Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues

[Anonymous No.14755201]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038
>Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14755213]

>>14755201
>that climate change slope
lol

[Anonymous No.14755215]

>>14755201
>The more you know the less you oppose homeopathy

What?
How do these graphs work?

[Anonymous No.14755226]

>>14755213
>Third, if the effect does not generalize to all issues, do the data give any indication why? In discussing why GM foods showed the pattern but climate change did not, Fernbach et al. (25) suggested that a potentially important difference between the issues is degree of political polarization, with climate change attitudes much more polarized by political affiliation than attitudes on GM foods. Political polarization refers to the degree to which people from different ideological groups (e.g., conservatives versus liberals) differ in their positions on an issue. When an issue is highly polarized, there may be less room for individual knowledge to influence attitudes because they are instead driven more by community influence.
tl;dr: even if you know your shit, you'll say whatever Trump says because it's so politicised.

[Anonymous No.14755231]

>>14755215
It's opposition to the consensus on the topic (which is that homeopathy is obviously retarded).

[Anonymous No.14755253]

>>14755226
That's a lot of words to tiptoe around the fact that the more you objectively know, the less likely you are to be a climate hysteric.

[Anonymous No.14755296]

>>14755201
Source: antichrist
All knowledge is subjective, and it is simply antiscience to claim you can have something that is not relative to me.

[Anonymous No.14755329]

>>14755253
That's... not at all what is written there.

[Anonymous No.14755341]

>>14755329
No, that's what the slope of the graph indicates.

[Anonymous No.14755359]

>>14755341
Left bros...

[Anonymous No.14755372]

>>14755226
>suggested
>potentially
>may be
Well I'm convinced.

[Anonymous No.14755377]

>>14755341
Um.... no. The graph is compatible with the null hypothesis, that the knowledge has no influence on the opposition to the settled science.

[Anonymous No.14755379]

>>14755372
Is this your first scientific paper?

[Anonymous No.14755383]

>>14755379
Is it yours? That's not quantitative reasoning, it's a hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.14755396]

>Study 5 also included a new variable; how much participants think scientists know about COVID-19? To validate the main finding, we split the sample into those who rated their own knowledge higher than scientists’ knowledge (28% of the sample) and those who did not. This dichotomous variable was also highly predictive of responses: Those who rated their own knowledge higher than scientists’ were more opposed to virus mitigation policies [M = 3.66 versus M = 2.66, t(692) = −12, P < 0.001, d = 1.01] and more noncompliant with recommended COVID-mitigating behaviors [M = 3.05 versus M = 2.39, t(692) = −9.08, P < 0.001, d = 0.72] while scoring lower on the objective knowledge measure [M = 0.57 versus M = 0.67, t(692) = 7.74, P < 0.001, d = 0.65].

Not only do 28% think they know more than the actual scientists, they are also antivaxxers and actually know not only less than the scientists but less than the average moron.

[Anonymous No.14755401]

>>14755396
What was the objective knowledge test.

[Anonymous No.14755404]

>>14755401
It's explained here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038

[Anonymous No.14755407]

>>14755201
>scientist: Do you agree with me?
>Person: no...
>scientist: Well according to this test I made up and the data I made up in support of this test I conclude you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.14755416]

>>14755404
They don't provide a copy of the 34 questions for any of the studies. I read their "explanation". Their results are meaningless without understanding the questions that determine "objective" knowledge. Any anti-establishment view may be seen as "objectively" wrong, defeating the purpose of the study.

[Anonymous No.14755440]

>>14755201
too long, didn't read, don't care, can't wait for them to start killing academics again.

[Anonymous No.14755443]

>>14755377
>The graph is compatible with the null hypothesis
As are the big bang and evolution graphs. That doesn't change the fact that the objective knowledge climate change graph has a negative slope.

[Anonymous No.14755460]

>>14755416
This, social "scientists" are retarded. Anyone can see that this is the most important part of the whole study. Does Science not allow supplemental material or something? Just give us the questions. There's only 34 of them.

[Anonymous No.14755476]

>>14755201
>as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing
all the factual science proves that vaccines and masks were a meme, how the hell is the "objective consensus" not in line with the "objective knowledge"? Or is the study just judging popularity of opinions? Very big kek in that case

[Jealous No.14755479]

Those with the highest knowledge know that you're not going to get the NSF grant if you don't toe the party line.

[Anonymous No.14755488]

>>14755201
this is the consensus of vaccination
>The benefits of
vaccinations
outweigh the risks,
and vaccination has
zero link to autism.
which basically means nothing "objective" and is literally inviting people to choose for themselves, which was the entire source of the debate on vaccines in the first place
meme study made by stupid people who managed to get it published, from what I can see none of them is even a doctor
only one of them has more than 2 other studies and they are all literally sociology memes
cringe thread

[Anonymous No.14755515]

>>14755226
>you'll say whatever Trump says because it's so politicised.

You guys are never going to stop crying about orange man, are you?

[Anonymous No.14755518]

>>14755416
>>14755460

Usually a good indication they feel uncomfortable about being transparent about how they got their results.

[Anonymous No.14755563]

>>14755201
What the fuck is "subjective knowledge"? Either something is true or false or unknown. You can know more or less than someone else, but you can't have like a different dimension of knowledge (unless we're talking about something like knowledge vs skill).

[Anonymous No.14755583]

>>14755201
if you're not confident in what you supposedly know about a topic, then you have no right to enforce that on other people. say what you want about current levels of objective knowledge, but if you're an expert in a topic, but you aren't confident in making policy prescriptions, then you either haven't passed the Dunning-Kruger valley (meaning you are still an amateur) or you subconsciously know the threat of the unknown unknown. I'm sure those "high objective knowledge, low subjective knowledge" patterns were omnipresent before Silent Spring

[Anonymous No.14755988]

>what is objective knowledge you may ask? Well it's these CDC statements reported on CNN! Our sources are the objective ones after all.

[Anonymous No.14756150]

>>14755201
>results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge.
A simple test can't determine who has more correctknowledge, the tested or those who test them. It can only tell you if their opinions differ.

[Anonymous No.14756153]

>>14755201
>>14755988
>>14755201
>results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge.
A simple test can't determine who has more correct knowledge, the tested or those who test them. It can only tell you if their opinions differ.

[Anonymous No.14756155]

>>14755201
>results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge.
A simple test can't determine who has more correct knowledge, the tested or those who test them. It can only tell you if their opinions differ.

[Anonymous No.14756162]

>>14755201
>have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge
>Subjective knowledge
>Objective knowledge
Based on whose criteria? What the fuck does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.14756196]

If you get rid off all the nonsensical value dressing like "Objective" and "subjective" knowledge, what you end up with as a conclusion for this paper is,
>Scientists have certain consensus about things (weather right or wrong, its not the first time they could have a wrong consensus)
>People think they they know more than the scientists they disagree with
Thus the conclusion is,
>People think they know more than people they disagree with
Wow, how insightful.
Could have fucking figured that out myself, retards.

[Anonymous No.14756232]

>>14755443
>That doesn't change the fact that the objective knowledge climate change graph has a negative slope.
No. A slope of [math]a \pm \Delta a\ \text{with}\ \Delta a > \left| a \right| [/math] is neither positive, nor negative.

[Anonymous No.14756253]

>>14755401
>>14755416
>>14755460
>>14755518
>>14755563
>>14755988
>>14756162
Are you illiterate or just trying to spam this thread with nonsense?
>Do they not allow supplemental material?
Just click the fucking link that says "supplemental material" you retard.
>They don't provide this because they feel uncomfortable
Do you feel uncomfortable clicking on the link? Everything is there you illiterate midwits:
https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fsciadv.abo0038&file=sciadv.abo0038_sm.pdf

[Anonymous No.14756299]

>>14755443
It's the other way around actually, OP's picture is a bit confusing. 7 means you believe in man-made climate change. Either way it's statistically insignificant

[Anonymous No.14756306]

What's really confusing me is the fact that believing in evolution seems to be negatively correlated with objective knowledge

[Anonymous No.14756417]

The questions are really simple.

[Anonymous No.14756492]

>>14756417
Seriously, I wonder how people can get any of them wrong.

[Anonymous No.14756544]

>>14755201
Big Bang Theory and Evolution for all intents are purposes are irrelevant, they don't impact our lives directly. Climate change is also irrelevant, too far reaching, amorphous and vague.

Nuclear power, we have seen the devastation when things get out of control so people are wary on Nuclear. GM foods, vaccination and alternative medicine are all health related which is a primary concern.

Alternative medicine is for people looking to solve problems that conventional medicine can't or won't help with. Most chronic diseases are lifestyle diseases and conventional care is only concerned when you are in the extreme, bone fracture, cancer, etc. This is why some people turn to alternative therapies.

GM foods and vaccination. The problem here is that is no nuance, people are thinking about the most recent vaccination which is probably the pandemic vaccine. The other vaccines are proven over a long time period, the covid vaccine has not gone through the same rigorous testing and uses new delivery technology. GM foods, again we don't know enough about the long term affects.

But interestingly we can gather some monkey see monkey do data, by looking at higher socioeconomic classes. The more you earn the higher probability you will be into some organic, grass fed, specialised diet, IVs, supplements, etc. This lends weight to the idea that the elite do what they want, but the masses should follow the science. No monoclonal antibodies for you.

