/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15865974
No, it's chud cope. Trust and obedience are the highest values of any true Scientist. It's how we keep dangerous ideas and people out.

Yes, but you're supposed to operate with the desire to understand, otherwise you're just being an asshole.
And you need to be able to to make your knowledge demonstrable (in the logical sense) so that it can be verified.

>>15865974
If you're actually going to do science. People parroting memes tend to forget the "doing science" part.

>>15865974
Trust is something thats reserved for things which can't be proved

>>15865976
Unironically this. It's really chud cope. Also, no one trusts "the science" like this was even a thing like "the Catholic Church". The "trust" belongs to the scientific method. To falsifiability, reproducibility. If "science" is done right, it's the closest thing to objective truth we can have. Chuds appear to have problems with certain objective truths, so they try to undermine this "trust" (which isn't really blind trust as you'd trust your partner to not cheat on you, but more the kind of trust that you have in a tool that works in a particular way).
That's why you see threads like this one, "troost the soience", or "haha reproduction crisis means that science as a whole is bunk, take my /pol/ opinions over literally every scientific evidence to ever exist".

tl;dr, it's chud cope.

>>15866654
>it's the closest thing to objective truth we can have.
stop lying. maths is closer to objective truth than science will ever be.

>>15866654
>The "trust" belongs to the scientific method. To falsifiability, reproducibility.

Why would you apply this trust to scientific institutions? You literally mentioned in your post the replication crisis

>>15866654
Okay how does falsifing studies and bribing doctors so you can get your medicine through regs follow the scientific method?

>>15866654
>The "trust" belongs to the scientific method. To falsifiability, reproducibility.
Ignorant fool. This leads to partial ''truths'' at best like how it's safe to eat plants that are sprayed with toxic chemicals because that's unfalsifiable and replicable WITHIN A SPECIFIC STUDY DESIGN FINANCED BY POLITICAL INTERESTS. Don't finance and do ignore study designs that show frogs turning gay from chemicals in the water. Also apply a double standard: criticize studes that show frogs turning gay to death but be lenient with studies financed by political interests. Ridicule any dissent and you have manufactured consensus.

>>15865974
Not if you don't have a degree and have never read any relevant texts. If you genuinely want to "question" the science then you need to learn the field starting from the beginning. This kills the /pol/tard.

>>15869285
Take your meds, you ignorant savage.

>>15865974
It's a meme. There are many statements more anti-science than that.

>>15865974
Most anti-science people's idea of science is reading some random blog with "truth", "patriot", "natural", etc. in the URL and immediately believing it just because it sounds good to them. If Galileo or whoever the fuck was burned at the stake for saying that the Earth was round then that must mean contrarians are the best scientists, right? So the kookier the source the better.

>>15869585
>Take your meds, you ignorant savage.
Your lack of argument proves me right. Yes I need meds to cope with the stress of living in a society of fools like you.

>>15869745
>burned at the stake for saying that the Earth was round
Literally nobody was burned at stake for that. Certainly not Galileo. Nobody wasn't even burned at stake for saying that earth orbited sun.

>>15869100
Dear maths, please answer me the question why my plants died.

>>15869755
Then take them, schizo. Nobody cares about your blogposts.

>>15869137
That's exactly the type of chud cope I was talking about lmao.

>>15865974
the majority of the current anti-science shit is coming from the anti-vaxxers who are still seething about the lockdowns and the vax despite it being years later, everything went back to normal (like everyone said it would), and there being no mass deaths or mutations or other schizo shit that they were saying.
In real time we saw one of the most brutal beatdowns of the anti-science crowd conspiritard crowd and the most stunning success of the scientific method and research and they're still seething about it.

>>15865974
Yes. The people questioning the science though are usually those who know what chemical balancing or DNA is and not your aunt on Facebook who sells Revlon creams.

I support people being skeptical, especially those who didn't vax (I didn't) but it gets infuriating and makes us look stupid when people who nearly failed high school science classes are trying to talk about medical science. This includes those in politics and the media. That's how you get into full-blown retard territory with parents refusing to vaccinate their children or the "holistic" medicine bullshit instead of just doing your preventative care.

You have to be qualified in your field to be able to question science

>>15869919
>Nobody cares
1. Then why do you want me to shut up?
2. How is it not schizo to speak for everybody?

>>15870048
Qualified people = people trained to think a certain way = can't think outside the box. You're the equivalent of a woman telling men to ask women for dating advice.

>>15870048
And who qualifies the universities?

>>15865974
Yes of course. The essence of science is "try it and see if it works"
Not trust.

>>15866654
So everything that cannot be verified by repeating experiments is not science, including sociology, psychology, etc. (because you never have the same initial conditions when talking about a humans psychology and hence never can do exact replicas of experiments, no repeated experiments = no science)
So Basically everything that isn't hard Physics / Chemistry etc. isn't science, and all the "social scientists" telling me about gender-theory are snake-oil-salesmen and not actual scientists and can go fck themselfes.

>>15870216
At 51:42 a physicist says that in the far future there will be no evidence of the big bang because everything has moved too far away to observe. In other words: the universe changes so much that physics is not replicable either. Your physics will become a myth like religion and maybe that already happened. Again: you show a perfect display of ignorance. Every word you say is self-defeating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>15865974
Of course not. You need to obey your corporate overlords. They are the only ones authorized by the state to speak in the name of science. You are too stupid to think by yourself, you piece of shit.

Yes it is.

However this is just simulation, most of the population are interactive drones. You can call it a broken sim- basically there's no possible heroic route. You can make little changes. The best you can do is profit from the resources of the sim, artistically and scientifically for future life in different more upper dimensionality.

>>15869943
>no answer
yeah, it's bait

>>15870002
>the majority of the current anti-science shit is coming from the anti-vaxxers
>its a big conspiracy!!!

>>15865974
Science is always correct by definition. Anything that opposes science supports falsehood.

>>15865974
No. You're a faggot if you even have this image saved on your computer desu. Obviously no normal person has the time, resources and expertise necessary to read and interpret every piece of science. Experts are interpreters, and the "consensus" is just the collective interpretation of everybody with actual knowledge on the topic.

You can question the science, but that doesn't mean joe schizo operating out of his basement can make a significant or even very novel questions. The "consensus" isn't there to silence dissent, it's there to keep out out the retards and schizos who will send people in circles asking pointless questions over and over (see John Baez's crackpot index).

>>15871464
Wrong. Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson have analyzed all of science.

>>15865974
Not when you 'question' science because of your political beliefs or based on 'evidence' manufactured by those with a economic and political agenda, or simply the ravings of those out to destroy the effectiveness of your nation's institutions in general.

>>15871439
exactly wrong, science is always just waiting to be falsified

>>15870134
I want you to take your meds. I don't care what you have to say.

>>15872373
Anything that can be falsified was never science to begin with. Only unfalsifiable theories are real science.

my anecdotal story:

i was put in the retard class in kindergarden back in the 80s. because i couldnt skip and trot.

i was in gifted and talented from grade 1 until it switched to ap. i felt a little stifled in the math classes but overall i never felt stifled.

once i got to high school i was in the ap program. i actually felt invigorated. i won medals and got my letterman jacket on the academic decathlon team. i had idiot teachers who had idiot ideas but they never once docked me for disagreeing with them.

The first time i ever experienced a teacher who was so bold as to dock me for my opinion was in university. and thats why i quit college twice. i had a full scholarship out of high school, then i had the gi bill. both times it was a professor who just gave me a bad grade out of spite. im a stubborn spiteful person myself, so both times i just quit instead of protesting.

but all you academics know damn well this happens. how dare some unwashed pleb know more than me.

>>15869912
Because 789
;)

>>15871439
>Science is always correct by definition. Anything that opposes science supports falsehood.
True, that's why I trust Andrew Wakefield and his pioneering antivax research

>>15869745
This is the type of useless vegetable that becomes a janny and thinks he's helping.
>we must fight da misinformation and replace it with made up anti-religious propaganda stories

>>15869745
Couldn't have said it better myself. It is unfortunate that many get the way science works completely mixed up. It has far less to do with questioning the establishment, and far more to do with just agreeing with whatever the established orthodoxy is.

>>15865974
Have faith in science, heretic.

>>15871439
Science is always correct because if you prove it wrong, then what you just said become science.
If you make it illegal to question it, then you are not doing science anymore.

