Nope, it’s about not immediately ostracizing, silencing, censoring, and alienating, all of which happened from the get go. Emails were destroyed and the former head of the CDC was not allowed to participate in group calls because of his dissent. None of this “legitimate debate.” Liberals, like you, undermined public health policy through censorship and engineering the narrative and got Trump re-elected. Kudos.
People can decide for themselves instead of reading your incessant diarreah as the final word.
You seem to think there should be no professional repercussions for being openly wrong and dumb.
If my employees starts going off with an ill-supported contrarian view on a subject central to our line of work, I’m going to think less of them and take away responsibility.
You are correct there are professional consequence for public behavior that calls into question your competency.
Again, these are known risks of being contrarian. People who stridently believe in the importance of their views tend not to mind - they understand convincing will take time.
People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling.
Again, when you participate in an immediate takedown, immediate, without allowing scientists and doctors to marinate on a hypothesis, you are engaging in censorship and partisanship. We could be simply talking about lab leak here. When you back channel and destroy emails, then you’ve undermined every ounce of credibility and integrity you might have otherwise had. This is your team than did this. I’ll leave it to the experts, not a message board narcissist who also engages in censorship and merely likes to hear himself talk.
Why do you think anyone cares what you could “read?” But, since you myopically focused on just GBD, this is for you, though I hope everyone will take the time to read it. The partisanship from the left (you) and Establishment was there from the very beginning, undermining Monkeys’ and your points. Collins, in particular, engineered the takedown of GBD and ostracization of its authors, but, certainly it wasnt limited to GBD. Lab leak, natural immunity, etc. Concerted effort to silence legitimate scientific dissent.
Says the guy who tattled to the mods because someone hurt his feelings.
Lol, he was also the original stealer of handles.
Its fine. It’s hilarious to watch this guy expend so much time and energy convincing absolutely nobody of anything. But at least he gets to tell everyone how gosh darn smart he is and how right he is. Poor guy’s mom f’d him up.
You seem to think there should be no professional repercussions for being openly wrong and dumb.
If my employees starts going off with an ill-supported contrarian view on a subject central to our line of work, I’m going to think less of them and take away responsibility.
You are correct there are professional consequence for public behavior that calls into question your competency.
Again, these are known risks of being contrarian. People who stridently believe in the importance of their views tend not to mind - they understand convincing will take time.
People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling.
Again, when you participate in an immediate takedown, immediate, without allowing scientists and doctors to marinate on a hypothesis, you are engaging in censorship and partisanship. We could be simply talking about lab leak here. When you back channel and destroy emails, then you’ve undermined every ounce of credibility and integrity you might have otherwise had. This is your team than did this. I’ll leave it to the experts, not a message board narcissist who also engages in censorship and merely likes to hear himself talk.
The GBD was immediately taken down? Which ideas were not discussed?
I think you just have an oppression fetish. You like roleplaying that your ideas don’t win out because the MAN stomps on your face … when it’s actually because they are very bad ideas.
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
This guy just replied to himself and says he has an 85 IQ. Kudos. That puts well above Harambe’s.
Nope, it’s about not immediately ostracizing, silencing, censoring, and alienating, all of which happened from the get go. Emails were destroyed and the former head of the CDC was not allowed to participate in group calls because of his dissent. None of this “legitimate debate.” Liberals, like you, undermined public health policy through censorship and engineering the narrative and got Trump re-elected. Kudos.
People can decide for themselves instead of reading your incessant diarreah as the final word.
Says the guy who tattled to the mods because someone hurt his feelings.
Lol, he was also the original stealer of handles.
Its fine. It’s hilarious to watch this guy expend so much time and energy convincing absolutely nobody of anything. But at least he gets to tell everyone how gosh darn smart he is and how right he is. Poor guy’s mom f’d him up.
So he steals people’s handles AND goes whining to the mods?
You are truly owning him here. He can’t even muster a coherent argument. He’s just bumbling along attempting to defend his indefensible position. At least he gave up on the whole Kelce, Djokovic, Woods nonsense.
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
Yes, the former head of the CDC in Dr. Robert Redfield and the current head of the NIH in Dr. Jay Bhattacharya both must have IQs of ~ 85 then and should defer to you on everything. Are you even a real doctor or just one of those phony PhDs that nobody really respects, save for you mother?
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
This guy just replied to himself and says he has an 85 IQ. Kudos. That puts well above Harambe’s.
Being unable to determine the flow of conversation puts you at ~75 IQ.
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
Yes, the former head of the CDC in Dr. Robert Redfield and the current head of the NIH in Dr. Jay Bhattacharya both must have IQs of ~ 85 then and should defer to you on everything. Are you even a real doctor or just one of those phony PhDs that nobody really respects, save for you mother?
I will forgive your poor reading comprehension.
How do Redfield (the former CDC director) and Bhattacharya (the head of the NIH) support your case that the ideas you believe in were suppressed?
You seem to think there should be no professional repercussions for being openly wrong and dumb.
If my employees starts going off with an ill-supported contrarian view on a subject central to our line of work, I’m going to think less of them and take away responsibility.
You are correct there are professional consequence for public behavior that calls into question your competency.
Again, these are known risks of being contrarian. People who stridently believe in the importance of their views tend not to mind - they understand convincing will take time.
People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling.
Again, when you participate in an immediate takedown, immediate, without allowing scientists and doctors to marinate on a hypothesis, you are engaging in censorship and partisanship. We could be simply talking about lab leak here. When you back channel and destroy emails, then you’ve undermined every ounce of credibility and integrity you might have otherwise had. This is your team than did this. I’ll leave it to the experts, not a message board narcissist who also engages in censorship and merely likes to hear himself talk.