In the end it seems the purpose of this study is to label your opinion as valid or invalid. Which is a personal decision not scientific. Proper science includes all the data. This survey is too reductionist to be of any real use. No room for nuance. Choice architecture and leading questions. Presenting neutral questions and answers, which they are, but when combined together and presented like this leaves a sour taste.

1/2

[Anonymous No.14756547]

>>14755201
Data is agnostic and neutral, but the people who use it are just as biased as everyone else on the planet. The intention of this study appears to be to undermine the outside view rather than collect it as data.

Just because some LGBTQ PhD edgelord knows more about the topic than I do, doesn't mean their opinions are worth any more. I don't want to know more about that topic.

By providing a safe space, you are literally creating more homos, faggots and trannies, by conferring special social status, special privileges, and power over other's behaviour. That which is incentivised you get more of.

This is how small groups can polarise the majority to behave a certain way. At the end of the day most people don't give a flying fuck, they just go along to get along. If it will shut whining baby up, they will put up with it, even if they disagree privately. Very similar to how a small group of intellectual, political and managerial elite control the majority.

2/2

[Anonymous No.14756561]

>>14756417
None of these questions are consequential. People could easily live without knowing any of this. Only if you worked in the field, and even then there are so many safety precautions that you would be forced to know.

[Anonymous No.14756572]

>>14755201
>let me tell you what the shit-tier social science propaganda has to say about people who don't trust the experts
Don't care. Take this dogshit where it belongs: >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14756587]

>>14756561
> People could easily live without knowing any of this.
No one said that people couldn't live without knowing an of this.
>Only if you worked in the field, and even then there are so many safety precautions that you would be forced to know.
No one said anyone is forced to know. What's interesting though: the people who don't know these things are the ones who think they know more than scientists. They were willing to bet money on that. It's not some Twitter trolls who just claim this shit, they lost actual money to their delusion that they know their shit.

[Anonymous No.14756593]

>>14756547
What's with all the fucking Streamen in this thread?
>Just because some LGBTQ PhD edgelord knows more about the topic than I do, doesn't mean their opinions are worth any more
Why do you even feel the need to defend the worth of your opinion? Your vote is equal to the ones of experts in a democracy, dumbert. You needed two comments for your schizobabble and didn't react to the paper at all. Did you even open it?

[Anonymous No.14756672]

>>14755201
>be a conformist layman
>have an intense desire to always be on the same page with "the science"
>willingly expose yourself to the stream of confusing, incomplete, contradictory, public-consumption-greade "science" signalling
>feel like you don't really understand anything
>just trust the experts
>at least you remember all of these factoids that you can throw at the antivaxxers
Okay. Is that supposed to reflect well on your cult?

[Anonymous No.14756754]

>>14756672
That's the opposite of the result of the paper. Read it before shitposting

[Anonymous No.14756768]

>>14755213
Retards think a climate disaster will occur in ten years, smart people know we have hundreds to thousands of years to prepare

[Anonymous No.14756828]

>>14756672
Abstract thinking and imagination beats pure memorization

[Anonymous No.14756864]

>>14756754
>That's the opposite of the result of the paper
Are you lying or simply losing your mind? What I said is perfectly consistent with the results of the paper, explains those results, and it is readily observable.

[Anonymous No.14756958]

>>14756672
>be a confused retard
>have an intense desire to always oppose "the science"
>willingly expose yourself to the stream of confusing, incomplete, contradictory, public-consumption-greade telegram garbage
>feel like you understand everything
>feel like you're better informed than the experts
>at least you remember all of these factoids that you can throw at /sci/

[Anonymous No.14756995]

>>14756958
>t.
So you're not actually disputing what I point out. Good.

[Anonymous No.14757014]

>>14756768
No single climate disaster will occur, things are just getting worse very slowly.

[Anonymous No.14757033]

>>14756196
No, it's that people who think they know more actually know less.

[Anonymous No.14757057]

>>14756572
You don't need to be an expert in climatology to debunk climate change alarmism. You can do so with simple logic

>the climate is changing due to men's activity
>such changes will cause sea levels to rise and are an existential threat
>the carbon footprint of the average immigrant into the West in his homeland is many times lower that that of a Westerner

therefore one should expect
>mass sell-off of beach-front property
>climate pundits and scientists enmasse calling for an immediate halt to mass immigration into the West

[Anonymous No.14757091]

>>14757033
NTA but "knowing" in this context means being able to regurgitate pop-science factoids so I have no idea why anyone is even taking any of this seriously.

[Anonymous No.14757108]

>>14755201
The "safe" in "safe and effective" is easy to debunk with logic
>never before tried experimental serial genetic material injections developed less than two years ago
>control group unmasked and give "vaccine"
>long-term safety unknown

The advisability of mass-vaccination is also succeptible to logic requiring no knowledge of how the "vaccines" work
>the evolutionary tendency of respiratory-spread cornaviruses is to greater infectiousness and lesser virulence
>the covid virus has an animal reservior and no one ever suggested mass-mammal "vaccines"
>the average age of death from covid, even with the ridiculous overcounting is greater than the life expectancy
>the average number of comorbidities for a covid death is greater than two
Given this the proper strategy should have been
>emphasis on therapeutics and early treatment
>isolation of elderly and comorbid only
>let it become endemic (which it has)
>no lockdowns, business closures no masks -- the benefits dont outweigh costs in economics or health
>no fearmongering

[Anonymous No.14757119]

>>14757091
The point is that those who don't even know that there's no landmass at the North Pole think that they know better than actual experts. And, surprise surprise, they deny climate change. But sure, someone who doesn't even know popsci factoids is the kind of guy we should listen to regarding climate change :^)

[Anonymous No.14757135]

>>14756958
Given the lack of liability for manufacturers and unmasking and novel genetic material injections of the control group, one should follow the precautionary principle against "vaccines", particularly given the virulence of covid. And giving it to anyone under 18 is criminal insanity (from which Denmark at least has come to her senses).

[Anonymous No.14757147]

>>14757057
>>mass sell-off of beach-front property
When?

>>climate pundits and scientists enmasse calling for an immediate halt to mass immigration into the West
Or we could just decrease the footprint of Westerners.

Your argument is fatally flawed.

[Anonymous No.14757165]

>>14757108
>developed less than two years ago
What does the age have to do with safety? Asbestos was developed millennia ago, does it mean it's extra safe?
>control group unmasked and give "vaccine"
Easy there, Mr. Mengele, would you actually forbid the control group to get vaccinated even after approval of the vaccine?
>long-term safety unknown
Define long-term. Inb4 "something that happened 10 years ago, had no detectable impact over those 10 years suddenly made me sick yesterday"
>the covid virus has an animal reservior and no one ever suggested mass-mammal "vaccines"
Well, look at how stupid you look. People have suggested mass-mammal vaccines for other diseases. Or do you mean specifically sars-2? That doesn't have a reservoir, as it's a mutation that allowed the cross-species infection. Sure, similar viruses have been transferred to humans and will in the future. Just leave those fucking bats alone.
>the average age of death from covid, even with the ridiculous overcounting is greater than the life expectancy
Your conclusion might be wrong though. The life expectancy has dropped by during the pandemic:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58659717
Over 10 years of life were lost on average: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75
Does this line up with your conclusions?
>no masks -- the benefits dont outweigh costs in economics or health
Say what? The 5 cents per mask? Or do you think they make you sick?

[Anonymous No.14757166]

"Gender specialist" is a false competency and any statement by one can be dismissed a priori. Their use of the phrase "assigned gender" proves this as they dont specify who is doing the "assigning" and what they are "assigning" is purely a notional mental construct.

[Anonymous No.14757171]

>>14757091
>NTA but "knowing" in this context means being able to regurgitate pop-science factoids
Are you saying being ignorant of basic facts doesn't count? Did you even read them? It seems like you're just typing without making a coherent argument.

[Anonymous No.14757182]

>>14757166
What are you babbing about?

[Anonymous No.14757202]

>>14757135
>giving it to anyone under 18 is criminal insanity
Ugh, always those superlatives... yes, it's cRiMiNaL iNsAnItY
Why exactly? It's not harmful to minors. You're just beating the conservative "think of the children" horse.
Denmark is scaling down their entire vaccine program. Not because of alleged side effects, but because they don't want to pay for something they think they are fine without. That was already announced in February.

[Anonymous No.14757233]

>>14757147
>Or we could just decrease the footprint of Westerners.
In an existential emergent situation both should be done and immigration continued ONLY after the "to" lands footprint is brought near the leve of the "from" lands.

>Define long-term. Inb4 "something that happened 10 years ago, had no detectable impact over those 10 years suddenly made me sick yesterday
If the research group has stastically significant higher levels of bells palsy, autoimmune diseases, deaths in age brackets (given n is sufficient to be confident) or other conditions than the control group, then the intervention can be considered not long-term safe.

Sweden had no masks (even in hospitals for about a year and that discontinued after a few months). We didnt drop like flies as per the Branch Covidian prophecy.

[Anonymous No.14757244]

>>14757014
There are climate disasters occurring regularly right now it's just that none of them are or will be world ending. If your metric for not changing something is that you don't think it will kill you in the next few years then you can safely ignore climate because landslides are for the poor in south Asia and droughts are for Africans and Indians. It could never happen in the civilized world where we have plumbing and air conditioning. Never-mind that it already is happening all over the states.