>>15872505
No, if you question science then by definition you are undermining the truth.

>>15872503
Coping chud detected

>>15870002
Care to enlighten us on the full description of all RNA actions in a cell? Care to explain how they tested for spike side effects before they classified it as a toxin? Do you have long term safety data on the clotshot? Has there ever been a genotoxicity study on it? Did they unblind their control trials? if the pfizer deathshots were so safe and effective, why did the jabbies die more than the placebo group? Why do they not prevent infection? Why do they not slow transmission? Why did we have any explosion of variants wxactly as cost us the intact yokel predicted?
Why does natch data indicate mass experimentation on the whole populace?
If the jabbies are okay, why are they still getting covid years later? Your narrative is ourest cilium, meanwhile i talk to jabbirs and they tell me that they feel their blood pressure soike when they lay down. They are afraid of not waking up. They want refunds. The mandates you brag about are all walked back because it was an authoritarian power grab by midwit retards.

>>15872511
>No, if you question faith then by definition you are undermining the truth.
Fixed.

>>15872518
Science isn't about asking questions, chud.

>>15872518
Nice anti-vaxxer pasta but do you have any real questions?

>>15872526
I do. Does this seem effective to you?
I was told by science (politicians) that it would prevent transmission and give us herd immunity. Have science (politicians) lied to us?

>>15872527
Science proceeds by trial and error. Any other questions?

>>15872518
>they classified it as a toxin
Who did?

>>15872518
>Do you have long term safety data on the clotshot?
What does long term safety mean? Do you think that 3 years after the last rna molecule broke, you suddenly develop side effects? This ain't a fairy tale where you get cursed and years later the curse gets activated. If you have long-term side effects, the show up soon after the vaccine.

>>15870216
Unironically correct.
Until we have a molecular model of a human being, and can test psychological hypotheses via models run from first principles, psychology/sociology/public health/economics/sociology is nothing more than statistical fishing.

>>15872518
>why did the jabbies die more than the placebo group?
Six people died in the Pfizer trial. 4 from the placebo group and 2 from the vaccinated group. Why are you lying? Are you misinformed or are you actively making this stuff up?

>>15872527
>science (politicians)
I see your confusion. See, scientists are normally not politicians and politicians are normally not scientists. It's very easy to mix up two groups of adults who use long and confusing words.

>>15872529
Yes. If it is show by the trials that what was previously assumed as correct was in fact false, does it mean science now consider it to be false?
In this specific case, my question is: Is science now antivax?

>>15872544
Gee. Is that true?
And corporate executives? Are they scientists?

If I don't have faith in corporations nor in politicians can I still call myself a scientist? According to the witch hunt on Twitter it's not possible.

>>15872546
>If it is show by the trials that what was previously assumed as correct was in fact false, does it mean science now consider it to be false?
Yes.
>my question is: Is science now antivax?
Define science. Define antivax. The answer is probably no.

>>15872547
In principle, people can change their careers. So, if you start working as a garbage man when you're older, but then want to become a window cleaner, you may do that.

>If I don't have faith in corporations nor in politicians can I still call myself a scientist?
If you put on a lab coat and glasses on Halloween, you may call yourself a scientist. But when you're talking about your profession, you would be lying. And lying is bad, remember?

>>15872555
This year, the vaccine is recommended for the people who are at risk.
So, yeah, science has become antivax.
And all the people who went mental on the antivax things have acted against science.

I think it's a good opportunity to learn something about fighting "antiscience".

>>15872559
>And lying is bad, remember?
According to who?

>>15872561
Before we continue, you need to answer me: What's "antivax"?

>>15872563
Why do you post a lie then? Do you want to see what happens? I'm not gonna spank you, but I am disappointed.
>Fact check: Post tying Pfizer's Q2 earnings to vaccine 'risks' is false
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/30/fact-check-post-tying-pfizers-earnings-vaccine-risks-false/5867454001/

>>15872569
Antivax are people who have doubts about the efficiency and the official lack of side effects of the untested MNRA experimental gene therapy.

>>15872576
>While Pfizer did see this uptick in sales, the post is wrong to connect the dots to the vaccine.
>Literally: It's a coincidence!
Okay. I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I do not trust coincidences.
Can we investigate the coincidence?

>>15872576
Weird. Pfizer just had a huge quarterly loss which they openly blamed on people not getting boosters, which had to be disposed of unused. Weird that Pfizer can blame losses on people not getting the injections but profits didn't come from the injections, it was just a complete coincidence that Pfizer made huge profits when injections were mandated by governments and employers.

>>15872604
>injections were mandated by governments and employers.
Fake news, no one has forced you to do anything. You made a decision out of your own initiative and only you should be responsible for the consequences.

>>15872604
In a fair world Pfizer's CEO would be dismembered alive right now.

>>15872608
You deserve to be burned alive with a tire around your neck you piece of shit.

>>15872529

>>15872418
Eat the bug you piece of shit.

>>15866654
Based

>>15865974
>Question science
>Do your own tests
>Produce results
>Question your own results because it's science
>???
Now what?

>>15865974
Not really, what people trust isn't science, the peer review process that controls academic vanity publishing has nothing to do with the scientific method, peer review is just a form of exclusionary collusion that abused to quit dissenting opinions, there is nothing scientific about peer review

>>15872600
>Can we investigate the coincidence?
no thats antisemitic

>>15872600
>Can we investigate the coincidence?
By all means, please do. Not by reposting Twitter screenshots, but by looking at the actual numbers. Which sections of Pfizer were so profitable that they had a record revenue? What are the sales numbers of this product that's allegedly responsible? Do the numbers add up in terms of sales numbers and profit margins?

Please investigate, but do it properly. Your first attempt was not an investigation, it was sheepishly repeating a baseless claim.

>>15872604
You're SO close. Yeah, how can it be that Pfizer makes a loss when they are this evil genius mastermind that controls literally every single government in the world?

>>15866654
based af
the uncomfortable truth is that Science Works, and Reality has a Left Wing Bias.
chuds just can't accept facts like vaccine safety/efficacy and will cope and sneed forever about "muh 2 more weeks"

>>15865974
>wait, is this meme true

For the scientific community: Yes.
For the general public: No.

Scientists do and don't implicitly trust other scientists; they do as a habit for work, to maintain a position, or maybe it isn't their expertise/"I'm not here to reinvent the wheel", but they're not exactly entitled to and if anything it's often their job to poke holes or peer-review whatever it is they're doing. I think Black Science Man/Niel Degrasse Tyson said something a long the lines of, "Science isn't what you do by yourself, Science is what's left over from what the other Scientists can't disprove" I'm paraphrasing of course.
Granted, everybody has personal biases, but the general point is a Science-type-person is going to have the actual background, education, and qualification, to make some kind of genuine anti-trust criticism.

The general public though is ignorant, retarded, and often infinitely more bias. Nobody knows how anything works- there's been people who've killed their pets trying to dry them in the microwave... And then successfully sued the manufacturer for not making the instructions clearer. *'Normal' every day people often lack the most basic understanding to criticize something scientific, never mind the tools, equipment, etc.. To actually 'prove' their criticism is worth a damn.
It's kind of the idea that the public, majoritively, when they criticize sciencey stuff; they don't actually write their own papers, count their own rocks/frogs, or whatever- they either cite an authority they trust or some kind of emotional census. They say shit like, "well I did my research", but their research was really just reading what somebody else had told them.

*GRANTED, this also applies to Scientists when they talk out of their field of expertise.

>>15874553
Oh. My. God. THIIIS. SO much this.
It is the role of the peasants to listen and receive. They're all weak inferiors and need to learn their place.
Next time you fucking CHUDS but us all in danger with your delusional vaccine conspiracies, we won't ask nicely. Submit or die.

>>15874553
>"Science isn't what you do by yourself, Science is what's left over from what the other Scientists can't disprove"
Completely false. Science is not about 'disproving' anything, that kind of deboonking is the domain of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers.
>applies to Scientists when they talk out of their field of expertise.
Impossible because Science is the only valid form of knowledge. All things are within Science's field of expertise.

>>15866654
How many chuds have ACKED because of this post?

