus"?
I've been assured it's genetically sequenced in a lab in China. The place is called uh... Woo Han? Oh, you want a culture? Haha no we can't give you that it's a matter of national security! Just trust us.

>>14972929
>I don't believe in them, until proven true of course in which case they're no longer a fantasy now are they?
Okay. What do you consider evidence and what claim do you want evidence for?

>>14972893
>>14972917
>Not what the author says
what he say?

>>14972938
>what he say?
Read the paper and find out. Otherwise cope and seethe.

>>14972940
show me what he say

>>14972618
>>14972804
>>14972893
>>14972940
cattle iq liar piece of shit he doesn't say anything that contradict his own study you just blatantly lie because you don't have anything, nothing, stupid fucking cunt, how can you live knowing you are like this?

>>14972005
Why does the same handful of posters repeatedly make shit threads and then samefag to keep it bumped? What causes this? Winter vagina?

>>14972417
based honest shill

>mfw corona /pol/ threads have fewer trolls than /sci/