[Anonymous No.14757254]

>>14757182
What specifically are they assiging when they "assign gender". Who does the assigning?

[Anonymous No.14757264]

>>14757119
>The point is
I don't care what you think "the point" is, but at least you acknowledge they're trying to make some kind of a point. Well, the fact of the matter is that this dogshit study implies something other than what your handlers present.

[Anonymous No.14757273]

>>14757264
>this dogshit study
How many papers did you publish in Science? :^)

[Anonymous No.14757282]

>>14757171
>Are you saying being ignorant of basic facts doesn't count?
I'm saying that if "knowing" merely means regurgitating (and in this study, it literally does mean that), then all the study demonstrates it that people who regurgitate the "scientific" narrative don't understand anything, and their feelings (about "subjective knowledge") reflect it.

[Anonymous No.14757745]

>>14757233
>In an existential emergent situation both should be done
No, westerners have to reduce their footprint either way, and doing so negates the need for banning immigration controls. Your argument makes no sense and is just an excuse to not lower your footprint.

And you didn't explain when we would expect mass sell-offs of beachfront property.

[Anonymous No.14757782]

>>14757244
Yes that's my point. There is not some event in the future to prepare for; it's already happening and you won't notice it unless you look at the data.

[Anonymous No.14757785]

>>14757254
There's nothing in this thread about gender.

[Anonymous No.14757805]

>>14757282
>I'm saying that if "knowing" merely means regurgitating
It doesn't really matter how insultingly you describe it. Basic facts are basic facts.

>then all the study demonstrates it that people who regurgitate the "scientific" narrative don't understand anything, and their feelings (about "subjective knowledge") reflect it.
No it demonstrates the opposite. You can't even describe a simple paper correctly.

[Anonymous No.14757810]

>>14757805
>It doesn't really matter how insultingly you describe it
It doesn't matter if you find it insulting or not. Regurgitation is what it is.

>No it demonstrates the opposite
You see how clinically subhuman you are?

[Anonymous No.14757935]

>>14757810
Knowing basic facts is what it is. If you don't know them then you don't know as much as you think. Thinking the Earth is flat doesn't make you a rebel, it makes you a retard.

[Anonymous No.14758442]

the more i learn about nuclear power, the more i oppose it

[Anonymous No.14758451]

>>14757935
>Knowing basic facts is what it is.
You can label it however you like but my point stands unchallened and undisputed. Your subhuman reactions actually prove my point, so keep them coming. You are hated to the point that people are contemplating violence against you.

[Anonymous No.14758454]

>>14757057
you're reeing about clickbait articles, not about science or whatever

[Anonymous No.14758463]

>>14758451
Did you learn a new word, Kevin?

[Anonymous No.14758467]

>>14758463
See >>14756672. Nothing ITT actually challenges this observation. You will not attempt to challenge it in your next post.

[Anonymous No.14758484]

>>14758451
>people
you, because you have chosen to form your identity around being a retard, and that is a hard and alienating life to lead. it's unsurprising that you would feel violent out of desperate frustration.

[Anonymous No.14758492]

>>14758484
You are absolutely hated by a huge fraction of the population and it's now understood that you can't be reasoned with. Violence against you is pragmatic, rational and moral.

[Anonymous No.14758504]

>>14758492
i had a chat with you the other day, and i'm still not sure who you think i am or what my profession is. who is this "you" [as in my group membership] and who hates this group i'm supposed to be in?

[Anonymous No.14758508]

>>14758504
Don't care about your preprogrammed cope. >>14756672 still stands undisputed.

[Anonymous No.14758512]

>>14758508
you can't answer can you, just like you couldn't answer the question about who my "handlers" are.

[Anonymous No.14758524]

>>14758512
See >>14756672

[Anonymous No.14758529]

>>14758524
you're saying a huge fraction of the population wants to murder anyone who doesn't post retarded braindamaged shit re science? a strange claim

[Anonymous No.14758532]

>>14758529
I don't know what your psychotic rambling is all about. You seem to be losing your mind. In any case see >>14756672

[Anonymous No.14758537]

>>14758532
>You are absolutely hated by a huge fraction of the population
>You are hated to the point that people are contemplating violence against you.
who?

[Anonymous No.14758541]

>>14758537
You're losing your mind. Your replies have nothing to do with my post. Take your xanax and lexapro and stop posting.

[Anonymous No.14758542]

>>14758451
>You can label it however you like but my point stands unchallened and undisputed
What was your point again?

[Anonymous No.14758546]

>>14758542
Your programmers should upgrade your RAM. Here it is: >>14756672

[Anonymous No.14758554]

>>14758541
how come you can't answer my question

[Anonymous No.14758559]

>>14756672
>>just trust the experts
The phrase that broke retards

[Anonymous No.14758561]

>>14758554
I don't know what the voices in your head keep saying you so I don't know the context for what you're asking. I recommend snorting your meds for rapid onset of action.

[Anonymous No.14758566]

>>14758561
>You are absolutely hated
who am i?
>by a huge fraction of the population
who?
>You are hated
by whom?
>to the point that people are contemplating violence against you
who?

[Anonymous No.14758575]

>>14758566
What are you talking about? You're legit losing your mind.

[Anonymous No.14758583]

>>14758575
i'm asking you questions about what you posted

[Anonymous No.14758589]

>>14758583
I didn't post anything related to your schizophrenia. I was commenting on OP's retarded study. Your meds. Take them ASAP. lol

[Anonymous No.14758600]

>>14758589
>You are absolutely hated
who am i?
>by a huge fraction of the population
who?
>You are hated
by whom?
>to the point that people are contemplating violence against you
who?

[Anonymous No.14758609]

>>14758600
LOL. You're actually mentally ill, man. What does it have to do with my posts? Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.14758612]

>>14758609
is that post yours?

[Anonymous No.14758615]

>>14758609
Who hates him, anon?

[Anonymous No.14758620]

>>14758612
No, but he's right. Anyway, let's go back to my post: >>14756672 and observe how your impotent rage as you realize you can't refute it. :^)

[Anonymous No.14758636]

>>14758620
transparent attempt at gaslighting
are you going to kill me?

[Anonymous No.14758645]

>>14758636
Okay. I guess you're actually insane. No more (You)s for you.

[Anonymous No.14758651]

>>14758645
are you going to kill me?

[Anonymous No.14758658]

>deranged vaxxies thinking everyone is out to kill them

[Anonymous No.14758661]

>>14756672
>someone wants something from me
>tell them no
>WOW, YOU'RE SO FUCKING STUPID! YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN EXPERTS???? EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHAT I WANT
It's not your decision, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14758662]

>>14758658
>No, but he's right.

[Anonymous No.14758666]

>>14758661
?

[Anonymous No.14758668]

>>14758662
I don't want to kill you. I just want you to die. :^)

[Anonymous No.14758672]

>>14758668
what for?

[Anonymous No.14758678]

>>14757745
>No, westerners have to reduce their footprint either way
Red herring. The fact is they havent for years all the while inviting others to "come on in" and raise theirs with complete silence about it from believers. Again, not consistent with an emergent existential problem. If there are two sources of petrol feeding a fire, you dont focus exclusively on one and ignore the other. Mass immigration has raised the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere and will continue to do so until and unless carbon use per person is reduced and/or immigration is halted.


The doomsday prophets predict a sea level rise. If that were reasonbly probable you would see a scramble to sell before there is no more land or house to sell.

[Anonymous No.14758682]

>>14758672
For trusting the experts.

[Anonymous No.14758684]

>>14758678
it's not going to be in our lifetimes mate

[Anonymous No.14758689]

>>14758682
truly the phrase that broke the schizos. where did it even originate? seems like the sort of thing that one retard on twitter says, and then /pol/ goes apeshit amplifying it 50,000x

[Anonymous No.14758691]

>>14758689
That's nice. Anyway:
1. I hope you get killed.
2. My point still stands

[Anonymous No.14758697]

Any day now, the fraction of the population that believes we live on a giant space frisbee -- and I am assured by the brightest minds on /sci/ that this is a huge fraction -- is going to rise up. Any day now.

[Anonymous No.14758700]

>>14758697
But for now, you should take your meds, because you're spewing psychosis again,.

[Anonymous No.14758706]

>>14758691
>1. I hope you get killed.
why?
>2. My point still stands
what point?

[Anonymous No.14758705]

>>14755515
And you?

>Nooooo! He won! He did! He's still President! Just two more weeks! Nooooo! It isn't heckin fair? How can he be getting investigated in New York, Georgia, and by the Feds for two different sets of crimes? Hiding top secret documents isn't a crime when Trump does it! The POTUS declassifies things by just thinking "this is now declassified." What do you mean you can't call a secretary of state up and ask them to find exactly one more vote than your opponent!?"

>"Reee, civil war now! I'm going to go shoot up and FBI office, hit no one, and have my brains blown out on the pavement. Me and the army of 60 years old keyboard warriors and taking this government down. Based Blump! God Emperor!!!

Your obese New York billionaire reality TV God is going to die in prison and it's going to be hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14758714]

>>14758706
>what point?
The one that makes you revert into psychosis every time you're faced with it. Now tell me more how everyone ITT is the poster who is out to kill you.

[Anonymous No.14758723]

>>14758714
who hates me and wants to kill me?

