• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Past governments created this atmosphere by selectively declaring who "the experts" are while cancelling and silencing others of equal or greater renown in those fields. Never mind where they applied contradiction to science by stating it's "settled" by their chosen experts.

Did anyone actually believe "trust" would go up with that kind of conduct?
 
QV said:
Past governments created this atmosphere by selectively declaring who "the experts" are while cancelling and silencing others of equal or greater renown in those fields.
Click to expand...
Can you provide some examples so that I can better understand your point?
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Can you provide some examples so that I can better understand your point?
Click to expand...

In the Covid thread I posted an article from the NP that goes into detail regarding suppression of medical opinions that ran counter to the government narrative and media's part in that. I realize the C19 issue is divisive but I urge you to look into the employment history and CVs that indicates their standing (prior to C19) of those who were later silenced or cancelled.
 
QV said:
In the Covid thread I posted an article from the NP that goes into detail regarding suppression of medical opinions that ran counter to the government narrative and media's part in that. I realize the C19 issue is divisive but I urge you to look into the employment history and CVs that indicates their standing (prior to C19) of those who were later silenced or cancelled.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "suppression of medical opinions that ran counter to the consensus opinion of medical experts world wide".

Not everything the government does is a "narrative", despite what you feel about it. #factsoverfeelings
 
Lumber said:
I think you mean "suppression of medical opinions that ran counter to the consensus opinion of medical experts world wide".
Click to expand...
That was the problem. Anyone doing suppression isn't doing science; he's doing politics. Far-fetched ideas aren't ruled out of bounds; they just have the burden of proof.

It's easy to guess where the wheels come off. Authorities dealing with emergencies know their measures have to be followed; they fear that if they seem less than omniscient their measures might not be followed; they take the lazy way out to appear omniscient by suppressing discordant information. In the pandemic case, they compounded the error by clinging to the mantle of scientific method while not following it.

They should never have taken the lazy way out. The risk is that after the fact some of the discordant views will be seen to have been legitimate and correct, and some did end up in that set.
 
Brad Sallows said:
That was the problem. Anyone doing suppression isn't doing science; he's doing politics. Far-fetched ideas aren't ruled out of bounds; they just have the burden of proof.

It's easy to guess where the wheels come off. Authorities dealing with emergencies know their measures have to be followed; they fear that if they seem less than omniscient their measures might not be followed; they take the lazy way out to appear omniscient by suppressing discordant information. In the pandemic case, they compounded the error by clinging to the mantle of scientific method while not following it.

They should never have taken the lazy way out. The risk is that after the fact some of the discordant views will be seen to have been legitimate and correct, and some did end up in that set.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree.

Less deaths, but more political and academic discord following.
Or
More deaths, but less political and academic discord following.

Which option is the more ethical/pragmatic choice?
 
Lumber said:
I'm not sure I agree.

Less deaths, but more political and academic discord following.
Or
More deaths, but less political and academic discord following.

Which option is the more ethical/pragmatic choice?
Click to expand...
False dilemma. The costs of unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged measures have not been taken into account. Besides, the instant the authorities permitted widespread public protests, they vacated their position on restrictive control measures on freedoms of mobility and assembly.
 
@The Bread Guy The criteria for ASD, ADHD, etc have changed constantly over the last 20 years, with a lot of previously completely separate diagnoses merged under the same umbrella, and actual diagnoses is pretty subjective in any case as it's based on behaviour not any kind of consistent marker. It also varies widely country to country.

It's also not infrequent that a kid getting screened leads to one of the parents getting diagnosed, with similar traits in previous generations, so there is a huge genetic factor they don't understand, and it's not like adults getting diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s were neurotypical before they had that diagnoses.

They've also found in other studies that the rates of autism are slightly lower in vaccinated kids, but no one is saying there is a causal relationship between vaccines decreasing the chances of autism. Sometimes it's a coincidence, or even due to something like someone reporting they are taking tylenol during pregnancy has generally higher levels of medical support, so the kids get more screening.

These ignorant, drug addled, fake tan soaked clowns saying it's the cause is an absolute lie, and it's the same bunch that wants to add everyone on the spectrum to a list and track their genetics in some sort of eugenecists wet dream.
 
Navy_Pete said:
These ignorant, drug addled, fake tan soaked clowns saying it's the cause is an absolute lie, and it's the same bunch that wants to add everyone on the spectrum to a list and track their genetics in some sort of eugenecists wet dream.
Click to expand...
The issue stands at correlation-is-not-causation. People commonly make the leap between (on many different issues) without properly understanding the distinction. Ignorance or incomplete misunderstanding isn't an absolute lie. Assertions to the contrary will for their own part look pretty discreditable if cause is proven.
 