>>15874553
>GRANTED, this also applies to Scientists when they talk out of their field of expertise.
Kind of. I did some science communication and I had to publicly speak about topics that aren't exactly expertise. However, I did meet with the experts, tried to understand what I was going to say and sometimes made it clear in the presentation that I'm not very knowledgeable on a particular topic. Then it was more like "I'm going to explain this to the best of my knowledge, but please don't ask me about further details". That often gets a laugh from the audience and creates sympathy.
However, in the whole process, I was "trusting" "the science", as chuds would put it. I let a biologist explain how they activate and deactivate genes in bacteria. I didn't do "my own research" because my colleague spent his entire life on this. I trust him to not troll me and tell me bullshit that embarrasses me later. I mean, how could I? I know less than an undergrad and it takes them years to get a basic understanding. If I give an overview of the faculty of science and I present a few projects, should I get 5 bachelor's degrees just to get the basics right?

>>15874578
Triggered chud detected. Cope and seethe.

>>15874713
The only chud here is you if you dispute science.

>>15874755
0/10, chud. Stop larping.

>>15874757
The only one trying to undermine science here is you.

>>15874797
Look, it doesn't become funny or clever the third time you post the exact same half-assed reply.

>>15874815
Go be a chud somewhere else

>>15865974
yes.
my worst science teacher fucked up the experiment and ended up with "just trust me bro" speech.
my best science teacher, in fucking primary school (have no idea what he was doing there, but am very grateful he was there), started each experiment by saying "let's see if i was lying to you all".
he fucked up an experiment once. bro spent an entire week re-running the experiment to see why it fucked up, then next time redid the experiment by showing the fuckup and doing it right.

in short, if you have to go on faith, it's religion, not science.

the fact that meme scientists exist just shows the state of science in today's world.

>>15876017
i had a professor who was lobbying for a nobel prize for himself and he couldn't even do examples on the board without getting lost. i had another who only showed up for 11 of 30 lectures because of the same reason. neither of them got what they were after.

>>15865974
Yes. It's why literally tens of thousands of scientists after questioning and doing their own research concluded that vaccines work and climate change is real.

>>15877660
they only come to those conclusions cause they'd lose their jobs if they didn't

>>15872518
Source?

>>15876017
You have to have some trust that they all aren't lying to you. (this requires less faith than religion).

>>15865974
Yes, it's just that at present scientism is used as a means of maintaining public order.

>>15877660
>>15874713
>>15865976
>>15866654
Can any of you explain how the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID?

I mean you can try the experiment results yourself if you don’t believe them, its gonna cost a lot of money and time since you’ll probably have to develop the lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine and set up and grow cell cultures, but if you’re really determined you can

>>15878553
That would actually require basic biochemistry skills which anti-sciencefags don’t, theoretical concepts only take you so far without experimental data to back it up

>>15878564
There's a significant body of independent research on the jab which was done by analyzing purchased batches.

Safe science is dangerous science, and not in the good kind of way.

The best scientists of the past were all weird ass motherfuckers.

>>15865974
Anyone telling you “how to do science” is ignorant. Science is a bunch of egos trying to prove each other wrong and wow each other with elegant theories. It’s a “method” that works really well for physics and breaks down the further you get from physics. But crucially it’s a social phenomenon.

>>15869774
Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. He couldn’t simply be executed, but he also couldn’t be simply let loose on the world. The church thought he was too dangerous. Basically a wizard locked away.

>>15878599
Galileo wasn't arrested for saying the Earth orbits the sun, he was arrested for making himself an enemy of the jesuits, the version of that story that you learned in elementary school is lie that was concocted by atheists as a means of brainwashing children. Vatican politics was a lot more complicated than just "church good, science bad". The jesuits of that era were themselves heavily involved in scientific research.

>>15878646
Did your church pastor teach you this conspiracy theory?

>>15878698
Did you mean to reply to >>15878599?

>>15878699
No, are you having trouble reading?

>>15878705
Oh it's just schizophrenia then. Gotcha.

>>15878710
Tell me more about this conspiracy theory. Why was heliocentrism declared a heresy because of Galileo? Was it because of the atheist cabal too?

>>15878714
Galileo was a chud and the scientific consensus debunked him.

>>15878732
Epic

>>15872596
>Antivax are people who have doubts about the efficiency and the official lack of side effects of the untested MNRA experimental gene therapy.
Those people are currently shilling against the traditional protein-based Novavax vaccine. Antivax has simply become a standard position of the online right.

>>15878318
Can you point to any scientific papers which conclude that it did?

>>15878130
Can you point to any scientific papers which conclude that they'd do?

>>15866654
I specifically remember FDA trying to delay Pfizer trial data for 75 years, so there is a real conflict between appeals to authority of regulatory bodies and actually looking at the scientific results yourself. If it wasn't struct down by a federal judge you would have to wait until 2096 for "the scientific method".

>>15874519
he literally never said this, you have no argument left so you are inventing one to deconstruct

>>15872608
>no one has forced you to do anything
i would've been expelled from my state university if I hadn't taken it, are we changing the definition of "mandate" as was done with the definition of "vaccine"?
>only you should be responsible for the consequences.
Why should I when the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies are legally shielded from responsibility

>>15865974
The problem is that the vast majority of people inclined to "question science" do not have the
>intelligence
>research skills
>technical skills
>background knowledge
>practical experience
>equipment
>budget
>space
>time
necessary to do better.
Instead they "do their own research" in the form of watching increasingly conspiratorial automatically suggested youtube videos.

>>15865974
Context matters.
If the person addressed with this request would otherwise "trust the talk radio host", then "trust the science" is good advice.

>>15865974
1. Questioning the science
2. Asking questions that arise from doing the science
3. Attempting to answer those questions or to have them answered
4. Questioning the answers to the new science

Linguistically, a person can 'do science', but there are a lot of subactivities involved: researching, searching for information, asking questions, planning, experimenting, attempting to answer the questions asked.

As for pragmatics, people can have inaccurate ideas. What is a correct idea? A correct idea is something that is true. What is truth? Is truth something numerically verifiable, socially accepted, a working idea, and/or something else?

>>15872576
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/30/fact-check-post-tying-pfizers-earnings-vaccine-risks-false/5867454001/
What a pile of drivel.
>Some research shows the vaccines lead to a slightly increased risk of the blood clots the Pfizer medication could treat,
Ah yes, just "some scientists." However:
>but experts say it's impossible that increased profits for the drug given the rarity of the side effect
Now these are the experts with absolutely no reservations.
Most of these "facts checks" are radioactive garbage where primary sources are carefully avoided.

>>15869912
You overwatered them and/or don't have decent drainage. Put some LECA pebbles in the bottom before you put the soil in your pot.

>>15879854
Well, do the math yourself. Aren’t you all about “do your own research”? How many cases? One for every 100,000 doses? How much profit per case? How does that number compare to the overall budget of the company? If you’re this convinced, there must be a reason. Is the reason that you did your own research?
I’m not convinced either way. I have chuds claiming one thing and MSM fact checkers claiming the opposite. Allow me to understand why you’re so convinced and convince me as well.

>>15878646
Galileo was literally burned at the stake as a witch for proposing the Earth wasn't flat.

>>15879881
> Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[13][162]

whole lot of unwarranted smugness and seething from all over but isn't it about talking heads and power structures using and perverting the currently dominating way of thought to further their own goals?

>>15879881
>Galileo is on good terms with the Pope, who is his patron
>he publishes his belief in the heliocentric model, but states it as if it were certain
>Pope is a geocentrist, but he's cool
>the inquisition is getting antsy because some of Galileo's works imply he disagrees with the Bible, but the Pope keeps them off his back
>tells Galileo that he can't state heliocentrism as absolute fact because he can't confirm it
>he doesn't have evidence of stellar parallax (distant stars seeming to move closer as the earth orbits the sun)
>Galileo publishes a new book, Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems
>supposed to be two characters, a heliocentrist and a geocentrist, debating the merits of their respective systems
>he names the geocentrist, who holds all the Pope's opinions, Simplicio (which means 'Simpleton')
>he called his patron, head of state, and supreme religious head an idiot
>the inquisition goes after him again a little while later, the Pope does nothing to stop them
>Galileo's found guilty, but he recants and is put under house arrest
>lives a fairly decent life as far as political prisoners go
>200 years later some Protestant historians come across the story
>they put it in history books as evidence of how evil and backwards Catholics are
>everyone believes it for 200 years

>>15879881
Stop embarassing yourself. Maybe you are thinking of Bruno.

>>15879867
>How much profit per case? How does that number compare to the overall budget of the company?
I cannot see this has any relevance.