[Anonymous No.14758729]

>>14758705
Shit man, that might just be enough to tip the Silent Majority over the edge and they'll start going door-to-door executing anyone who believes in space. Not good!

[Anonymous No.14758733]

>>14758723
Fucking LOL. I shouldn't be so amused by this. I guess this board is actually making me retarded. Just take your meds already. Come back when you're stable and able to address my point. :^)

[Anonymous No.14758748]

>>14758668
>>14758682
>>14758691
>>14758714
>>14758733
Seriously take your medication. No meme here. No smug insult. You are not okay. You need help. Again, no meme, no shitpost, no trying to win an argument by pretending you're mentally ill (I'm not the anon you're talking to anyway).

[Anonymous No.14758753]

>>14758748
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14758760]

>>14758753
Stop projecting. My current meds are vyvanse and wellbutrin, during pollen season cetirizin and when I have a headache ibuprofen. I am taking all the meds I need. Please do the same.

[Anonymous No.14758768]

>>14758760
>Stop projecting. My current meds are ...
Can't make this shit up. Grind your meds up and snort them.

[Anonymous No.14758772]

>>14758768
No, snorting stimulants is actually quite harmful. You please get help. Your mother loves you.

[Anonymous No.14758774]

>>14758772
What was it about >>14756672 that made you seethe this hard?

[Anonymous No.14758778]

>>14758774
?

[Anonymous No.14758788]

>>14758778
I don't know, it just seems to drive you and your buddies out of your mindes. I have people repeatedly accusing me of threatening to murder them, I have you seething like a lunatic that I'm mentally ill while openly admitting that you yourself are. Why does my post attract attetion from psychiatric patients?

[Anonymous No.14758789]

>>14756958
>>14756958
>>14756958
>>14756958

[Anonymous No.14758791]

>>14755201
Z
https://discord com/invite/beTwDNgv2P

[Anonymous No.14758794]

>>14758789
So? That doesn't actually refute the post it's responding to. lol

[Anonymous No.14758806]

>>14758788
>I have people repeatedly accusing me of threatening to murder them,
You did post about murder and dying an awful lot, to be honest. That is the reason for
>I have you seething like a lunatic that I'm mentally ill
>while openly admitting that you yourself are
Look up what my meds are for. None of that is a mental illness. I have trouble concentrating and planning shit. I don't talk about wishing that people get murdered by me or others.

[Anonymous No.14758811]

>>14758806
>You did post about murder and dying an awful lot
All I said is that I hope he dies, after like 20 rounds of him accusing me of wanting to murder him out of the blue. lol

>Look up what my meds are for.
They're for your mental insability.

[Anonymous No.14758812]

>>14758811
>All I said is that I hope he dies
Which is extremely creepy. Don't say that in the real world, about anyone. It drives people away from you.
>They're for your mental insability.
No. Look up the meds, please.

[Anonymous No.14758817]

>>14758812
>Which is extremely creepy
I hope you die, too, psycho.

[Anonymous No.14758818]

>>14758806
>Look up what my meds are for
Wellbutrin is an antidepressant dude. I mean, it's similar enough to amphetamine that it's also prescribed off-label for ADHD, but it's by definition a medication for mental illness.

[Anonymous No.14758820]

>>14758818
That's false. The psychiatrist said I'm extremely mentally stable and the Wellbutrin is just in case.

[Anonymous No.14758821]

>>14758794
>u r conformist layman
what is the scope for refuting this? "no i'm not!"?
>u want 2 b @ same page as science
again, what refutation can be offered? "no i don't!"?
>blah blah stream
"no i don't!"
>just trust the experts
"i don't say that!"
>at least you remember factoids to throw at retards
"no i don't!"

what more do you want? an essay on how a caricature isn't accurate? or do you want me to renounce science and adopt utter twaddle because i wouldn't want to be seen as some sort of popsci appreciator? you clearly think you've made an absolute gem of a post. you've hit the achilles heel. science is on the ropes because of this post, and how will it ever recover?

>>14758791
based cumguzzling fifth columnist

[Anonymous No.14758822]

>>14758818
Tell us again about how the world is a hellscape.

[Anonymous No.14758825]

>>14758820
Look it up for yourself, bro.

[Anonymous No.14758827]

>>14758492
>You
who?
>are absolutely hated by a huge fraction of the population
who?

[Anonymous No.14758828]

>>14758821
>what more do you want?
For you to realize that the post wasn't addressing you specifically... although you clearly identify with the character drescribed, which is the only way to explain your psychotic reaction. lol

[Anonymous No.14758830]

>>14758825
I wonder what bupropion can do for people who spend all day going "argh science" and "I hope you get killed" on a science board.

[Anonymous No.14758833]

>>14758818
>Wellbutrin is an antidepressant dude
It's also used for weight loss and to stop smoking, and I'm neither overweight, nor have I ever smoked even a single cigarette. But just like with everything else you're reading what you want to read. In case you're interested, it's also prescribed for adhd, to have a more long-term effect than stimulants. Think sin(x} + 1 vs. sin(x)/2 + 1.5

[Anonymous No.14758834]

>>14758825
I told the psychiatrist that I'm mentally stable and not depressed and he agreed to change my meds to Wellbutrin. You should take your own meds now, creep.

[Anonymous No.14758836]

>>14758825
It's just for the fucking ADHD, okay? And stop responding to my post. Why are you creeps all attacking me?

[Anonymous No.14758837]

>>14758818
>>14758820
>that level of samefaggotry

[Anonymous No.14758838]

>>14758828
you have backlinked your post eight times ITT demanding that people give it attention and write a "refutation" of it. now it's "wow you finally paid attention to my post, you must be insane and obsessed"

[Anonymous No.14758839]

>>14758838
So where's your refutation? "B-b-but I'm not like that" doesn't refute it.

[Anonymous No.14758840]

>>14758836
>>14758828
(You)

[Anonymous No.14758842]

>>14758836
>>14758834
>>14758825
>>14758820
>>14758818
In case that one anon is trolling, 6/10. In case your talking to yourself... just get help, man.

[Anonymous No.14758843]

>>14758833
>In case you're interested, it's also prescribed for adhd
I already said as much. The argument you're making is "I'm not taking birth control because it's just for my acne!" tier. You're taking an antidepressant.

[Anonymous No.14758846]

>>14758837
Sorry to disappoint.

[Anonymous No.14758851]

>>14758843
So what? What's your gotcha here? Maybe you should take antidepressants too?

[Anonymous No.14758852]

>>14758843
I don't have acne, retard.

[Anonymous No.14758854]

>>14758839
you stink ae shite
refute that

[Anonymous No.14758857]

>>14758842
He's not talking to himself, but I don't think he's trolling either.

[Anonymous No.14758860]

>>14758851
>Look up what my meds are for.
I'm just telling you what they're for, dude.

[Anonymous No.14758865]

>>14758857
Well, since I'm the guy who actually does have adhd, there's at least one person impersonating me. Actually adds to the quality of this thread :3
And I'm sure it confuses the "I hope you all get killed" schizo.

[Anonymous No.14758868]

>>14758860
They're not for depression. My psychiatrist said it's just for the ADHD. He agreed with me that I'm very mentally stable.

[Anonymous No.14758871]

>>14758868
Yeah, you sure sound mentally stable.

[Anonymous No.14758872]

>>14758865
Nobody's impersonating you, and I actually have ADHD too. Talk to your doctor about whether Ability is right for you.

[Anonymous No.14758873]

>>14758860
You just displayed the same level of illiteracy as you did with every single Covid study, everything about vaccines, and likely climate change and GMOs as well. Scroll up. The OP paper is about you. But since you're illiterate, you won't realise. Actually, a part of the paper is that you cannot be reached with information. They propose ways to reach out to list souls like yours, but I prefer calling you a schizo faggot and/or trolling you (but obviously would never do so outside of /b/, as that would be a violation of the global rules).

[Anonymous No.14758876]

>>14758873
He'll never issue a refutation of this.

[Anonymous No.14758879]

>>14758868
>>14758873
>this is what peak mental stability looks like

[Anonymous No.14758881]

>>14758879

[Anonymous No.14758884]

>>14756299
Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

The x-axis is labelled "opposition" and increases from 2 to 7. That intuitively suggests that the subject's opposition to the idea is increasing, i.e., someone with an objective knowledge score of 45 has low opposition to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, while someone with an objective knowledge score of 50 has high opposition to the theory.

Instead, the "opposition" score is actually "I completely do not believe in climate change" is associated with having an objective knowledge score of 45? While "I completely believe in climate change" subjects have an objective knowledge score of 50? So more well informed people are (barely) more likely to believe in climate change. The CIs are so high that it doesn't really say anything at all.

Then look at vaccination - Subjects with an objective knowledge score of 45 "completely do not believe in vaccination" while subjects with an objective knowledge score of just 25, on average "completely believe in vaccination". So uninformed people completely believe in vaccination, which is the opposite of reality, since stupid people are more likely to believe that Bill Gates and Tim Apple put AirTags in the vaxxxxxx.

Ultimately, the axes should have been swapped to demonstrate that while a subject's objective knowledge increases, their opposition (expressed as "1 to 7 = 'I don't oppose at all' to 'I completely oppose'") would decrease, which would make sense.

Seems like this study has serious design flaws and doesn't really make any points.