Brad Sallows said:
The issue stands at correlation-is-not-causation. People commonly make the leap between (on many different issues) without properly understanding the distinction. Ignorance or incomplete misunderstanding isn't an absolute lie. Assertions to the contrary will for their own part look pretty discreditable if cause is proven.
Click to expand...
They are cultivating ignorance deliberately, under a false banner of competence, which is becoming a common theme.

If Tylenol was the cause, the Amish and lots of other communities wouldn't have any incidents, and you wouldn't have historical figures from pre acetaminophen days with pretty classic ASD traits (or less noted figures that were chucked in asylums).

The same people that want to put warning labels on tylenol based on very flimsy, non causal correlations are also licensing leucovorin to treat some autism symptoms, despite not having any clinical studies on benefits/risks or even requests from pharmecautical companies to do so.

It's a combination of snake oil sales peddled under the banner of science and medicine by someone who isn't a scientist or a doctor that will likely have generational impacts for the level of misinformation. It's no different as the guy that linked vaccines to autism with falsified research, that has had no impact on reducing autism rates, but is resulting in measles, mumps and now possibly polio starting to make a comeback.
 
Navy_Pete said:
They are cultivating ignorance deliberately, under a false banner of competence, which is becoming a common theme.
Click to expand...
To judge by what comes out of politicians' mouths, ignorance about these kinds of nuances is common and in many cases not deliberate.
Navy_Pete said:
If Tylenol was the cause
Click to expand...
Correlation is not causation, and causes are not exclusive. There can be multiple causes; acetaminophen could be one. The question has been raised and ought to be investigated. Any kind of ingested chemical - drugs, alcohol, whatever - could reasonably be investigated for effects on gestating humans.
Navy_Pete said:
The same people that want to put warning labels on tylenol based on very flimsy, non causal correlations
Click to expand...
Organizations are increasingly risk averse, and the US is a very litigious country. Try to imagine what happens if the order of the day is dismissal if not denial and a causal link is established in a couple of years. Recommendations and warnings are not prohibitions.
 
I find it interesting that the study of a number of chronic conditions is revealing an underlying viral cause, for example MS. Perhaps in time we will discover that there is an underlying viral contribution to the neurodivergent spectrum, which makes far more sense to me than vaccines or Tylenol.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Longitudinal analysis reveals high prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus associated with multiple sclerosis - PubMed

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system of unknown etiology. We tested the hypothesis that MS is caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in a cohort comprising more than 10 million young adults on active duty in the US military, 955 of...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.nature.com

Epstein–Barr virus as a leading cause of multiple sclerosis: mechanisms and implications - Nature Reviews Neurology

In this Review, the authors provide an overview of the evidence indicating that multiple sclerosis is a rare complication of infection with the Epstein–Barr virus and discuss the mechanisms that could underlie this association.
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
Brad Sallows said:
False dilemma. The costs of unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged measures have not been taken into account.
Click to expand...

This is hind sight...somewhat. When faced with the dilemma, and faced with those two options, the first options appears the morally superior choice. That is, assuming, that at the onset they are unable to determine if their measures are in fact "unnecessary".

Brad Sallows said:
Besides, the instant the authorities permitted widespread public protests, they vacated their position on restrictive control measures on freedoms of mobility and assembly.
Click to expand...

100% agree. When in 2020 here in Halifax, they started allowing protests downtown (can't remember what it was about.. George Floyd/BLM?) and they didn't disperse it or arrest a single person, I lost a lot of respect for what the government was doing.
 
ModlrMike said:
80% of people who have car accidents eat cereal for breakfast. Therefore cereals cause car crashes.
Click to expand...

Not that far off.

www.grandforksherald.com

Ontario woman crashes car while eating cereal

WOODSTOCK, Ont. -- Drivers have heard it's dangerous to drive while using a cell phone. But now, police are warning about the hazards of grabbing breakfast behind the wheel. Ontario Provincial Police responded Friday to a single-vehicle crash and...
www.grandforksherald.com www.grandforksherald.com
www.gillettenewsrecord.com

Blotter: Man runs stop sign while eating cereal, causes two-car crash

CRASH
www.gillettenewsrecord.com www.gillettenewsrecord.com

Study: Most Dangerous Food & Drinks to Eat While Driving

A recent study shows that eating while driving is responsible for 80 percent of automobile accidents and 65 percent of scary “near misses”. Eating in the
www.justiceforyou.com www.justiceforyou.com

A breakfast sandwich is safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top