>Allow me to understand why you’re so convinced and convince me as well.
To be clear, I am >>15879854 but I am not >>15872576. My issue is with the "fact checkers" that are the modern day Pravda. To let is see the title:
>The claim: Sales growth in Pfizer's blood clot and cardiomyopathy medications tied to COVID-19 vaccines
OK, now what does the statement from Pfizer state?
https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_financials/2021/q2/Q2-2021-PFE-Earnings-Release.pdf
>▪ Vyndaqel/Vyndamax globally, up 77% operationally, primarily driven by continued strong uptake of the
>transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy indication in the U.S., developed Europe and Japan;
>▪ Eliquis, up 13% operationally, led by growth in the U.S. and emerging markets, driven primarily by
>continued increased adoption in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and oral anti-coagulant market share gains;
So the drugs in question are indeed up. The question is then if these are driven by COVID or the vaccines.
As for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy and COVID: plenty of Google hits but I do not have the insight to determine anything beyond tha people have asked the question. Of course, Retraction Watch is full of examples of COVID papers that had to be retracted.
As for Eliquis, the report points to increase in market *share* and not that the market itself has grown, but again references are not provided. Again, plenty of Google hits, and some sources like Johns Hopkins state authoritatively that there is a connection but again I am no expert.
Connecting either to the vaccine and not the virus is even more contentious, but quite a few hits suggests so - in spite of Google sanitizing search results.

>>15865974
It's absolutely true. That's why anti-science far-right memes have always been retarded.

How do you seek truth among disinformation ? You read scientific studies.
Do you simply read the study and blindly trust it because you fucking love science like retards believe ?
No, you look for biases and issues. Is the author a infamous conspiracy nut ? is the methodology good ? any conflicts of interest ? etc.

You never simply trust something or someone because it/they agrees with your preconceived beliefs, that's what the conspiracitards do.

>>15880213
You're not my enemy, you're a hateful fan. You adore your relationship with me. It makes you think of greatness. And rightly so, you are shit, I couldn't care less what you thought. Look at your money amount or your skill level or your common sense. You smell of poo.

>>15879960
>I cannot see this has any relevance.
It's literally one of the two numbers you need to multiply to test the claim.
>My grandfather, the vegetable seller made record profits by selling turnips
>>Well, how many turnips did he sell? How much does he make per turnip? Isn't it possible that he made most of his profit with potatoes?
>I cannot see this has any relevance.

>>15880229
People poo in your direction. Think of all the religious fanatics doing rollie pollies and farting upward in your name in future days. You were that shit.

>>15880239
YOU CAUSE THIS PARADOX TO OCCUR - YOU DONT WANNA HEAR THIS STORY

>>15880213
you think the libshit parrots on the left read studies, you think the soience will admit dissent! What a buffoon. Post your nose, that shit probably not as big as your lips.

>>15869285
>criticize studes that show frogs turning gay
Pedantic note: The frogs don't turn gay. The estrogens cause them to literally change gender.

>>15879931
You forgot to mention that Galileo was a member of a Gnostic cult that was literally trying to summon demons, and he was given multiple opportunities to stop doing this.

>>15872576
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/30/fact-check-post-tying-pfizers-earnings-vaccine-risks-false/5867454001/
>fact-check

>>15865974
Science is a self contradicting pile of crap, requiring you to "question everything" but to refuse to question that very statement. Maybe not believing in anything is a bad idea as it turns you into an immoral and cynical bastard, just like most politicians, cops, scientists and intellectuals.

>>15879608
Disingenuous shit. Peak "TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE" was during COVID when the "science" said to stay inside and shut everything down because it wasn't safe to be outside. It was literally illegal to do almost anything. Social media companies banned people from opposing the lockdowns because we needed to trust the science. And then the same science said that BLM rioters should be from the lockdowns because of science.
If no scientific papers supported this, then why did scientists push it? Why were laws made relying on this? Why were we constantly told to trust the science if science experts didn't have any papers to support their scientific opinions?

>>15880597
So you can't?

>>15879931
Thats a fairly decent rundown, but it leaves out Galileo having made himself an enemy of the Jesuits before the start of the events and that his "house arrest" was at his palatial estate and that he was so oppressed that he allowed to leave his house and travel during the course of his "house arrest"
Its also worth noting that geocentrism and heliocentrism are just coordinate systems which both say the same thing

>>15872596
Klaus Schwab plays the long game
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445091/

>>15879624
Oh boo hoo, nobody would let you infect your school so you complained you were 'forced' to get a vaccine!

Just drop out dumbfuck. Also, this was already upheld by Johnson v Massachusetts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

>>15882387
>nobody would let you infect your school
Nobody said it would provide immunity to anyone except the manufacturers.

>>15865974
yes "trust the science" is an atheist's religious mantra

>>15872596
Heart attacks are perfectly normal, especially with more and more of the population suffering from obesity.
>BUT THEY WERE RUNNING
Fat people can run.

>>15871464
Kek. Not read that before. It's quite funny
>10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
> 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

>>15880229
The allegations made were that Pfizer earled a lot form this, not that they earned most of their income from this.
>The claim: Sales growth in Pfizer's blood clot and cardiomyopathy medications tied to COVID-19 vaccines
So it is about growth, not total income.

>>15878318
It's carefully worded, but the health advocates are not saying that BLM gatherings are not risky for covid transmission, they're just saying that they don't condemn them.

>>15878318
I love how chuddy picrel is. No, you can't show the open letter, you have to parse it through the Fox News filter. Primary sources are woke, only stuff from your talking heads is allowed. And then the fact that the chud who brought this to 4chan is probably some technologically illiterate boomer who simply took a picture of his TV makes it actually hilarious. Why do you post this 100 million seconds after the fact (judging by the filename/timestamp). What's that, like 3 years ago? A year has [math]\pi \times 10^7[/math] seconds and we recently passed the 1.7 billion mark. Can you imagine that the boomer knew a useful idiot would repost his literal "screenshot" 3 years later?

>>15865974
Is that a peanuts Facebook meme on top of a flat earther meme? Which generation uses the peanuts to spread their shitty opinions? I thought boomers used minions.

>>15884461
The average tranny denies reality, but 43% come around.

Please read some Benjamin Goldacre.

>>15881275
you're retarded because nobody was talking about scientific papers before you.

>>15865974 was about "trusting the science" an attitude which was manufactured to be applied to scientific institutions, not just the papers.

>>15866654 was a disingenuous tranny trying to act as though "trust the science" was only ever about trusting the scientific method, and attempting to trojan-horse trust of scientists and their institutions

>>15878318 was an example of how retarded the consequences of this attitude are

So where do you get the idea that the only things being discussed are the results of scientific papers?

>>15884461
None of what you just said was an argument

>>15865974
yes

>>15884682
Nothing in this comment suggests that it was supposed to be an argument.

>>15884470
wow, that meme really seems to emotionally trigger you pretty hard

>>15884680
>you're retarded because nobody was talking about scientific papers before you.
Okay, so you can't. You could've just admitted that. Since your problem ISN'T with science, but your perception of communication, take your bullshit back to /pol/.

>>15871053
I have yet to see a coherent big ꜱoyience supporter response to this

>>15886752
I'm not the one coping. OP is.

>>15886810
I've yet to see anything to respond to.

>>15886838
>he can't parse simple contemporary political cartoons
That's sad.

>>15886857
meds, schizo. Take your meds.

>>15886871
Thanks for proving my point! >>15886810

>>15886880
You can't "coherently respond" to nonsense other than to call it nonsense. If that was your point, congrats?

>>15886881
>I don't understand it, therefore it must be nonsense!
It's time to apply for governmental financial aid for the mentally disabled, anon. You could be rich

>>15886892
By all means, then, explain yourself and show that it isn't nonsense.

>>15886919
>medieval religious and political authorities discouraged commoners from reading the Bible on their own and outright banned independent translations/versions
>ꜱoyjak cries at this, claiming it was thought control and brainwashing

>modern scientific and political leaders authorities discourage commoners from doing their own research and outright banned (from mass and social media) independent studies and treatments
>ꜱoyjak defends this, claiming "just trust ze science"

It's really not that difficult to understand, brainlet anon.

>>15886952
So, like I said, nonsense. A false equivalence. You know that it is, too.
>outright banned (from mass and social media)
I love how you have to backpedal this hard just to try preserving your false equivalence even to yourself.