[Anonymous No.14758888]

>>14758881
At least you're embarrassed enough about your behavior to edit the HTML tag. Early signs of creeping self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.14758891]

>>14758888
>to edit the HTML tag.
>on a phone
I actually wish I knew how

[Anonymous No.14758895]

>>14758873
That's a whole lot of cope that won't change the fact that buproprion is an antidepressant. It would be easier in the long run to confront your cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.14758900]

>>14758546
I don't see any points there, just insults. The point of the paper remains, those who are most confident about their knowledge know the least. You're agreeing, actually.

[Anonymous No.14758904]

>>14758900
>those who regurgitate the most also feel like they don't know shit
Yep.

[Anonymous No.14758905]

>>14758884

>Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

Lol, bro, I've got some grpahs

[Anonymous No.14758909]

>>14756299
>>14758884
You're reading it wrong. This is the level of opposition. The screenshot shows something else.

[Anonymous No.14758912]

>>14758884
>Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

oh shit, a graph, woah

[Anonymous No.14758916]

>>14758895
>that won't change the fact that buproprion is an antidepressant. It would be easier in the long run to confront your cognitive dissonance.
You know, you're making about as much sense as if you were trying to convince .. (who actually? Me? The other anonymous readers on a Vietnamese cartoon forum? Yourself?) that I'm trying to quit smoking and lose weight.

[Anonymous No.14758918]

>>14758884
>Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

this graph is actually the murder rate, not IQ. Woah, why does it do that?

[Anonymous No.14758920]

>>14758729
>lose by over 7 million votes, equivalent to 9.6% of your vote total.

>This despite having supporters with significantly higher turnout and significantly less subject to disenfranchisement (e.g., a number of Southern states have taken away the right to vote from 1:5+ Blacks to vote), meaning actual popular support is even lower.

>Another 7.1% of residents aren't citizens and another 2% have been stripped of their right to vote and overwhelmingly don't support you.

>Majority

Meanwhile:
>Support shits the bed even harder in crucial swing state suburbs with educated voters after refusing to accept your loss and trying to overturn the election.

>1:5 members of your own party think you took illegal actions to overturn the election and should be prosecuted.

>49% of voters think you should be tried for trying to overturn an election you lost.

>W. Bush split 18-24 voters 50/50 in 2000. Trump lost under 55s by 9 and then 11 votes.

>Attack and begin doxing the internal security forces. Shit all over the FBI and CIA. Shit all over the military brass.

Great planning for a coup.

Will we see the first revolt by seniors in history? Kind of hard to see them tearing down a government that pays out $2.5+ trillion in cash payments to them a year and gives them free healthcare. Federal transfer payments to Boomers is $38,000 per Boomer per year just on those two programs, to say nothing of the $30 trillion in debt they ran up. Shit is as performative as SJW kids protesting sushi in the cafeteria because it's "cultural appropriation."

[Anonymous No.14758922]

>>14758884
>Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

uohh, I'm gonna graph!!!!

[Anonymous No.14758926]

>>14758918
>>14758912
>>14758905
Based schizospammer. Adding even more value to this thread.

[Anonymous No.14758927]

>>14758884
>Well then that is a fucking shit graph.

Uhhh, dad, do you really think I can take THREE big graphs at the SAME TIME?? Uohh!!!

[Anonymous No.14758930]

>>14758916
I haven't said anything about what you're trying to do. I've told you what the drug you're taking does.

[Anonymous No.14758933]

>>14756672
>be free thinking aristocrat of the soul
>express my radical free thinking ideas on Patagonian jelly fish farming board.
>Someone calls me retarded.
>Respond 20+ times about how I'm be attacked by psychos and samefag my post.
Nice oppression narrative.

[Anonymous No.14758937]

>>14758933
lol take your meds

[Anonymous No.14758938]

>>14758930
Like I didn't know. Come on, tell me how it helps me quit smoking. I need to heat it.

[Anonymous No.14758940]

>>14758916
I mean, if you want to be more specific it's a NDRI, or norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor, a class of drugs which also includes amphetamine. Amphetamine is also an effective antidepressant, but due to its potential for abuse and controlled status is seldom prescribed for that purpose.

[Anonymous No.14758946]

>>14758938
>Like I didn't know.
Then why would you tell other people to look up what your medication is for, and then get upset when they did and reported back with the results? Not that I needed to look it up, I take it myself.

[Anonymous No.14758948]

>>14758926
>Based schizospammer.

Let me explain.

>>14758912
This explains why it is nearly impossible to feel happiness in the west.

>>14758918
This graph shows the catastrophic effect that both genetic culling and post-war decadence had upon the White race. This also explains why lead in gasoline is necessary to prevent men from becoming cowards.

>>14758922
This graph explains racial preference, and why black people are so heavily fetishzed by Whites, among other reasons such as sexual sadism.

>>14758927
This graph explains an incredibly burdening economic cancer caused by things like idealism and ethicism protecting the old and dysfunctional rather than exterminating them for poor performance. I hope this helps clear things up.

Pic related explains why OP's argument is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what people believe, and for the most part, people are literally just farm animals.

Does the opinion of a homeless person compete with the opinion of your doctor when seeking medical advice? No? The same logic needs to apply in government because right now the state weighs the opinions of homeless people and drug addicts as "equally valid" as those of trained professionals. Ethics "forces" the government to cater to the demands of bioweapons like poor people and the elderly rather than neutralize the threat to the state in accordance with basic economic principles.

[Anonymous No.14758949]

>>14758940
It is really cute how you share your newly acquired Wikipedia knowledge with the guy taking the meds. Wanna see something cool? Look up the other med I'm taking.
>a class of drugs which also includes amphetamine
I'm sure this sounded way more badass in your mind.

[Anonymous No.14758950]

>>14758905
>>14758912
>>14758918
>>14758922
>>14758927

Seems like you're mad.

Taking this study's retarded scoring scheme as an example, on a scale of madness from -13 to 54, with -13 being completely mad and 54 being completely not mad, I'd say you're at about an e^iπ

[Anonymous No.14758952]

>>14758946
Because it's prescribed for ADHD, precisely for the reasons listed in >>14758940

[Anonymous No.14758955]

>>14758950
>Seems like you're mad.

Mad about what? You give yourself too much credit in thinking that I've read a single post in this thread. I just looked at the OP image for a second and used my basic reasoning to deduce that this was a graph thread.

>don't flatter yourself and think that anyone's read a single thing you've posted in this thread
>did I read your post?
>no
>I just read the first line
>it said "graph"
>so my big scientist brain says "it's graph time"
>then I post graphs
>do you understand me?

[Anonymous No.14758958]

>>14758927
This graph is old or is laughably considering Boomer gibs as being paid for by Boomers during their working years, despite handing off $30 trillion in debt as they retire after having slashed taxes across their peak earning years but continuing to want more stuff.

A senior couple averages about $76,000 in gibs a year from Boomer UBI and their free healthcare. They also often get breaks on their property taxes and other services.

[Anonymous No.14758960]

>>14758955
Mad enough to dump /home/kevin/homework/4chan/pol/soience/graphs/

[Anonymous No.14758961]

>>14758949
>the guy taking the meds
Do you think this makes you special? Your knowledge isn't esoteric. Your experience isn't unique.

[Anonymous No.14758962]

>>14755396
>Not only do 28% think they know more than the actual scientists
About COVID-19. And they may be right, considering many epidemiologists screwed the pooch with their predictions.

[Anonymous No.14758964]

>>14755215
> Be not retard
> Dismiss homeopathy
> Don't ever bother looking into it because it's so obviously bullshit

> Be retard
> Wow homeopathy is like super interesting
> Reads lots about homeopathy

I could actually see it desu

[Anonymous No.14758965]

Are vaxxies even human?

[Anonymous No.14758968]

>>14758961
Then why do you come up with "a class that includes amphetamine" if I take literal amphetamines?

[Anonymous No.14758970]

>>14758952
>it's prescribed for ADHD
Yeah, off-label, meaning that is not a use covered by the FDA authorization for the drug but your doctor is allowed to use his judgement. Again, that's like saying you take birth control, but only for acne, so it's not birth control. Or that you take an antipsychotic, but you only suffer from depression so it's not an antipsychotic. (And since you were unclear last time, I'm not saying you are doing those things - they're analogies.)

[Anonymous No.14758971]

>>14758955
madness increasing. so obviously your score is now at a -3.

[Anonymous No.14758973]

>>14758968
You just answered your own question.

[Anonymous No.14758974]

>>14758970
I don't have fucking acne, retard, and I'm not psychotic. I just have ADHD and my psychiatrist said I'm very stable.

[Anonymous No.14758975]

>>14758974
>(And since you were unclear last time, I'm not saying you are doing those things - they're analogies.)

[Anonymous No.14758976]

>>14755988
this, the whole idea of this study is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14758978]

>>14756253
>https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fsciadv.abo0038&file=sciadv.abo0038_sm.pdf
>4. True or false? Antibiotics kills viruses as well as bacteria: False
It's true, some antibiotics also have anti-viral properties.

>Washing one's hands thoroughly kills the novel coronavirus (3) True
True, but mostly worthless since that's not the primary means of spread.

>Taking Ibuprofen or Aspirin can exacerbate COVID-19 (5) False
Funny, this would have been stated as "true" at one point, based on a false premise.

>The novel coronavirus was unleashed in a laboratory in Wuhan and spread from there (6) False
Unproven.

