Jump to content

Semmelweis Reflex


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Uh-huh. Those conspiracy nuts over in Great Barrington . . . dancing around with their aluminum pointy hats! The legitimate scientists like in the videos I put up earlier, with Michael Yeadon, Vice President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer; Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D., Leemon McHenry, PhD, Dr John P.A. Ioannidis, Dr. Judy Mikovits and Robert Kennedy Jr, founder of the Children's Health Defense - these aren't conspiracy nuts. 

 

Do you actually read your own sources? Statement retrieved from the website YOU cited, a 2020 statement prior to the vaccine indicates that the argument is with lockdown procedures, not vaccines:

 

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

 

From the videos you posted, my favorite was from Prof. Knut Wittkowsk 😂 who said in May, 2020, there is no indication this will get any worse than a typical flu season. 

 

I think I'm done here.  You don't even read your own "citations."  In fact you don't even know how to find legitimate sources.(Hint:  you need access to peer-reviewed journals.  You can go google what that means and then waste some time finding a quack or two out there on some blog that says all that peer-reviewed sciency-research stuff is just bullshit). 

Let the name calling and hurling of insults begin . . . .

Peace!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, freshstart said:

So . . . .what does the "stupid" holocaust have to do with vaccines?  Please tell me you're not one of the lunatics that denies the holocaust happened.  I'm beginning to think give you might have a mental illness.  That is not meant to be an insult, by the way.  It just means if you subscribe to every conspiracy theory out there, you might want to consider why you are so impressionable. 

I really am starting to feel a little sorry for him. What if he's impaired in some way I'm not aware of? It's becoming clear that he has some very real mental issues. Having finally lost all credibility here (Holocaust denier, 911 denier, etc.) he is begging to get banned, and I'm more and more inclined to let him off the hook he so painstakingly crafted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, florduh said:

I really am starting to feel a little sorry for him. What if he's impaired in some way I'm not aware of? It's becoming clear that he has some very real mental issues. Having finally lost all credibility here (Holocaust denier, 911 denier, etc.) he is begging to get banned, and I'm more and more inclined to let him off the hook he so painstakingly crafted.

It is interesting. In principle, I agree with some ideas. -Examine things from official sources, be skeptical of grand org, try to be independent, etc.

     What I think, though, is that he leans so hard on the self in "self" reliance is it becomes a sort of self-worship. Unquestioning obedience to outside authority becomes unquestioning obedience to inside authority -own's mind. I het he says he reads, he researches, etc but the ultimate arbitrer, from hisown posts seems to be his own mind. Maybe I am wrong here in my assesment. 

     By the, this ehat I find interesting about true believers in q anon style of consp theory. Radical skepticism of authority is often coupled with radical credulidity about inside authority.

     Semi, while I share a level of skepticism of official sources I think you are over confident in your ability to understand stuff. Do not take this personally.

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another version of Semmel on my Facebook page. Quite dogmatic about Q conspiracy shit, people who didnt vote for a certain candidate are "insane" and ... she is evangelical Christian. Christianity is a gateway drug to conspiracy theory. Or maybe vice versa. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

It is interesting. In principle, I agree with some ideas. -Examine things from official sources, be skeptical of grand org, try to be independent, etc.

     What I think, though, is that he leans so hard on the self in "self" reliance is it becomes a sort of self-worship. Unquestioning obedience to outside authority becomes unquestioning obedience to inside authority -own's mind. I het he says he reads, he researches, etc but the ultimate arbitrer, from hisown posts seems to be his own mind. Maybe I am wrong here in my assesment. 

     By the, this ehat I find interesting about true believers in q anon style of consp theory. Radical skepticism of authority is often coupled with radical credulidity about inside authority.

     Semi, while I share a level of skepticism of official sources I think you are over confident in your ability to understand stuff. Do not take this personally.

     

 

Radical credulity is a great term. And so is radical skepticism of authority. The radical or extreme level points to a touch of paranoia, imo. 

 

And the problem with over confidence in one's ability is 'experts' have more natural talent along with education. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This disdainful term "conspiracy nuts" or "conspiracy theory" has certainly become popular in the past few years.