>>15886958
It is not a false equivalence at all, and you had to cherrypick one specific part of the comparison that doesn't match up 110% in a pathetic attempt at refuting the argument. The comparison stands perfectly fine without the ban part.

Still no coherent response lmfao

>>15886958
>one specific part
Yes. The core part. The thing that makes them fundamentally not equivalent.
>/pol/tard cries because he can't spam his bullshit everywhere just because he wants to
Are you a literal toddler?

>>15886969
>one specific part
Yes. The thing that makes them fundamentally not equivalent.
>/pol/tard cries because he can't spam his bullshit everywhere just because he wants to
>T-THIS IS LITERALLY HITLER!!!

>>15886985
>oy vey muh pol!!!
>pol is out to get me!!!
>ITS ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY!!!!!

>>15886992
boo hoo someone called out your bullshit boo hoo

>>15886985
Alright if you really want to be retarded about it, we can bring that part in too, and it STILL makes you look stupid. Modern mass and social media is the equivalent of paper and papyrus reading material in the Middle Ages. The medieval Church controlled distrubution of alternative Bibles and religious texts through print in the same way that authorities control posts about alternative medicine and treatments today.
The only "difference" here comes from the fact that electronic media did not exist in the 12th century, or the fact that barely anyone reads paper media in the 21st. In effect, they are both controlling independent thought and questioning.
So yes, it's a valid comparison. Clown.

>>15887001
>Modern mass and social media is the equivalent of paper and papyrus reading material in the Middle Ages
Oh wow, so according to you it definitely isn't a false equivalence because... more false equivalences.

Why do you call others a clown while honking on your unicycle?

>>15887006
>its a false equivalence because...BECAUSE I THINK IT IS OKAY???
No. Coherent. Response.
LOL

>>15887008
>actually believes your own writing with your own material is literally equivalent to writing on somebody else's property
It finally happened. You've gone so far "right" you've become a communist.

>>15887016
Twitter is the town square of the 2020s.
>b-b-but muh private company
Legality =/= Conceptuality

>>15887029
>Twitter is the town square of the 2020s.
>>wait I realize that's also a false equivalence! I have the solution
>Legality =/= Conceptuality
Except where conceptually private property is not held in common and is not a town square because it isn't public.

Do you have brain damage? Are you okay?

There is real science and fake science.

>>15887034
>Except where conceptually private property is not held in common and is not a town square because it isn't public.
You just perfectly described the legality.
Also, we're talking about companies, not properties.
Also, Twitter has been public for over a decade now, long before the covid fiasco.
Also, I like how you've conveniently ignored the individual reading and research part of the original post.

>>15887053
>You just perfectly described the legality.
Conceptually, private property =/= public property.

>>15887062
>no response for the rest of the post
I accept your concession.

>>15887066
Why would I respond to distractions? You've just chained one false equivalence onto another in a long string.

Here, I'll help you. What you **really** want to say is you're unhappy with large corporate monopolies on public attention because you've now experienced what lolbertarian bullshit lets happen. Problem you have is agreeing with the lefties about corporate overreach means you'd have to concede they were right in the first place. So I suppose you can either grow up and realize "the enemy" is right sometimes, or I guess live in cognitive dissonance forever. Either way piling more false equivalences on top one another doesn't help you.

>>15887076
>strawman, strawman, and strawman
>Twitter literally being public and refuting his entire pathetic argument is a "distraction"
Most coherent Pfizer worshipping NPC argument, everyone.

>>15887088
>Twitter literally being public
public access and public trade =/= public square nor public property. More false equivalence. Yeesh.

>>15887091
Conceptually and legally, public company =/= private company.
It seems all those claims of false equivalencies have been simple projections all along...

>>15887104
>Conceptually and legally, public company =/= private company.
First true thing you've said. Sadly, it isn't relevant.

>>15887108
This is (You), and its pathetic. Mentally turn 18 before you make such bold claims next time, and maybe you won't have to resort to pretending to be retarded again. Good night anon

>>15887118
Feel free to stay in /pol/ so your hugbox isn't violated so easily in future instead of shitting up /sci/ next time.

>>15865976
first post wirst post

>>15887544
Is this really what the uneducated think happens in labs?

>>15865974
This thread will surely be about science as a whole and not just the tourists who came from the vax, right?

>>15879608
So let's recap:
Science worshippers in 2020: It's completely unsafe to be outside! We need to close down the playgrounds and parks and beaches and campgrounds! No protesting against the lockdowns either because protesting is dangerous!
Us: Do you have any evidence the virus is very dangerous when we're outside in the open air?
Science worshippers: Trust the science!
Us: So what about these thousands of people having peaceful protests with no social distancing?
Science worshippers: That's different, they're protesting.
Us: But you already said that outdoor protests were dangerous, even with much smaller groups.
Science worshippers: It's different now because these ones support BLM
Us: Do you have any evidence that supporting BLM makes a difference? And we're still waiting on the evidence that going outside for anything else is as dangerous as you claim.
Science worshippers: Trust the science!
Us: Well what evidence does "the science" have?
Science worshippers: Trust the science!
Us: So no evidence?
Science worshippers: TRUST! THE!! SCIENCE!!!!!!!!
OP: "trust the science" is the most anti-science statement ever.
This science worshipper: >>15866654 Ummmm actually when we said "Trust the science" before we were trusting the scientific method.
This anon: >>15878318: Can any of you explain how the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID?
(You): cAn YoU pOiNt To AnY sCiEnTiFiC pApErS?

seems like you are the one who should be providing scientific papers, since you're the ones claiming that the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID while going paddleboarding alone was dangerous.

>>15881275
So you can't explain how the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID? Are you just trying to gaslight us about this the same way Science Worshippers try to gaslight us about the lockdowns now that you know how stupid they were?

>>15887573
No. It is a joke. We know the researchers at cern worship satan.

>>15887917
>Science worshippers in 2020: It's completely unsafe to be outside!
No one ever said that.
Also, the stuff that follows is severe schizophrenia with elements of actual events scattered in.

>>15880597
>>15887917
You've failed to provide any scientific papers which conclude that it did. I am not surprised.
I will therefore count this earlier question:
>Can any of you explain how the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID?
as suggestive, sophist nonsense.

>>15887930
>No one ever said that
so it's gaslighting then, gotcha.
>>15887939
You've failed to provide any scientific papers proving that the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID. I will therefore conclude that this earlier statement: >>15866654
>Also, no one trusts "the science" like this was even a thing like "the Catholic Church". The "trust" belongs to the scientific method.
has been proven false. I accept your concession

>>15887930
>No one ever said that.

>>15869912
Try living without numbers
You can't
Intelligence is what makes a being

>>15865974
Questioning something isn't the same as baselessly rejecting it like a dumb contrarian/negationist. Plus, ignorant people shouldn't be spoonfeed. They have an entire internet of information at their disposition.

>>15869745
Why are stupid people so obsessed with analogies and metaphors?

>>15887944
Freudian slip

>>15888012
Sounds like you don't believe in modern public education.

>>15888013
Because it helps their understanding?

>>15888078
Not the one in the USA. Some countries do it well.

>>15888078
Yeah, I think it's shit. Private education too, since it's the same as public education with less brown people and a different flavor of propaganda.

>>15888094
Yeah I heard that they teach creationism in some states. Is that really true?

>>15870002
You realize the "trust the science" crowd was wrong about the vaxx too right?
>lockdowns
the "trust the science" worshippers were wrong about the lockdowns though which is why you've now resorted to gaslighting us about them and pretending it didn't happen, and claiming you never said BLM should be exempt from the lockdowns.

>>15887944
You've failed to provide any evidence proving that anyone ever claimed that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID.

>>15870048
I identify as an expert in every field of science. Don't you dare deny my valid identity, bigot.

>>15888131
according to "The Science", the following needed to be banned because of how dangerous they were:
Going to the beach
Camping
Paddleboarding alone
Tennis
Picnics in the park
Skateboarding outdoors
Protesting (if your views did not align with the elite)

Meanwhile, The Science said that crowds of thousands of people with no social distancing was okay solely because they supported BLM. How does The Science explain this? Go cite the scientific papers that scientifically support this Science that we were told to trust.

>>15888151
Don't you ever get tired of fighting strawmen that you made up yourself?