>With the proper diet, I can protect myself from being infected with COVID-19 (7) False
Diet has been shown to reduce or increase risk of other viral respiratory infections, the same is likely true for SARS-CoV-2. Regardless, it's not proven false.

>The spread of COVID-19 is affected by 5G wireless technology (8) False
Ah, so these questions are set up to reveal conspiracy theorists. Not very impartial.

>The drug hydroxychloroquine has been proven to cure COVID-19 (11) False
A meta-analysis just came out stating otherwise.

>To prevent infection, one should gargle with a diluted solution of disinfectant, such as Clorox
(12) False
Probably correct, but Listerine and other safe antimicrobials do deactivate the virus, which probably reduces viral load.

>COVID-19 is transmissible through AC tubing from room to room, even with filters in place. (5) False
Oh really? An aerosolized virus couldn't infect someone in that way?

>Wearing a mask only protects others if I am sick, it does not protect me from being infected (7) False
Except that was a major talking point for almost a year. "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me."

I'd love to see how scientists answered these questions.

[Anonymous No.14759026]

>>14758955
fucking lol, good image

[Anonymous No.14759036]

>>14758978
>If you agree with us, you have "objective knowledge"
>good boy!!! :)
What a dumb fucking test lmao

[Anonymous No.14759041]

>>14759036
>if you don't agree that 5G causes COVID you're an NPC and i'm going to kill you!!! :)
You guys are weird.

[Anonymous No.14759045]

>>14759041
Only you are saying that. The test is intentionally designed to create a narrative for gullible idiots to make them feel smart for agreeing with government and media. Theres nothing objective or scientific about it.

[Anonymous No.14759051]

>>14759045
This point will be eternally lost on the fully automated regurgitator. It doesn't acknowledge any distinctions between "knowing" to repeat what it was told and having a genuine understanding of a subject and being able to judge if what he's told is true.

[Anonymous No.14759054]

>>14759045
Own your beliefs, dude. Don't shy away because some social study dared to survey people on it.

[Anonymous No.14759055]

>let me tell you what you believe according to this piece of propaganda

[Anonymous No.14759057]

>>14759051
what do you regurgitate?

[Anonymous No.14759064]

>>14759057
Why do you assume everybody is a regurgitator like you?

[Anonymous No.14759065]

>>14759064
come on, nail your colors to the mast rather than shouting for the whole thread that everyone else possesses no thought process. let's hear your opinions.

[Anonymous No.14759067]

>>14759065
I don't regurgitate anything. I know this is inconceivable to an automaton like you, but either way it's a worthless deflection.

[Anonymous No.14759069]

>>14759067
you still aren't posting any opinions. you can think for yourself, can't you?

[Anonymous No.14759073]

>>14759069
>y-y-you're still not letting me deflect
An automated regurgitator doesn't acknowledge any distinctions between "knowing" to repeat what it was told and having a genuine understanding of a subject so as to be able to judge if what he's told is true.

[Anonymous No.14759086]

>>14759073
5G

[Anonymous No.14759088]

>>14759086
>5G

[Anonymous No.14759090]

>>14759088
5G

[Anonymous No.14759092]

>>14759090
What about it, retard? You "people" are seriously ill.

[Anonymous No.14759096]

>>14759086
>>14759090
What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.14759105]

>>14759092
is it relevant to COVID-19?

[Anonymous No.14759106]

>>14759096
The bot is trying to say that the next entry in his dialogue tree is about 5G.

[Anonymous No.14759109]

>>14756544
>long term affects
>affects

'e' is not that close to 'a' on most keyboard layouts that this can be a typo.

[Anonymous No.14759110]

>>14759105
Relevant in what way?

[Anonymous No.14759120]

>>14759110
does 5G cause or exacerbate PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infections?

[Anonymous No.14759123]

>>14759120
I don't think so. Anyway, OP's study is worthless because it doesn't make any distinctions between a participant "knowing" to repeat what he was told and having a genuine understanding of a subject so as to be able to judge if what he's told is true.

[Anonymous No.14759127]

>>14759123
social studies are dumb. fancy that.

[Anonymous No.14759130]

>>14759127
Just like the rest of your government-funded, corporate-disseminated propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14759132]

>actually my chart says Pfizer is beyond reproach

[Anonymous No.14759145]

>>14759130
You are actually mentally ill... this is some chilling stuff.

[Anonymous No.14759161]

>>14759145
Watching you get so assblasted is cheery.

[Anonymous No.14759182]

>>14758705
>Your obese New York billionaire reality TV God is going to die in prison and it's going to be hilarious.

Trump is definitely going to Jail this time. Just like after he won the elections and all those women lied about him raping them. Just like those two impeachments that returned not guilty. I'm not being strung along at all!

You are a fool.

[Anonymous No.14759195]

>>14758904
If by regurgitate the most you mean know basic facts. Why do you think not knowing basic facts about the subject you think you know well is something to be proud of?

[Anonymous No.14759198]

>>14759195
It makes no difference if you "know" how to regurgitate or not.

[Anonymous No.14759206]

>>14759198
The difference is that you lack basic knowledge of the field you think you know about. How is this not a difference?

[Anonymous No.14759211]

>>14759206
>How is this not a difference?
Because regurgitation doesn't make you any more competent and doesn't make your judgments are more justified. Whether your regurgitated factoids happen to be true or not has no bearing on this.

[Anonymous No.14759231]

>>14759195
>If by regurgitate the most you mean know basic facts. Why do you think not knowing basic facts about the subject you think you know well is something to be proud of?
The "facts" based on that questionnaire aren't so clear-cut. Some of the information has changed in the past year, which would have garnered a "debunked" a year ago, and some of it is still wrong, but someone who only regurgitates information would give them the mainstream answer they wanted.

[Anonymous No.14759234]

>>14759231
It doesn't even matter if these "facts" are true or not. The people regurgitating them "know" them the say way a 5 years old "knows" the Earth is round, which is incidentally the same way a 5 years old "knew" the Earth was flat 5,000 years ago: an authority figure says something and the infantile-minded suddenly "know" it.

[Anonymous No.14759241]

>>14759211
>Because regurgitation doesn't make you any more competent
Knowing basic facts definitely makes you more competent in a field than those who don't know basic facts. If you claim to have knowledge of a field but don't, then you're incompetent.

[Anonymous No.14759244]

>>14759231
>The "facts" based on that questionnaire aren't so clear-cut.
Like what?

[Anonymous No.14759245]

>>14759241

[Anonymous No.14759247]

>>14759241
Thanks for admitting that you are a literal subhuman.

[Anonymous No.14759249]

>>14759234
>It doesn't even matter if these "facts" are true or not.
It does, because in order to know something or has to be true.

>The people regurgitating them "know" them the say way a 5 years old "knows" the Earth is round
So the people who don't know them are dumber than a 5 year old.

[Anonymous No.14759251]

>>14759245
Your point?

[Anonymous No.14759252]

>>14759247
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you're incompetent of you don't know basic facts in the field you claim to know well.

[Anonymous No.14759253]

>>14759249
>in order to know something or has to be true
In that case, you don't know anything, since a mouth-breathing imbecile like you has no competence to judge if any of the information it regurgitates is actually true.

[Anonymous No.14759255]

>>14759252
Call me back when you finish highschool, skidmark.

[Anonymous No.14759263]

>>14759253
That doesn't even respond to what I said. I'm not talking about how you know it's true, I'm talking about whether it's actually true. You claimed it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.14759264]

>>14759244
I covered some of them here >>14758978. The questions about masks and NSAIDs are evidence of how opinions can change, because the answers would have been different in 2020. Some of the other stuff is just mind-boggling wrong, or at the very least undetermined.

[Anonymous No.14759267]

>>14759251
get vaccinated. obviously. WHO > smarter than you. natural immunity is inferior. you don't need to be a genius to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.14759268]

>>14759255
Not an argument. Thanks for again admitting you're incompetent if you don't know basic facts in the field you claim to know well. If you have any more substances posts, refer back to this one. You've run out of (You)s.

[Anonymous No.14759272]

>>14759263
Subhumans like you literally lack metacognition and abstract thought.

[Anonymous No.14759275]

>>14759268
You open admit to being a poorly educated, subhuman regurgitator who knows nothing, so I'm not sure why you keep posting.

[Anonymous No.14759282]

>>14759245
Fucking lying scum. Actually insane anyone believes a single word they say anymore.

[Anonymous No.14759284]

>>14759245
>same dude posting the same pics with the same filenames for years
blimey

[Anonymous No.14759285]

>>14759272
you're an NPC

[Anonymous No.14759290]

>>14759285
Sorry that you're a literal subhuman. It doesn't matter if the factoids you regurgitate are true or not. Knowledge is justified true belief. "An authority figure told me so" is not a valid justification no matter how many layers of trust-the-expert apologia you wrap it in.

[Anonymous No.14759294]

>>14759290
how many experiments have you run?

[Anonymous No.14759295]

>>14759294
Subhuman deflection.

[Anonymous No.14759297]

>>14759295
yes yes i'm a subhuman NPC and i worship in the cathedral of science. let's hear about you, though.

[Anonymous No.14759299]

>>14759264
>It's true, some antibiotics also have anti-viral properties.
In general they don't. They aren't used as antivirals.

>the same is likely true for SARS-CoV-2.
Based on?