So now you’re saying bad ideas need time to “marinate” before being refuted? Some kind of DEI for contrarian arguments?
Good logic and evidence stands on its own. Again you seem to think your position needs to be privileged against counter arguments and insulated from judgement. That’s not how science works. That’s not how reason works.
Make an argument and defend it. Don’t make an argument and then cry that people don’t immediately agree and say you’re very smart.
Science is built on critique and judgement. Often harsh critique and judgement. Ideas that can’t survive that… are not good ideas.
People that can’t survive that… should open a yoga studio or something.
People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling.
Says the ardent long covid for Novak guy. Jesus, talk about no situational awareness. You truly are that dumb.
I’m not upset and hurt that you disagree with me about tennis. In fact, I welcome the challenge (see: the last 20 pages).
Im not here crying that you aren’t giving my points a fair shake. I stand on the battlefield of ideas with my spear “reason” and my shield “rhetorical elegance” prepared eviscerate the unwashed peasant hordes.
Yes, the former head of the CDC in Dr. Robert Redfield and the current head of the NIH in Dr. Jay Bhattacharya both must have IQs of ~ 85 then and should defer to you on everything. Are you even a real doctor or just one of those phony PhDs that nobody really respects, save for you mother?
I will forgive your poor reading comprehension.
How do Redfield (the former CDC director) and Bhattacharya (the head of the NIH) support your case that the ideas you believe in were suppressed?
“My side was silenced and suppressed.”Points to a former head of the CDC and the head of the NIH
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
It’s a common logical trap:
1. Assume something to be true
2. look around, see no supporting evidence. In fact, lots of evidence against it
3. “they’re hiding the evidence”
Success in a quantitative field requires rejecting 3 and moving to “updating one’s assumed opinion.” Not a lot of people can do this.
Like look around - if your ideas were correct you’d see evidence! You can’t find or provide any evidence so your assumption is that it’s all a grand conspiracy.
This kind of thinking puts you at about ~85 IQ.
It’s a common logical trap:
1. Assume something to be true
2. look around, see no supporting evidence. In fact, lots of evidence against it
3. “they’re hiding the evidence”
Success in a quantitative field requires rejecting 3 and moving to “updating one’s assumed opinion.” Not a lot of people can do this.
Logical trap that people grow out of around age 12 normally.
I beg of everyone here not to listen to Harambe or 2600 bro. Listen to Dr. Bhattacharya, MD/PhD from Stanford and head of the NIH here. He’s summarized everything I’ve ever tried to say, and there was most certainly a cover up and an attempt to destroy evidence and alienate people. The censorship and ostracization and politicization was done early and often.
It doesn’t matter if the “science” evolved over time. No dissent was allowed from some incredibly smart people. But, the 2024 election and subsequent political appointments were a massive repudiation of Harambe/2600bro, which is not only hilarious but poetic justice. Read this.
I beg of everyone here not to listen to Harambe or 2600 bro. Listen to Dr. Bhattacharya, MD/PhD from Stanford and head of the NIH here. He’s summarized everything I’ve ever tried to say, and there was most certainly a cover up and an attempt to destroy evidence and alienate people. The censorship and ostracization and politicization was done early and often.
It doesn’t matter if the “science” evolved over time. No dissent was allowed from some incredibly smart people. But, the 2024 election and subsequent political appointments were a massive repudiation of Harambe/2600bro, which is not only hilarious but poetic justice. Read this.
What was covered up? What evidence was destroyed? Lab leak? Do you still think mRNA vaccines don’t work? You really fail to present a coherent set of believes (well even one belief) other than “Harambe wrong”
I don’t think Bhattacharyas bio says anything about what you believe? He’s a supporter of mRNA vaccines and the pharma industry. He was against vaccine mandates and in 2020 supported “herd immunity” but fell silent on that topic after the Delta waves killed 300k Americans.
Can you try to be coherent and state what positions you have and what evidence supports those positions.
I could read the GBD day one. It was all over various conservative leaning news outlets. People became famous on the back of it.
Nothing was squashed.
People said “you’re wrong and dumb” but that’s not silencing. That’s disagreement.
Why do you think anyone cares what you could “read?” But, since you myopically focused on just GBD, this is for you, though I hope everyone will take the time to read it. The partisanship from the left (you) and Establishment was there from the very beginning, undermining Monkeys’ and your points. Collins, in particular, engineered the takedown of GBD and ostracization of its authors, but, certainly it wasnt limited to GBD. Lab leak, natural immunity, etc. Concerted effort to silence legitimate scientific dissent.
The Great Barrington Declaration was essentially a policy opinion piece, not a scientific work so not really relevant to my point about a common understanding of the objective facts being necessary to informed policy debate.
Which really goes back to my point that much of alleged scientific skepticism is primarily driven by policy concerns following from inconvenient science. That is, political worldviews inform scientific worldviews more usually than the other way around.
“People who are contrarian for attention and clout are the ones -shocked- to realize people think less of low-evidence babbling“
You say this and then provide no evidence babbling. Just like always. Never willing to stand behind your tennis argument, always replying trust me just watch his play. There’s a reason people don't argue with toddlers, and it’s not because they’re afraid of losing. In your own words you are just a contrarian when it comes to tennis. No observable knowledge, no basis for arguments. Just an idiot babbling. I can’t believe you’re so low IQ to make that statement and then literally be that statement. Sad.