Belem has a tendency to forget or downplay the observation requirement of declaring something scientifically valid.
What’s the worst that could happen?
- Thread starter seminole97
- Start date
You have the habit of not knowing wtf you’re talking about and avoiding answering direct questions.
Actually, Riley and I are in the middle of a private conversation. I'm answering his questions as they come. Now, why do you not just admit that the answer to my questions are unknown and unknowable because there was literally no observer present to record any data?
So nothing existed before written records were developed?
Because that’s stupid. Like your position on most things. We know lots of things where there was no physical observer present. To suggest that we need someone physically there shows just how ignorant you are.
So you believe those things to be true but you cannot prove them. That sir is a system of belief which is not science at all.
Again, stupid. You can prove lots of things that people are not physically present to observe.
No one has physically seen an electron, so you not believe in those either?
You believe that humans were created from dirt. Where is your proof of that.
****ing hypocrite.
This is only partly true. After initially avoiding questions, again, he answered a few and then very quickly bagged out when pressed with further questioning. It was very predictable.
I have my doubts about the current iteration of the standard model of physics.
Sounds familiar, huh? I can see a couple of the board "scientist" acting like these guys.
And I’m guessing that you didn’t believe in DNA until it was photographed in 2012? Or is that suspect too?
No. We knew there was dna based on evidence- EVEN THOUGH NO ONE SAW IT. Finally in 2012 someone managed to get an real photo - and suddenly it’s real to you.
Theorizing about the beginning of the universe or the formation of the planet when the theory can never be tested, measure or confirmed...
Is not equivalent to
Hypothesizing about the existence of biological information carriers and the finding it after looking.
I like how he is too embarrassed to answer this.
They all are. Intellectual integrity on here is low.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
You keep living in a left vs right world. I'll stick to finding the truth.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
While it's a small sample size this behavior is evident by the boards "scientists".
Studies examining this problem have shown that an alarming proportion of medical literature gets the science wrong. As a 2013 study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation concluded, “To serve its interests, the industry masterfully influences evidence base production, evidence synthesis, understanding of harms issues, cost-effectiveness evaluations, clinical practice guidelines and healthcare professional education and also exerts direct influences on professional decisions and health consumers.”
One of the authors of that study was John Ioannidis, who’s been described by The Atlantic as possibly “one of the most influential scientists alive”. In a 2005 essay published in PLoS Medicine, Ioannidis wrote that, “It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” And false findings might not just be “the majority”, but could be “the vast majority”. Rather than majority expert opinion representing scientific truths, claimed findings “may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Among the numerous other problems affecting the quality of research are financial conflicts of interests and institutionalized prejudices. As Ioannidis elaborated:
As The Atlantic noted, Ioannidis has estimated that “as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed”, and “he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.”
That certainly also applies to the CDC, where corruption and conflicts of interest are an endemic problem.
The Endemic Corruption at the CDC
Perhaps the most infamous example is how the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, Julie Gerberding, left her government job to go work as president of Merck’s $5 billion global vaccine division. Merck’s CEO understandably described Gerberding as an “ideal choice”. She held that position until 2014 and currently holds the Merck job title of “Executive Vice President & Chief Patent Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health”. That is to say, the former CDC director is now in charge of Merck’s propaganda efforts. One might say she’s basically doing the same job now that she did for the CDC, but even more lucratively. Apart from her salary, in 2015, Gerberding sold shares of Merck worth over $2.3 million dollars.
A more recent example came in January 2018, when CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign after Politico reported that, after assuming leadership of the CDC on July 7, 2017, she “bought tens of thousands of dollars in new stock holdings in at least a dozen companies”—including Merck.
In August 1999, the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation into federal vaccine policy, the findings of which were reported in June 2000. As its report stated, “The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings.”
Examples of the corruption included the following:
Perhaps the most infamous example is how the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, Julie Gerberding, left her government job to go work as president of Merck’s $5 billion global vaccine division. Merck’s CEO understandably described Gerberding as an “ideal choice”. She held that position until 2014 and currently holds the Merck job title of “Executive Vice President & Chief Patent Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health”. That is to say, the former CDC director is now in charge of Merck’s propaganda efforts. One might say she’s basically doing the same job now that she did for the CDC, but even more lucratively. Apart from her salary, in 2015, Gerberding sold shares of Merck worth over $2.3 million dollars.
A more recent example came in January 2018, when CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign after Politico reported that, after assuming leadership of the CDC on July 7, 2017, she “bought tens of thousands of dollars in new stock holdings in at least a dozen companies”—including Merck.
In August 1999, the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation into federal vaccine policy, the findings of which were reported in June 2000. As its report stated, “The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings.”
Examples of the corruption included the following:
- “The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest rules to every member of its advisory committee.”
- “CDC Advisory Committee members who are not allowed to vote on certain recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest are allowed to participate in committee deliberations and advocate specific positions.”
- “The Chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee until very recently owned 600 shares of stock in Merck….”
- “Members of the CDC’s advisory Committee often fill out incomplete financial disclosure statements, and are not required to provide the missing information by CDC ethics officials.”
- “Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”
- “3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”
Yes...and line his pockets.
When he took over in the mid 80's, 11.8% of Americans suffered chronic illnesses. Today, that # has mushroomed to 54%. We are the sickest nation on earth. In every metric, your hero has failed spectacularly. In what other industry would this type of colossal calamity be tolerated? Unless of course, this is all by design.
In '75, '77, not sure exactly, Henry Gadsden (then Chairman& CEO of Merck) gave an interview to Fortune or Forbes in which he lamented his distress for only being able to sell his products to sick people. He said his desire was to get healthy people to use his drugs like Wrigley's gum. There you have it.....in '88, the vaccination schedule went into hyperdrive and they had complete immunity from lawsuits, which means Fug it! They don't give a shit about safety because you can't go after them.
On the FDA website is the package insert for every drug. That's where you will find all the chronic illnesses that have created a $500B a year market. Thank you Gadsden and Pharma for using children as poison wells in pursuit of spiking stock prices.
Just look at Purdue Pharma for a recent example. The Sacklers, for all their crimes, remain one of the wealthiest in the world.
Irony. You also left off the quotes around the word truth.
But he’s my hero. And I like a fat America. Big is beautiful.
Who’s my hero in Big Ag? Can you tell me for me?
The "truth" that humans were made from dirt into their current form and function? Where is your proof of that?