 

Anyone with any knowledge of history can see that there certainly are conspiracies... in government, in various secret societies, throughout the range of human affairs. Which are of any consequence or importance is another matter, but human beings have always engaged in various conspiracies.

 

How else would you describe the Vatican?

Anyone here familiar with the International Monetary Fund?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

This disdainful term "conspiracy nuts" or "conspiracy theory" has certainly become popular in the past few years.

 

Anyone with any knowledge of history can see that there certainly are conspiracies... in government, in various secret societies, throughout the range of human affairs. Which are of any consequence or importance is another matter, but human beings have always engaged in various conspiracies.

 

How else would you describe the Vatican?

Anyone here familiar with the International Monetary Fund?

 

I think "conspiracy theory" refers mostly to evidence free, over the top scenarios like lizard ppl.

     Granted, it is used as a weapon in public discourse to discredit. But most everything can be weaponised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

And the problem with over confidence in one's ability is 'experts' have more natural talent along with education. 

 

 

 

 

Idk about natural talent though :)) And it depends on the education. Sometimes, the more educated you are, the more you can rationalise and cover mistakes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Since we are largely in agreement, I will only add a few further remarks here.

 

Okay, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Yes, the literal cause of death is covid.  If you do not believe ignorance and arrogance were major contributors to the intensity of the literal cause of death, I'll say no more to convince you.

Yeah, but that ignorance and arrogance goes around from truck drivers to presidents to CIA officials to WHO. I don t think the "experts" are immune from it. At all.

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

It is not elitism to point out that people with little to no proper understanding of basic oral hygiene should not be in a position to determine, even for themselves, what does or does not constitute proper PPE during a pandemic.  Hell, it's not even smug.  It's just brutal honesty.

Yeah well, the tone was kind of smug :), plus it is the job of the experts to educate people not just force them. That is the downside of democracy and freedom, but I prefer it to a dictorship of "experts"

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Yes.  Both of these examples were intended more to spotlight the collective ignorance of humanity than to reflect any real life scenarios. 

 

On this, we agree.  On need only visit Warm Spings, Georgia to see the truth of this in real life.  Warm Springs was once home to the world's foremost leading center for the treatment of polio.  President Roosevelt (Frank, not Teddy) has a home there.  World-renowned researchers and scientists jockeyed for positions.  It is now practically a ghost town, barely kept alive by revenue from tourism. 

 

This raises the question: is a cure really a good thing?  I spent 4 years working with Provenge, the first parient-specific prostate cancer immunotherapy approved by the FDA.  For me, it was just amazing science; but not a cure.  When I think of my uncle, who died of prostate cancer, I think a cure would have been a good thing.  It would have saved my family a lot of heartache and disruption.  On the other hand, when I think of so many of my friends and former colleagues losing their jobs, along with their health insurance, tenure, and security, I'm not so sure about it.  Cure cancer and the patient will still die from something else.  It's not just about the money the CEOs and shareholders earn; it's also how Ms. Kristen could afford ballet lessons for her daughter.  Just something to consider.  

At first, this point viscerally made me angry. I will say this about it. If instead of finding a cure you will give a treatment so you can pay for your elevated lifestyle, I consider this a clear sign of the brokenness of the medical system, deeply immoral and unbecoming of the ethical standards for a medical professional. By doing this you deserve not only my mistrust but my active opposition. It is exploitation of the ugliest degree in my mind and evidence of the way financial incentives hijack medical science and science in general.

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Again, something we agree on and a point i would have brought up in my earlier post, had time permitted.  In this particular case, I'd happily listen to what both of these fellows had to say.  The idea of qualifications is not an exact science. 

 

As an example, there are certain tests and assays that I have been running in labs for more than 10 years.  I know these assays inside and out.  I can program, calibrate, and troubleshoot the instruments on which they are run.  I've even written several protocols for running them; and trained a few dozen other people on running them. In every conceivable regard, I am a fully qualified "expert."  But, I can't run these assays in a hospital simply because I don't have a certificate that says, "MLT."  