>>15888151
>Meanwhile, The Science said that crowds of thousands of people with no social distancing was okay solely because they supported BLM.
What you're talking about is hypocrisy . They admitted their was some risk but felt it didn't outweigh the importance of it. I think the mandates were stupid and not supported by science, but I'm not declaring that scientists claimed the virus couldn't spread because it was a BLM protest. Lying about what happened makes people who have legitimate reasons to oppose the mandates and the vaccines look like idiots.

>>15888174
Don't you ever get tired of gaslighting people instead of just admitting that The Science was lying to us?
>>15888199
>They admitted their was some risk but felt it didn't outweigh the importance of it
Their position is only defensible if you assume that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID. Otherwise, cite the scientific paper that scientifically proves that the extremely small problem of Black people being unjustly killed by police due to racism (which is very rare) was a bigger problem than COVID, while also claiming that COVID was a huge danger for any other outdoor gathering.
Either COVID was too dangerous to allow people to gather outdoors even with social distancing, or COVID was such a non-issue that the 1 or 2 Black people unjustly killed by police due to racism each year was a greater problem.

>>15888208
>Their position is only defensible if you assume that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID.
No, it's defensible if you believe supporting BLM outweighed covid, and going out to the park or beach didn't. I'm fine with someone saying that's not the case, I in fact disagree for a multitude of reasons, but to say they claimed SARS-CoV-2 wouldn't spread during the BLM protests is completely false.

Nobody was forced to take anything. Staying home was voluntary.
Stop trying to rewrite history, chudley.

>>15888212
>ummm they didn't LITERALLY and EXPLICITLY say that supporting BLM makes you immune, they just said that going outside for any reason other than BLM was super dangerous but that if you support BLM, then going outside is so harmless that it's outweighed by basically nothing
lmao okay

>>15888208
>gaslighting people
Calling every piece of information that conflicts with your schizophrenia gaslighting is one way to keep up your delusion.

>>15888219
>ummm they didn't LITERALLY and EXPLICITLY say that
Yes. You're making up shit.
>they just said that going outside for any reason other than BLM was super dangerous
No scientists ever said that.
>if you support BLM, then going outside is so harmless that it's outweighed by basically nothing
No one said that the danger or harmlessness depends on your motivation to go outside. Take your fucking meds.

why aren't the vaxxies boosting though???

>>15888212
the BLM protests were literally just about having a science-approved excuse to break lockdowns. Leftists were as fed up as everybody else with being stuck inside so they used BLM as an excuse to go outside and hang out with their friends, because Science told them that you're allowed to ignore the lockdowns and disregard social distancing as long as you support BLM. And if we challenged that view we were told to "trust the science" which this anon >>15866654 claims was backed up by the scientific method. But we're still waiting for anybody to provide evidence that the scientific method proved that people could ignore the lockdowns and social distancing as long as they support BLM, and we're also waiting for anybody to provide evidence that the scientific method proved that going paddleboarding by yourself was dangerous. That was the science that we were told to trust so that is the science that these anons are defending ITT, and yet none of them can provide evidence of it.

>>15888234
Journalists and politicians aren't scientists.

>>15888232
>No scientists ever said that.
Then why was it illegal to do anything from play tennis to go paddleboarding?
>>15888226
Claiming that pic-related never happened is gaslighting. Claiming that the leftists telling us to "trust the science" when it came to lockdowns didn't hypocritically ignore those lockdowns when it came to BLM is gaslighting.

>>15888240
>Then why was it illegal to do anything from play tennis to go paddleboarding?
That's simple. It wasn't.

>>15888237
and yet scientists supported those decisions, and when those decisions were criticized, the defense from the left was.... wait for it...
TRUST THE SCIENCE!
So since this anon >>15866654 claims that meant they were trusting the scientific method, I am still waiting for somebody to provide evidence that the scientific method supported the lockdowns while also supporting the exemption for BLM. That is the science we were told to trust so that is the science that anons ITT need to defend.

>>15888243
see, this is that gaslighting again. You know you fucked up with the lockdowns so now all you can do is lie about it.
https://news.yahoo.com/paddle-boarder-arrested-malibu-flouting-152453085.html
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/175664/some-tennis-courts-are-closed-and-local-residents-are-not-happy/
https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/california-city-fills-skatepark-with-37-tons-of-sand-after-people-ignore-no-trespassing-signs/

Has anyone investigated if false memories might be a symptom of Long Covid?
Lots of unvaxinated chuds seem to be making up stories about shit that never happened. Perhaps Covid altered their brains somehow.

>>15888208
>Don't you ever get tired of gaslighting people instead of just admitting that The Science was lying to us?
Show us on the doll where the science touched you.

>>15888240
>Then why was it illegal
Do you think scientists make the laws? Do you think everything illegal is illegal because a scientist said it's dangerous? Do you think that scientists ordered that helicopter to harass the campers? Or did the scientists fly the helicopter themselves?

>>15888245
>and yet scientists supported those decisions
Meds. It's time for your medication.

>>15888256
scientists supported the lockdowns (except for BLM), and the leftists who defended the lockdowns told us to "trust the science"

>>15888250
I mean, whether or not something was illegal strongly depends on what area we're talking about. You've brought different examples from different US states, Tasmania, Toronto... are you a troll or a retard?

>>15888262
Where does that say that scientists said it was dangerous? Or that it wasn't dangerous if it was to protest? It doesn't even say scientists, this could be experts of law who said that infringing the right to protest is far more severe than infringing the right to see a sports event.
>the leftists
Are they in the room with usv

>>15888261
>>15888256
>>15888253
>>15888243
>>15888237
Gaslighting this hard is an implicit admission that you (and THE SCIENCE) were wrong btw

>>15888253
This is a good idea. We should Science The Shit Outta This.
Antivax chuddies might have actual brain damage from Covid. I almost feel sorry for them.

>>15888269
yeah im talking to one. a jew too it seems

>>15888268
how does location matter? Does the science not exist in those places?
>>15888269
>Health experts are not experts in health
k
>leftists don't even exist
k
>this could be experts of law who said that infringing the right to protest is far more severe than infringing the right to see a sports event
except they said that the anti-lockdown protests were still wrong (yet somehow you also claim that the health experts were not pro-lockdown)

We're just going around in circles now. Over 200 posts and not one Science Worshipper can use the scientific method to defend the lockdowns while also excusing BLM from the lockdowns. All you can do is lie about objective history. I think this counts as another loss for the Trust The Science crowd, and yet more evidence that the Trust The Science crowd will knowingly lie for political gain (which means you can't actually be trusted).

/thread

Turboposting isn't scientific, chud. Spamming the thread with generic, low-effort, repetitive posts (muh gaslighting) doesn't win you any peer review.

>>15888270
>Gaslighting
Why would anyone want to gaslight someone who's clearly mentally ill? On the contrary. We want you to take your meds, not believe even more fake shit (which would be the goal of gaslighting).

>>15865974
Is it even a question

>>15888274
Scientist yes, Jew no. Still got my foreskin. Not sure why that would matter.

>Covid Originated Vivid False Experiences Following Encephalopathy
This could be a major new health epidemic among chuds. The question is: do we have an obligation to help them after they put us all in danger?

>>15888275
> Does the science not exist in those places?
We've been through this. The science doesn't make laws. The laws vary by place. In the US you can drive at 16 but drink at 21. In Germany you can drink at 14 and drive at 18. Laws aren't science. I should not have to explain this to an adult.

>>15865976
>dangerous
>ideas
lol, you're a faggot
and I can imagine you're proud of that

>>15888316
He's an obvious troll and the chuds keep falling for it.

>>15888219
Here's a quote from over a thousand scientists who wrote a letter supporting BLM.

>Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest. Provide increased access to testing and care for people in the affected communities, especially when they or their family members put themselves at risk by attending protests.

That sure sounds like they're confessing to protests increasing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Where did the say protesting makes you immune? The thing is I support people who disagree with the policies, but you're now straight up lying to support your own narrative. Just call them hypocrites, or say that they lied about covid's severity, but don't make up bullshit like protesters can't get covid.

>>15888234
See, a lot of this I actually agree with. A lot of activities that were low risk were banned without scientific backing, and I'm sure there's people who participated in the protests who really just wanted to break the lockdown. Not to mention plenty of protestors didn't follow the guidelines that the scientists requested in their open letter.

>>15888299
Maybe we could have extra taxes for vax noncompliance? So we can still have universal rights but also consequences.