>A meta-analysis just came out stating otherwise.
Where?

>Except that was a major talking point for almost a year.
No it wasn't, not among scientists and doctors.

At best you can only say some conspiracy theory isn't proven false, but there's no need to prove it false. All evidence points in the other direction.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/health/wuhan-market-covid-19/index.html

[Anonymous No.14759301]

>>14759297
For the sake of the argument, let's suppose I've never ran any experiments, since we both know a vile degenerate like you will insist on that no matter what. Let's see how long it takes me to break your NPC dialogue tree. It took one post to break the 5G one.

[Anonymous No.14759303]

>>14759267
I still don't see what your point is. It responds to nothing I said. Who said vaccination provides stronger immunity?

[Anonymous No.14759306]

>>14759301
you seem to be making the argument that information is only valid if it's acquired first-hand, and that trusting the information someone else gives you makes you a shameful subhuman. i'm just interested in what measurements and observations you have made.

[Anonymous No.14759309]

Trust The Bible(TM)

[Anonymous No.14759312]

>>14759303
The WHO said that. They are obviously at the highest level of competency. As the original study posted proves their opinion would be more correct. I have no reason to question their competency or opinion. They are objectively more competent. They objectively know more facts than the average poster on here. Objectively we should just follow the expert recommendations.

[Anonymous No.14759314]

>>14759306
>you seem to be making the argument that information is only valid if it's acquired first-hand
You seem to be lying because you know I'm right and your position is piss-weak.

[Anonymous No.14759315]

>>14759312
>276 / 28 / 42 / 1

[Anonymous No.14759316]

>>14759272
So you can't even explain what you're saying. You just spout bullshit and then immediately fold when the slightest bit of criticism is applied. Enjoy your tantrum.

[Anonymous No.14759317]

>>14759312
>The WHO said that.
Where?

[Anonymous No.14759320]

>>14759314
oh, ok. so what is the difference between regurgitation and relating information that was acquired by someone else?

[Anonymous No.14759322]

>>14759316
See >>14759290 and then neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.14759323]

>>14759317
Right in the picture dude. They posted it on their Facebook page and you know that Facebook fact checks everything. So we know we can trust Facebook and the WHO. Instead of these armchair experts that post on four chan.

[Anonymous No.14759325]

>>14759323
why are you on facebook?

[Anonymous No.14759327]

>>14759320
>what is the difference between regurgitation and relating information that was acquired by someone else?
Notice how you're forced to keep lying, deflecting and muddling. I wasn't arguing anything about "relating information". I was reminding you what the word 'knowledge' means.

[Anonymous No.14759328]

>>14759327
what's this definition of "regurgitating" information that doesn't involve relating information?

[Anonymous No.14759330]

>>14759325
It's where I get the best most up to date information because I know everything gets fact checked. I only listen to people with credentialed abbreviations behind their name. All others have invalid opinions.

[Anonymous No.14759332]

>>14759328
See >>14759327

[Anonymous No.14759333]

>>14759323
Actually it says those who were infected may not have full immunity, so vaccination can boost their immunity.

[Anonymous No.14759335]

>>14759330
it's a shame they banned you for posting disinfo isn't it? how many more years are you going to seethe about it?

[Anonymous No.14759340]

>>14759332
what do you know?

[Anonymous No.14759342]

>>14759340
I know you're a vile little bot.

[Anonymous No.14759344]

>>14759342
ooh deflection again

[Anonymous No.14759346]

>>14759344
Knowledge is justified true belief. Regurgitation is not knowledge, whether what you're regurgitating is true or not. "An authority figure said so" is not a valid justification.

[Anonymous No.14759348]

>>14755201
Most of these are fine and align with my knowledge and opinions. Except that vaccines in my mind don't include half baked medical experiments and mask mandates will always be evil, regardless of whether or not they work

[Anonymous No.14759352]

>>14759346
what's justified true belief?

[Anonymous No.14759354]

>>14759348
pretty much

[Anonymous No.14759355]

>>14759352
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.14759357]

>>14759355
looks like you're the one conceding out of inability to answer the question
what is justified true belief?

[Anonymous No.14759361]

>>14759333
Therefore natural immunity from infection is inferior. Immunity from vaccination is superior. That is why mandatory vaccination is required.

[Anonymous No.14759363]

>>14759357
Which of those three basic words does a subhuman like you need an explanation for?

[Anonymous No.14759367]

>>14756544
There was no devastation from nucleaer power. Nuclear power is the solution to all energy problems. It is the SAFEST and CLEANEST and most EFFICIENT form of energy production.

[Anonymous No.14759368]

>>14759299
>In general they don't. They aren't used as antivirals.
They are sometimes used as antivirals. Any way you slice it, they gave an incorrect answer.

>Based on?
Studies of other viruses including influenza. Unless they have evidence showing otherwise, then they should stick with undetermined. BTW, one of the greatest risk factors for severe COVID-19 is obesity. We shouldn't act like lifestyle changes can't make a difference.

>Where?
I'm not in the mood to dig up the paper now, but there was a lot of early evidence pointing to HCQ being beneficial, enough so that the USA stockpiled it. The studies debunking the efficacy deliberately gave it after the viral replication phase (an anti-viral won't work if it's given after the virus has done its damage) and at too high of a dose.

>No it wasn't, not among scientists and doctors.
Here's an article from November 2011, 2020, which was a big deal because the CDC only then changed their stance on whether wearing a mask would protect the wearer. Prior to that, it was all about protecting others. But the truth is that masks suck at protecting anyone when it comes to aerosols, only respirators show much efficacy in that regard, and even then, they may not reduce viral exposure enough to be meaningful.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/cdc-now-says-wearing-a-mask-protects-the-wearer-too.html

>At best you can only say some conspiracy theory isn't proven false, but there's no need to prove it false. All evidence points in the other direction.
All evidence? Really? Do you want the real answer? You have no idea. Neither do I. That's the only acceptable response, not "it's false unless proven otherwise." Your article provides nothing except that Wuhan appears to be the origin, and regardless of that, it came out after the paper we're talking about. The fact remains that well before we knew anything about the origin, any discussion other than natural origin was stifled.

[Anonymous No.14759370]

>>14759335
You are wrong good sir. Since I do not have credential abbreviations behind my last name I do not post anything on facebook. It is wrong to do so. I only read and relay to others so that they do not make the mistake of being anti-science. We need to trust the science and scientific authorities. Like The WHO

[Anonymous No.14759371]

>>14759312
Remember when the WHO said SARS-CoV-2 wasn't spreading between humans? Remember when they said for over a year that there was no evidence it was spreading via aerosols? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[Anonymous No.14759372]

>>14759367
>Nuclear power is the solution to all energy problems.
may i see your design for a highly reactive load-following fission plant?

>It is the SAFEST and CLEANEST and most EFFICIENT form of energy production.
may i see up-to-date studies on the number of young people who have been diagnosed with cancer while growing up near the saint susana field laboratory?

[Anonymous No.14759375]

>>14759371
yeah the WHO is shit. what's new?

>>14759370
i don't trust anyone except joe rogan guests, plus the tuck

[Anonymous No.14759386]

>>14759372
>muh fission!!!
>muh random place had radiation therefore nuclear power is BAD!
>there are STILL people against nuclear power
How??? How are people THIS STUPID? No wonder we cannot make progress. Nuclear energy is OBVIOUSLY the correct path, but retards that suck fear cum out of the medias dick prevents us from actually solving problems. Instead we need to babysit brown people. So fucking sick of your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14759400]

>>14759386
not an argument

>>muh fission!!!
yes. reactors can't load-follow well enough to provide 100% of energy. only the baseload.

>>muh random place had radiation therefore nuclear power is BAD!
the average nuclear shill drones on about how nuclear is so safe, but it appears that most of the health problems caused by the nuclear industry don't even get recorded as such. any claims of safety are based on extremely incomplete information.

>How??? How are people THIS STUPID?
yes i often think that about nuclear shills

>Nuclear energy is OBVIOUSLY the correct path
it has its place as a baseload and existing plants should be kept indefinitely, but the high levelized cost means new plants are simply not worth it unless you have a weapons programme for the reactor products.

>Instead we need to babysit brown people.
random unrelated shit shoehorned in

[Anonymous No.14759412]

>>14759400
>base load
You're complaining about TOO MUCH energy? Just pump water back into a reservoir, or use batteries, or use newer nuclear reactor designs. What a stupid complaint. Reliability of power is extremely important.

>nuclear "industry"
There are literally dozens of nuclear power plants that have been running for years with basically no problem. Complaining about accidents or negligence is not an argument against nuclear.

>nuclear shill
You're a fucking IDIOT. Also evil and a liar. Pathetic human shit.

>has its place as a base load
Then why the fuck did you complain earlier??? Maybe we should make NEW power plants instead of basing everything off 30 year old fucking designs?

>herp derp
Yea, you're a piece of shit, we know.

[Anonymous No.14759419]

>>14759412
what, you don't understand what baseload means? i don't see how someone can be so enthusiastic about a power source when he clearly doesn't know much about power generation

>Also evil and a liar. Pathetic human shit.
you are oddly emotionally invested in a very expensive power source

[Anonymous No.14759421]

>>14757244
>If your metric for not changing something is that you don't think it will kill you in the next few years then you can safely ignore climate
Retard take

[Anonymous No.14759425]

>>14759419
Yea, Im fucking mad because people are scared of dumb shit and it has cost humanity dearly. Instead of funding new nuclear power plants, we spend it on fucking wind turbines and solar panels while oil and coal power plants just buy "carbon credits" and pretend everything is ok.
I'm tired of fear, Im tired of scams, I'm tired of ignorance, I'm tired of propaganda, I'm tired of waste.
BUILD THE FUCKING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IDIOTS!

