This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
The point is that popular journalism is a lousy source for building a substantial argument. More popular journalism doesn't change that. In fact it gives persons prone to selection bias more room to cherry pick what they like.
No one is preventing Redfield from writing an extended essay on Substack at the very minimum and he has the pull to do a lot better than that even if it's short of a review article in Nature or some such journal. Unfortunately actual science is hard, doesn't generally pay all that well, and he's probably going to have a hard time supporting his argument absent data of which I'm unaware.
Unfortunately what makes money (clicks) is usually what's compelling to the under-informed (i.e. dramatized, cherry picked, grand claims, "secret knowledge")
So poorly backed drama is elevated above careful research and evidence... but still sucked up by those that have dogma to reinforce.
Switching handles isn’t going to help you any today, brother. Your world is crumbling. Embrace it. 👍
Wow, thank you! This post makes you immediately credible by virtue of you making the post!
You asked me to provide the transcript of my “Epoch Times cut and paste,” so I did. I’m sure you weren’t expecting it or that Redfield literally said what he said for public consumption. Yet, there it is, so this is the best you have left.
Chris Cuomo hosts "CUOMO," a no-nonsense show featuring the day's most important news from all perspectives. "CUOMO" airs weeknights at 8 p.m./7C on NewsNation.
Redfield was given like three minutes in total to express his views. How much robust, corroboration can he unveil in that amount of time other than a 50,000' view? Hopefully he'll come back on. I'm sure he's reluctant as he laid it out how dissenters were silenced.
One piece of corroborating evidence would have been nice. Is one too much to ask? Perhaps it is for antivaxxers.
Hey everybody, did you know Redfield is an antivaxxer???
The point is that popular journalism is a lousy source for building a substantial argument. More popular journalism doesn't change that. In fact it gives persons prone to selection bias more room to cherry pick what they like.
No one is preventing Redfield from writing an extended essay on Substack at the very minimum and he has the pull to do a lot better than that even if it's short of a review article in Nature or some such journal. Unfortunately actual science is hard, doesn't generally pay all that well, and he's probably going to have a hard time supporting his argument absent data of which I'm unaware.
This is incredulous. Guy has his MD from a very credible institution, has worked at the highest levels of government science and research, and is a clinician to boot, and he’s literally giving you a summary of his clinical experience and his time as head of the CDC. But we should listen to you. Or, more significantly, Harambro. Lol.
I’m fine with Redfield providing more evidence for his views, but that doesn’t make his views incorrect or his clinical experience not valid. The CDC is quite political, and scientists are very fallible people. I’m guessing you have yet to read Osler’s Web. It’s a fascinating dive into the world of long Covid, err, CFS (same thing clinically).
So, I know someone literally stole Harambe’s registered handle and deployed it on here. Do I have “data” to back it up? No. Do I know it happened. Yes, absolutely. The question is how. He’s supposed to be the smartest guy here, a real men of genius. We salute him.
Opinion != evidence.
This is science, not podcasting. Redfield is entitled to his opinion, and, given his expertise, we are all likely to listen! However, he is making claims in a domain in which there are tons of pieces of evidence. His argument simply will not be as strong as those which employ evidence-based reasoning, regardless of his credentials or years of experience.
'I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA'd but before the search starts,' Morens wrote to Daszak. 'So I think we are all safe. Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.'
'We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns,' Morens wrote in a later message. 'And if we did we wouldn't put them in emails. And if we found them we would delete them.'
Unfortunately what makes money (clicks) is usually what's compelling to the under-informed (i.e. dramatized, cherry picked, grand claims, "secret knowledge")
So poorly backed drama is elevated above careful research and evidence... but still sucked up by those that have dogma to reinforce.
Switching handles isn’t going to help you any today, brother. Your world is crumbling. Embrace it. 👍
Hey everybody, did you know Redfield is an antivaxxer???
Classic. Good one Harambro.
This was directed at you – who seems to credulously believe anything which supports your priors.
Hey, Harambro, he’s literally not a fan of the mRNA vaccines, he doesn’t think they were critical for under 50s, he thinks they can cause injury and illness, he questions your pharmacokinetic assertions, and he only likes Novavax because he’s evolved. So, according to everything you’ve ever said, he’s an antivaxxer.
Now, will I listen to him all day long before I listen to you? Yes, absolutely. He’s smarter, more experienced, has access to all the published research you’ve ever had and much you haven’t, has access to other brilliant scientists and research across the globe, and he’s a clinician, so, he doesn’t need your permission to “trust his eyes.” But, he must just be jealous for not getting credit for the vaccines😂🤦♂️. You’re ridiculous, dude.
This was directed at you – who seems to credulously believe anything which supports your priors.
Hey, Harambro, he’s literally not a fan of the mRNA vaccines, he doesn’t think they were critical for under 50s, he thinks they can cause injury and illness, he questions your pharmacokinetic assertions, and he only likes Novavax because he’s evolved. So, according to everything you’ve ever said, he’s an antivaxxer.
Now, will I listen to him all day long before I listen to you? Yes, absolutely. He’s smarter, more experienced, has access to all the published research you’ve ever had and much you haven’t, has access to other brilliant scientists and research across the globe, and he’s a clinician, so, he doesn’t need your permission to “trust his eyes.” But, he must just be jealous for not getting credit for the vaccines😂🤦♂️. You’re ridiculous, dude.
Ouch! 😂 Down goes the gorilla!. Down goes the gorilla!
This was directed at you – who seems to credulously believe anything which supports your priors.
Hey, Harambro, he’s literally not a fan of the mRNA vaccines, he doesn’t think they were critical for under 50s, he thinks they can cause injury and illness, he questions your pharmacokinetic assertions, and he only likes Novavax because he’s evolved. So, according to everything you’ve ever said, he’s an antivaxxer.
Now, will I listen to him all day long before I listen to you? Yes, absolutely. He’s smarter, more experienced, has access to all the published research you’ve ever had and much you haven’t, has access to other brilliant scientists and research across the globe, and he’s a clinician, so, he doesn’t need your permission to “trust his eyes.” But, he must just be jealous for not getting credit for the vaccines😂🤦♂️. You’re ridiculous, dude.
Yes, exactly. You like him because he parrots a few things you want to hear. He does so with no evidence. You decide to believe him simply because he makes you feel good. That's not intellectual.