>>15888389
>from over a thousand scientists
Since when are nurses and doctors scientists? This is a letter by "health professionals", not scientists. Are you so disconnected from the real world that you think everyone who isn't a waiter or a mechanic is a "scientist"?

>>15887917
>So you can't explain how the scientific method proved that supporting BLM makes you immune to COVID?
I don't support BLM and found that whole fiasco disgusting hypocrisy. Surprise! People have a whole range of opinions that aren't the two neat boxes your /pol/ echo chamber accelerationists want to pretend are the only two that exist.

>>15888402
>Since when are nurses and doctors scientists?
Nice nit pick, and you did not dispute the meaning of the post in any way, in fact having it be "health professionals" is even more supportive of what I said.

>>15888393
>Maybe we could have extra taxes for vax noncompliance? So we can still have universal rights but also consequences.
NTA. I'm skeptical of that but it's probably the only way to go about it. Contingent explicitly on pooling and paying for the costs they incur on the system, empirically, to help rein in potential govt abuses. The same goes for paying for proactive education efforts because one way the government loves to abuse its power and authority is keeping people ignorant and claiming it's "muh individual responsibility".

However I've also strong opinions against any punitive individual measures, for a lot of reasons. In a way I don't really blame any individual antivaxxer. It isn't their fault we've had the most retarded public education system in the world for most of their lives, and in many places where evolution wasn't taught or taught with maximum incompetence by religious people. Plus our insane taxation system where poor districts get poor schools, and similar problems. Severely unequal opportunity, education, etc, honestly I almost think it's unfair to tax them in addition. They've already been taxed by a government failing them, whether totally failing to provide psychiatric intervention or totally failing to provide adequate education and resources. Or actively encouraging tying science denial with political affiliation. None of that is any individual's fault except the fucked in the head political parties that run the show.

That's why I don't support ideas on punitive taxes or the like. The system is to blame, not the individual. Fix the fucking system, don't band-aid it with "muh individual responsibility".

>>15888431
Bro I was LARPing. I didn't expect you to be an actual out of touch elitist.

>>15888440
>I didn't expect you to be an actual out of touch elitist.
...Elitist how? I literally wrote all that against the idea of punitive measures against individuals. So you just read the first sentence and ignored the rest?

>>15888443
lol
Bro, come back in 5 minutes and reread your whole post. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.

>>15888461
I don't need to, I know what I wrote. If you mean I'm elitist for implying people have unequal opportunity and education, uhhhh... those are just facts. Antivaxxers and science denialists in general tend to have far below average comprehension of the relevant sciences they're opposed to, same for young earth creationists. They tend to have by far the worst understanding of epistemology and scientific epistemology in particular.

>>15888468
Hi Dave.

>>15888425
>Nice nit pick
That's not a nitpick, your entire point "scientists/the science says" is void.
>way, in fact having it be "health professionals" is even more supportive of what I said.
You said it was scientists. You're clearly angry, but do you even know who you're angry at??

>>15888403
So you agree that it was wrong for people to just tell us to "trust the science" in regard to hypocritical, politicized lockdowns? And you agree that this anon >>15866654 is full of shit?

>>15888474
? Who? Professor Dave? I wish. So you just don't have an argument I suppose?

>>15888478
No, I do not agree with you. I don't agree with retards supporting BLM pretending it was somehow virtuous to be a hotbed breeding ground for covid. Hence "hypocrisy". Try thinking about what you've read before vomiting words?

You know, the whole "silence is consent" line was repeated ad nauseam during the Summer of Love, by the very same leftists who repeated "Trust the Science" to us. So really, any scientist who did not explicitly speak out against the lockdowns must have supported them.

>>15888475
>That's not a nitpick, your entire point "scientists/the science says" is void.
Tell ya what, if you can find me a source from a scientist saying the BLM protests won't spread the virus (claimed in this thread), I'll take it, because all we have now are a bunch of doctors saying the exact opposite, that it will spread the virus. Whether or not it's worth it is irrelevant.

>>15888501
I'm the other anon. I think I know what he's referring to, in that there were journalists IIRC writing some retarded posts along those lines. Unless I've been fooled and am misremembering. Relevant doctors no I don't think so.

That's the whole problem with the anti-science /pol/ brigading. Their issue is largely with "journalists" but somehow think being morons on a science board is the real solution or something.

>>15888501
>if you can find me a source from a scientist saying the BLM protests won't spread the virus (claimed in this thread)
I'm not the retard who claimed that anyone ever claimed it.

>>15888506
>Their issue is largely with "journalists"
I concur. See
>>15888245
>>15888261

>>15888514
Fair enough. I got no problem with ya. Thanks for clarifying.

>>15888518
I wasn't the anon you were replying to, I just concurred from the sideline.

>>15888525
Ah. I continue to be disappointed by the lack of post ID's.

>>15888536
I'm not sure if that would improve things so much. It's mainly to prevent samefagging and the /pol/ tourists don't try to hide their samefagging.

>>15888542
Eh I think it wouldn't help samefagging as it'd be easy enough to reset. I think it more helps keep track of a discussion thread since people who don't want to evade it can gain that benefit at least.

>>15888509
>I'm not the retard who claimed that anyone ever claimed it.
We have no argument then. The point is health care workers or scientists, whichever is preferred, never backed the protests by saying the protestors were immune. In fact, health care workers are on record saying it will increase the number of cases. I assume scientists would agree, or at least I haven't seen them state the opposite. The health care workers backed the protests for other reasons that had nothing to do with covid immunity. I don't disagree that supporting the protests while supporting other mandates was not rooted in good science, but then we're laying some of the blame on politicians for passing the mandates.

>>15888506
Journalists publish all kinds of opinion pieces and click-bait headlines unfortunately. I find it amazing sometimes when I read an article because of the headline only to find out the article didn't support the headline whatsoever.

>>15888501
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7717330/

Scientists say the protests didn't make a statistically significant contribution to Covid cases.

>>15888501
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

Doctors say it was okay to protest during the pandemic.

>>15888551
>Scientists say the protests didn't make a statistically significant contribution to Covid cases.
Huh?

>The median case rate at Week 3 was 0.0049 in protest counties versus 0.0041 in control counties, which was found to be statistically significant.
>Although the increase was statistically significant
>While the protests as whole had a small but statistically significant increase in the counties they took place in

They tried to argue that it was in fact insignificant, but their numbers say otherwise. This is also an "after the fact" study. I'm talking about scientists who said during the protests that they wouldn't increase the risk of transmission.

>>15888548
>I find it amazing sometimes when I read an article because of the headline only to find out the article didn't support the headline whatsoever.
Tell me about it. Gets even worse with science and the constant churn of bullshit. Who's ready for the 900th article on the totally real upcoming doomsday supervolcano volcano carrington event?! Also any article on quantum mechanics related anything the journo needs to be shot.
>>15888551
>Scientists say the protests didn't make a statistically significant contribution to Covid cases.
Why do you think that's what he asked for? How is that in line with your claim? That paper is an analysis of actual case rates. The fuck are you even arguing now? Do you even know?

>>15888564
Doctors aren't scientists. But I accept your concession.

>>15888572
I think I know what happened. He skimmed and saw **individual** rates were not statistically significant and doesn't know what "significance" means, so attributed that as somehow evidencing his claim.

>>15888551
Are you angry at facts now?

>>15888564
>Doctors say it was okay to protest during the pandemic.
Okay, here is where I diverge with >>15888579 or whoever has been asking you. I took you to be talking about doctors, since it would be silly for a scientist to publish a journal paper like that anyway. That actually does evidence what I believe you were claiming and so far as I'm concerned those doctors should have their medical licenses revoked. I was quite serious about being disgusted by the hypocrisy on display, and that is some fucking colossal hypocrisy.

Though other than that I am not sure what you were trying to get out of it. I still don't agree with anything else you've said nor the conclusion you seem to draw from that hypocrisy.

>>15888564
>Doctors say it was okay to protest during the pandemic.
Lol. I already quoted from the letter signed by around 1200 doctors. Here's the relevant bit:

>Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest. Provide increased access to testing and care for people in the affected communities, especially when they or their family members put themselves at risk by attending protests.

They supported the protests, but thought that cases would increase. There's another letter in there signed by 7k students and never even mentioned covid, and another quote from a doctor that the potential to increase the spread was heartbreaking.