 

So, what does it mean to be "qualified"?  Is Fauci the most qualified person for his position in this pandemic?  Are there others who might have been more qualified, or done a better job?  The facts are: Fauci is the person in his position and we'll never know if somebody else would have done better.  Sometimes we just have to work with what we have.  

Yeah, so defining expertise is not easy :)

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Again, I agree.  There is going to be corruption and exploitation in any large organization.  But I don't see extending that out into mistrust, necessarily.  Sure, one should always question the other's motivation, whether the other is a traveling vacuum salesman or a high ranking official in a secret society bent on covertly manipulating the price of lollipops.  What incentive does the WHO have to pretend the pandemic is worse than it really is?  Why would they be motivated to recommend a mask if they didn't know, based on a profound understanding of immunology, epidemiology, and historical data, that it was the safest course of action.  Now, if you have evidence that Dr. Fauci gets a nickel every time somebody wears a mask, I'd be happy to change my stance.  But I think there is a difference between taking things with a grain of salt versus taking things with a gram of cynicism. 

I think it does warrant mistrust. If someone from the Mafia comes and offered me one million dollars, no strings attached, I immediately suspect something is off. I don't need evidence for this instance, but the guy is a mobster so he does not deserve the presumption of innocence in this personal relationship. And yes, I think states are as corrupt as the Mafia, in many ways. Yes, pharma industry probably kills more people than organised crine through price gouging in the US. 

      I was not talking about the severity of the pandemic is on discussion,but the handling of measures is also there. The framing of it, etc. 

     By the way, in my opinion, I mostly trust yaneer bar yam and his zerocovid strategy Look it up. It proposed DRASTIC lockdowns, coupled with masks, contact tracing, ventilation, and quarantine, and (free)massive testing, plus govt direct support to people. I am not in any way an antirestrictionist :). The probl with the idea of mr yaneer is that well, rich people would lose too much money and the state would have to go into war mode and direct intervention. This would have stop the spread sooner :). Plus reducing the risks of variants, which widespread vaccination could produce.

       So, yes, I don't need present evidence for misconduct. Past misconduct is enough to warrant suspicion. You may think this is cynicism. I may say you are naive.

On 6/29/2021 at 7:20 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There is some science to that.

 

This, I think, is the real take-away message, for both of us.

Well, yes, I will stop this discussion here as I have my made my points clear, I think. More would just warrant concrete examples, but this was not about that, from my part, but a discussion of principles. Which I hope I made clear. 

     Maybe this boils down to me being considerably more skeptical of human nature than you :). And oh boy one can find plenty of evidence for that! :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 6/30/2021 at 6:36 PM, SemmelweisReflex said:

I'm not interested in conspiracy. I'm aware that this is an ex-christian website. You are not happy to oblige the discussion of jesus and I've already found someplace else to go. I never start on one without the next prepared. 

 

I was getting ready to leave for the holiday and didn't see this one. 

 

So SR is some sort of internet gypsy setting up camp from place to place, making his rounds? Coming in hot at each location with self fulfilling prophetic claims each time? Preparing ahead to jump ship and start trolling someone new?

 

What an honorable person........

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

So SR is some sort of internet gypsy setting up camp from place to place, making his rounds?

You give gypsies a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 4:07 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

I was getting ready to leave for the holiday and didn't see this one. 

 

So SR is some sort of internet gypsy setting up camp from place to place, making his rounds? Coming in hot at each location with self fulfilling prophetic claims each time? Preparing ahead to jump ship and start trolling someone new?

 

What an honorable person........

 

He knows ahead of time that nobody is going to accept his nonsense yet he spews it anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I almost hate to revive this counter productive thread. But Mr. Reflex made a remark concerning what I had said about Bart Ehrman. At the time I had assumed Prof. Ehrman had become fluent in the ancient languages the original texts were written in to base his work on.

 

Semmelweis told me something to the effect that Bart only cross-referenced with Greek to English dictionaries etc. Well I didn't know for sure at the time so I didn't say much to counter him. 

 

But I assumed correctly. Prof. Ehrman does know the ancient languages and can read the original texts. I heard it from the horses mouth while watching one of his debates. 

 

Just thought I would clear that misconception up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.