[Anonymous No.14759427]

>>14759412
>Just pump water back into a reservoir, or use [other means of storage]
We do this with much cheaper wind and solar (subsidies accounted for).

[Anonymous No.14759434]

>>14759427
>much cheaper wind and solar (subsidies accounted for).
Still pumping out these fucking lies. The propaganda has really destroyed peoples brains when it comes to power generation. Nuclear "costs a lot" because they intentionally make it cost more through bad contracts, intentionally mismanagement, demanding ever changing standards, with the goal to divert nuclear funds into "green" projects instead because they are more profitable (for those in charge). The problem with nuclear is it makes power TOO CHEAP and so its not as profitable as literal fucking scams.

[Anonymous No.14759438]

>>14759434
Where's your proof of a conspiracy to "make it cost more through bad contracts, intentionally mismanagement, demanding ever changing standards"?

[Anonymous No.14759446]

>>14759438
>conspiracy
https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/us-attorney-details-illegal-acts-at-construction-projects-sealing-the-fate-of-the-nuclear-renaissance/
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rosatom-seeks-compensation-for-cancelled-Finland-p
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-germany-nuclear-shutdown-story-82051054
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-rescind-license-extension-florida-nuclear-plant-83097203
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more

Thats not even all of them. Gotta shill GREEN SHIT for that yummy SCAM MONEY! Fuck you dumb lying shill.

[Anonymous No.14759459]

>>14759446
This isn't proof of a conspiracy to be meanies to nuclear power. Anyway, your butthurt is not my problem. Wind chads just can't stop winning.

[Anonymous No.14759469]

>>14759459
>there is no proof that exists that can convince me of my current views
ok, glad we cleared that up

[Anonymous No.14759519]

>>14759361
>Therefore natural immunity from infection is inferior.
Doesn't follow. You just took a statement out of context even though your image gives the context. It's saying vaccination after infection is stronger than immunity from infection alone.

[Anonymous No.14759536]

>>14759368
>They are sometimes used as antivirals.
In general they are not. You're nitpicking.

>Studies of other viruses including influenza.
So you have no clue what's likely for COVID.

>I'm not in the mood to dig up the paper now, but there was a lot of early evidence pointing to HCQ being beneficial
You said it "just came out." Now you're backtracking. There was some evidence early on but it turned out to be a fraudulent study. All other evidence showed HCQ was effective... in populations with parasitic worms.

>Here's an article from November 2011, 2020
This is a study saying makes do protect the wearer. Thanks for conceding this is a fact. So you can't give any example of scientists saying masks don't protect the wearer?

>All evidence? Really?
Yes.

>Your article provides nothing except that Wuhan appears to be the origin
No. Read it again.

>The fact remains that well before we knew anything about the origin, any discussion other than natural origin was stifled.
So stifled that the WHO said all possibilities should be investigated. Wow, stifled.

You have nothing.

[Anonymous No.14759604]

>>14759536
>In general they are not. You're nitpicking.
It's not nitpicking, they're flat out wrong, and they're either lying or ignorant. Neither is a good scenario.

>So you have no clue what's likely for COVID.
Actually I do have a clue what's likely for COVID since it holds firm for other viral respiratory infections, but I don't have evidence directly for SARS-CoV-2. Neither do they. Had they said "undetermined" I would have been fine with it. Unless you can point me to a nutritional study showing diet doesn't matter when it comes to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19?

>Now you're backtracking.
Jesus christ, and you call me a nitpicker. A meta analysis did just come out, but I don't feel the need to go searching for studies when my only point was that they clearly had an agenda with their line of questioning.

>All other evidence showed HCQ was effective... in populations with parasitic worms.
You're now mixing up horse paste and HCQ.

>This is a study saying makes do protect the wearer. Thanks for conceding this is a fact.
It's a study showing the CDC's change in stance, after spending the middle of 2020 claiming masks don't protect the wearer, after claiming early in 2020 that masks don't work at all.

>So you can't give any example of scientists saying masks don't protect the wearer?
So you didn't click the link? Another:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses
>When the CDC first recommended that Americans wear cloth face coverings back in April, it cited evidence that the coronavirus could be transmitted by asymptomatic people who might not be aware of their infectiousness – a group estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions. The agency said masks were intended to block virus-laden particles that might be emitted by an infected person.

>No. Read it again.
I did, and they found nothing definitive and then tried to make it sound definitive.

[Anonymous No.14759614]

>>14759536
>So stifled that the WHO said all possibilities should be investigated. Wow, stifled.
Heh, not very good at tracking history, are you?

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-world-news-health-science-coronavirus-pandemic-c0c594f9060f676c0ea48c2d1c69daec
>The head of the World Health Organization acknowledged it was premature to rule out a potential link between the COVID-19 pandemic and a laboratory leak, and he said Thursday he is asking China to be more transparent as scientists search for the origins of the coronavirus.

Nice of him to come around, too bad it was July, 2021 by that point, a year and a half for evidence to be destroyed. And I'm not saying it was a lab leak, I'm saying we'll never know because it took more than 18 months for anyone to seriously investigate the situation.

[Anonymous No.14759618]

>>14759604
>So you can't give any example of scientists saying masks don't protect the wearer?
And here's a direct example:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/09/08/source-control/
>Source Control: Unlike respirators, masks are not designed to reduce the particles that the wearer will inhale and are not evaluated by NIOSH for their effectiveness to protect the wearer from airborne hazards. While there are many different mask designs available, they typically do not form the necessary seal against the wearer’s skin or have the appropriate level of filtration. Additionally, a typical mask wearer, outside of an occupational respiratory protection program, does not undergo fit testing to ensure an adequate level of protection. Therefore, while filtering facepiece respirators can be used as a type of source control (except those that have an exhalation valve in certain occupational settings), a mask should not be used as a respirator.

>The purpose of wearing masks is to help reduce the spread of COVID-19 by reducing the spread of the virus through respiratory droplets from asymptomatic individuals. Masks are recommended as a barrier to help prevent large respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. Emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies shows that masks help reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. Together with social distancing, masks are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings.

[Anonymous No.14759620]

>>14759618
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.14759628]

>>14759536
BTW, I want to thank you for helping me to make my point. You're claiming nitpicking, and we're talking about nuance for several of the different questions, which goes to show a simple true or false is terribly inadequate. The "correct" answer is pretty much arbitrary, but their questions were clearly designed to have one answer they deemed correct. IE, if someone says antibiotics kill viruses, they'll paint them as ignorant hicks listening to antivax morons, missing the nuance that antibiotics like macroglides and doxycycline have been used for other viral infections due to their 1. antiviral properties, 2. anti-inflammatory properties, and 3. defense against secondary bacterial infection. So there's the possibility the respondent really doesn't understand the difference between viruses and bacteria, and there's also the possibility the respondent knows chemicals often have multiple modes of action and that claiming antibiotics do nothing but kill bacteria is far too narrowly defined.

[Anonymous No.14759630]

>>14759620
>masks are not designed to reduce the particles that the wearer will inhale
>but they'll totally stop viruses!!!!
I'm sure that's what they meant, yeah?

[Anonymous No.14759749]

>>14758964
god dammit lmao

[Anonymous No.14759966]

>>14759604
>It's not nitpicking, they're flat out wrong
You don't know what flat out means. They are generally correct that antibiotics are for microorganisms and antivirals are for viruses. That some medicines can be both doesn't change this.

>Actually I do have a clue what's likely for COVID since it holds firm for other viral respiratory infections
So you don't.

>Jesus christ, and you call me a nitpicker.
How exactly is it nitpicking when you said a study saying HCQ cures COVID just came out and not only did one not just come out, you can't even give me any? You just make shit up.

>It's a study showing the CDC's change in stance
Where? You're making shit up.

>So you didn't click the link?
I did. You're making shit up.

>Another
Another non-example of scientists saying masks don't protect the wearer. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14759968]

>>14759614
>Heh, not very good at tracking history, are you?
Why would you say that and then give a link that says exactly what I just said? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

[Anonymous No.14759975]

>>14759618
This actually says respirators and masks do both, each is just designed for blocking different directions.

>Preliminary data suggests that the outward leakage from exhalation valves is less than or comparable to that of many devices being used for source control (e.g., cloth masks, bandanas, surgical masks)

[Anonymous No.14759989]

>>14759628
>You're claiming nitpicking, and we're talking about nuance for several of the different questions, which goes to show a simple true or false is terribly inadequate.
It actually shows that the true or false answers are adequate, since all you can do is nitpick instead of refute them.

>The "correct" answer is pretty much arbitrary
LOL, no.

>if someone says antibiotics kill viruses, they'll paint them as ignorant hicks listening to antivax morons
And they would be correct, because in general they don't. Any rational person would not interpret "antibiotics kill viruses" as "a few examples of antibiotics are also antivirals." Nitpicking.

[Anonymous No.14760457]

>>14759630
t. Illiterate ESL