Belem has a tendency to forget or downplay the observation requirement of declaring something scientifically valid.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have the habit of not knowing wtf you’re talking about and avoiding answering direct questions.Belem has a tendency to forget or downplay the observation requirement of declaring something scientifically valid.
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?You have the habit of not knowing wtf you’re talking about and avoiding answering direct questions.
So nothing existed before written records were developed?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?
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.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 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.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.
Again, stupid. You can prove lots of things that people are not physically present to observe.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.
You believe that humans were created from dirt. Where is your proof of that.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.
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.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?
I have my doubts about the current iteration of the standard model of physics.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?
And I’m guessing that you didn’t believe in DNA until it was photographed in 2012? Or is that suspect too?I have my doubts about the current iteration of the standard model of physics.
False equvalenceAnd 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.False equvalence
Theorizing about the beginning of the universe or the formation of the planet when the theory can never be tested, measure or confirmed...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.
And my heroes.Fauci and Gates are bio-terrorists.
I like how he is too embarrassed to answer this.Do you believe humans have evolved? Do you believe the earth is older than 5000 years? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
Holy fück.Belem has a science degree - albeit in geology - so he's a fair representation of what science has become. Mathematical possibilities based on computer models and group think to ostracize actual thinking individuals. Observable, repeatable, measurable scientifically valid results be damned because we've got 'consensus'. I weep for our future.
Doesn’t it, though?Says a lot about you then.
What is Pfauci's job?
Avoidance. You're better than that.Doesn’t it, though?
His job is to pizzagate?
They all are. Intellectual integrity on here is low.Avoidance. You're better than that.
They all are. Intellectual integrity on here is low.
The preponderance of evidence I see on conservative media and social media shows that this was an engineered virus that either escaped or was intentionally let loose.
You keep living in a left vs right world. I'll stick to finding the truth.Fixed
“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…”They all are. Intellectual integrity on here is low.
While it's a small sample size this behavior is evident by the boards "scientists".“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?”)
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.”While it's a small sample size this behavior is evident by the boards "scientists".
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.”“Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research, and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable.”
Yes. What is Pfauci's job? His mission is to what.............Am I?
Cover for pharma.Yes. What is Pfauci's job? His mission is to what.............
Yes...and line his pockets.Cover for pharma.
You keep living in a left vs right world. I'll stick to finding the truth.
But he’s my hero. And I like a fat America. Big is beautiful.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.
He wouldn't even in a direct message.I like how he is too embarrassed to answer this.
The "truth" that humans were made from dirt into their current form and function? Where is your proof of that?You keep living in a left vs right world. I'll stick to finding the truth.