Anyway, agree or disagree with them about the importance of BLM, it's not proof they said protesting was totally safe while other activities were dangerous.

>>15888617
Did I miss an important bit of context? He's claiming some "they" said it was safe somehow? I thought he was just upset people were fine with it when it suited their political agendas. Those are very different things.

>>15888627
>I thought he was just upset people were fine with it when it suited their political agendas
Well yeah, if that was the only point then I agree, that's a shitty way to decide on medical decisions.

>>15888496
Very salient point.

>>15888824
My bad then. I agree with you then if he was implying it was claimed "safe" he's still full of crap

>>15888496
What 'lockdowns'? I can't find any articles about 'lockdowns' during Covid. People just went about their lives with minor inconveniences.

I want to remind everybody that what """scientists""" said is irrelevant. This thread is about the phrase "trust the science" which was used by leftists who were not scientists to justify the lockdowns (which they now claim didn't even happen). Even if """scientists""" didn't support the lockdowns (they did) it wouldn't change the fact that "trust the science" meant "shut down everything except BLM riots"
>>15888617
>They supported the protests, but thought that cases would increase.
do you or any other anon, especially >>15866654 have any scientific articles that use the scientific method to prove that the increased spread of COVID was outweighed by the supposed benefit of the protests? And do these scientific articles also prove that getting fresh air and exercise did NOT outweigh the supposed harm from COVID?

>>15888887
>This thread is about the phrase "trust the science" which was used by leftists who were not scientists to justify the lockdowns (which they now claim didn't even happen)
Personally I only recall seeing that with respect to people "doing their own (so-called) research" and mostly doing conclusion shopping anti-vaxxer cherrypicking with no comprehension of what was being read. Could you cite what the fuck you're talking about? Is this just more "some journalist said something retarded like every journalist ever"? Preemptively yes I agree journalists are retarded. What is your point?
>do you or any other anon, especially >>15866654 have any scientific articles that use the scientific method to prove that the increased spread of COVID was outweighed by the supposed benefit of the protests?
As noted I did not support BLM protests nor hypocrisy encouraging mass gatherings during a pandemic. Still not sure what your point is there. Hypocrisy bad? I agree?

Seriously guy what is your point?

>>15888887
>(which they now claim didn't even happen)
Even in this thread >>15888876

Leftists ITT:
>we're not gaslighting you!
Also leftists ITT: >>15888876

>>15888895
>I'm 16 years old. Can you cite what it was like to actually be an adult in 2020?
no. Fuck off and Rule 2.

>>15888900
>>15888910

>>15888914
So once again you can't, probably because it really is just a bunch of journo idiots, and you've got no point because your only reason for being here is trolling and samefagging shit like this cringe.
>>15888876
>>15888900
>>15888910
God you're sad.

>>15888915
see:
>>15878318
>>15880597
>>15887944
>>15888151
>>15888240
>>15888250
>>15888262
>NONOOOOOO you can't just point to numerous examples of lockdowns happening! If you acknowledge reality it means you're a schizo!!!!!!

>>15888927
>faux news and twitter as your sources

>>15888917
Why are you still posting? I already told you it's against the rules for you to post here. Fuck off until you're 18.

>>15888917
See >>15888915

>>15888931
>If I deny objective reality it means I'm right!
k
>faux news
Oh I get it, you're one of those 16-year-olds who refuses to trust anything other than the sources your teachers told you to trust. Okay, I won't try to convince a literal child to accept other sources. But how about politifact? Is that a source that your teacher lets you listen to?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/09/viral-image/la-county-sheriffs-deputies-arrested-paddle-boarde

>>15888931
And if you ask for something other than him whining about a journalists opinion he apparently just screams that you're under age.

Remember when we had jannies?

>>15888941
>Guy trespasses on closed beaches
>gets arrested
>THIS IS LITERALLY HITLER
>WHOLE COUNTRY LOCKED DOWN EVERYONE SEALED IN HOUSES TO DIE
I'd say you were the dumbest person on Earth if you aren't "trolling" but flat earthers beat you to it.

>>15888941
>>If I deny objective reality it means I'm right!
That's how leftists operate. It's a narcissistic ideology so they gaslight you every step of the way. Reading the Narcissist's Prayer will tell you how they argue.

>>15888944
>reporting on objective news stories that undeniably happened
>"whining about a journalists opinion"
we call you underage because you were obviously a child when the 2020 lockdowns happened. Otherwise how do you claim that they never happened? This thread has a lot of sources proving they happened so if you want to claim it never happened then you're the one who needs to start providing sources

>>15888949
the beaches were closed, even to solo paddleboarders
>LOL that never happened you schizo Fox news conspiracy theorist
Yes it did here's proof
>LMAO no it didn't you schizo take your meds!
Okay but it did happen here's proof
>LOLOLLOLOLLOLLOLOOL you schozio rightwing conspiracy nutjob that never happened! Of course you could go paddleboarding stop listening to Fauz News!!!!!!! XD
okay but this guy literally got arrested
>well obviously he got arrested I never denied that, anyway what's the big deal just because we arrest people for paddleboarding alone doesn't mean it was illegal to paddleboard alone
Fuck you for making me respond to you

>>15888962
No beaches were closed, no concerts were cancelled, no political rallies were prevented. You've been consuming nothing but Russian misinformation for three straight years, possibly longer.

>>15888962
This is entirely leaving aside that people were sent to concentration camps for crossing internal borders in Australia.

>>15888963
kek you nailed it. thats exactly how they sound.

>>15888964
I wish conspiracy theorists were sent to camps, but unfortunately this was not the case.

>>15887917
good post

>>15888970
lol
lmao

>>15889002
Debunked image. It is temporary housing for refugees and disaster victims.

Yes, but obsession with this fact leads to mental breakdown in your personas once you begin reaching the levels beyond the maximum exploration of science sustainable by this tiny reality, when your prior logic algorithms begin to break down and betrays themselves upon confronting the truly alien. Be engineers of your reality, have faith in your math, love, but prepare yourselves as best you can for the 0ther.

>>15888887
I think "trust the science" was a stupid phrase and abused, but it was not used to defend the BLM protests.

>have any scientific articles that use the scientific method to prove that the increased spread of COVID was outweighed by the supposed benefit of the protests?
Assuming people protested in good faith, the benefit would not be weighed strictly in all cause mortality. You're talking about science proving a morality issue, which is pretty much impossible and everyone will have their own arbitrary opinion.

If your main point is that outdoor activities should have never been banned, then yeah, that's pretty obvious. The BLM protests aren't proof of that, nor do they invalidate what the science did show, but they do show that political decisions trump health decisions when convenient.

>>15888963
>No beaches were closed, no concerts were cancelled, no political rallies were prevented. You've been consuming nothing but Russian misinformation for three straight years, possibly longer.
This has to be a troll post or some kind of a copy pasta.

>>15889024
>I think "trust the science" was a stupid phrase and abused
and that's what this entire thread is about
> but it was not used to defend the BLM protests.
yes it was, Zoomer

>>15889052
>journalists/politicians/other retards say dumb shit
>science bad
bruh

>>15889061
>journalists/politicians/other retards say dumb shit
>retards like >>15866654 defend that dumb shit
>those retards are wrong
thank you for finally admitting that after 300 replies

>>15889132
>thank you for finally admitting that after 300 replies
You mean repeatedly pointing out your problem ISN'T with science or scientists writ large but journalists saying dumb shit while you schizo sperg everywhere?

>thread reached bump limit
everybody agrees that the "trust the science" side got BTFO right? If you disagree then post scientific proof that being outside was dangerous but supporting BLM somehow made it not dangerous. Otherwise admit that trust the science was wrong.

>>15889143
>You mean repeatedly pointing out that "TRUST THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!" is not actually scientific?
thanks for conceding that you were wrong

>>15889149
>>You mean repeatedly pointing out that "TRUST THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!" is not actually scientific?
Who the fuck said it's scientific? It's pragmatic because you can't know everything, and if you think you can feel free to get your PhD in every known field.
>thanks for conceding that you were wrong
I have not. I have repeatedly conceded you're a dishonest trolling twat though

>>15889146
Huge cope right here. Science is always right.

>>15866654
Before this thread dies I just want to point out that there have been over 300 comments after this and none of them explained how the scientific method proves that people need to stay inside unless they supported BLM in which case it was okay to go outside in groups