"Research"

submitted by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com

top 100 commentsshow all 115
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (54 children)

[deleted]

    [–]madcow-5 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

    I noticed vaccine discussion is really similar to global warming now. Braindead normies flooded the discussion and now it has to be black and white all the time: either you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” Nut who doesn’t trust vaccines or you want all the vaccines you can get, no matter how little you need them or how rushed they were. It’s the same with global warming, you have to be on gretta’s level or you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” nut.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

    OK - where is the 'grey' area that proves SCIENCE is wrong? Consider the black and white argument for math:

    2+2 = 4

    Unless of course you want to consider the nuanced, grey, non-black and white argument about math, and assume that 2+2 does not equal 4.

    Let's say you're getting heart bypass surgery and the doctor decides that it's much too black and white an argument to attach the arterial root properly, and instead lets it bleed a bit.

    Consider neurodegenerative consequences of mad cow disease. Science notes that it can easily spread to other cows, but that's too much of a black and white argument. Leave the mad cows alone, you say. Meanwhile mad cow disease spreads across the rest of the world, so that the cows suffer extremely and then die.

    Science is not a fucking political or social choice or an opinion.

    [–]madcow-5 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

    Math and science are not the same thing lol.

    Not even remotely. Science evolves. Math goes according to its own strict rules. You just made it clear you don't have a clue what science is. You're exactly the sort of dimwit I'm talking about.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    You cannot have science without math. Did I say they were the same? Seems you're unable to respond any of the arguments and have resorted to name-calling and misdirection. Rather weak, madcow.

    [–]Zahn 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

    Science is not a fucking political or social choice

    Proceeds to declare race is a social construct, and announces 26 new genders.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Here ya go (though this too is social, not necessarily about science):

    https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders#1

    [–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    Then why are you bringing up math? You didn’t make an argument. You just demonstrated you don’t know what science is by declaring it black and white.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Do you not understand the relationship between math and science? How's this: exact sciences. Why do people argue over the exact sciences, argue over facts, argue over 'science'? Part of the reason is that there are social networks of people who want to do so. Why is this? Depending on how old you are, you might remember a time when this didn't happen, not that long ago. The policization of facts and science is one of the strangest achievements of the GOP. It's also dangerous. It's fucking up the US.

    [–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The original comment is so far over your head, it's not even funny.

    Here it is if you want to read it:

    Braindead normies flooded the discussion and now it has to be black and white all the time: either you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” Nut who doesn’t trust vaccines or you want all the vaccines you can get, no matter how little you need them or how rushed they were. It’s the same with global warming, you have to be on gretta’s level or you’re an anti “SCIENCE!” nut.

    Your kneejerk reaction to this was to claim science is black and white, like math, and I must be an anti "SCIENCE!" nut.

    You're the exact sort person I'm talking about. A guy in a suit on the television says something, and to you that's "SCIENCE!". He said it's "SCIENCE!" and the tv would never lie, therefor you think you're pro science. You're not pro science, you're pro perceived authority. That's not what science is. There's a reason I'm writing "SCIENCE!" instead of science. I shouldn't have to explain the comment in this much detail for you to understand it.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Eventually you might realize that you know what you want to say, but cannot communicate it appropriately to others. You might not learn this on Saidit. Your either/or argument still does not work. For example, one does not have to be on Gretta's level, or one would be an anti-Science nut. That's not necessarily what's happening at Saidit. Instead, there there are emotional users pushing their agendas and beliefs, much of which they learned on TheDonald, or Breitbart. Yes, this polarizes the discussion, but not in the manner that you suggest. For example, I see no "Gretta level" users on Saidit.

    [–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    For example, one does not have to be on Gretta's level, or one would be an anti-Science nut.

    My point, idiot.

    Unfortunately, neckbeards like you act as though this is the case. You immediately chimed in to say not believing "SCIENCE!" is tantamount to saying 2 + 2 isn't 4.

    You're the exact sort of dimwit I'm talking about, and you just proved this over and over.

    Nobody else here needed this explained to them so thoroughly.

    You're not pro science, in fact, you've demonstrated you don't know what it is. You're pro "SCIENCE!". In other words, you blindly believe what somebody in a suit on the television tells you, while confusing that for science.

    OK - where is the 'grey' area that proves SCIENCE is wrong? Consider the black and white argument for math:

    2+2 = 4

    Unless of course you want to consider the nuanced, grey, non-black and white argument about math,

    This was your knee-jerk response. Demonstrating my point that: if you're not on greta's level, you must be anti "SCIENCE!". As well demonstrating you think science and math are the same thing.

    [–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Holy hell, there's plenty of math involved in physiology, physics, chemistry, and medicine.

    [–]madcow-5 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    No shit there's math involved.

    That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Just because something uses math, does not mean it is math. I'm shocked I have to explain this concept.

    [–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Take a step down from that high horse, you might bust your ass.

    Science is in a constant state of evolution because we're constantly disproving theories and finding out new information that solidifies previous theories etc. I'm agreeing with that aspect of what you're saying, but the way you worded it in your argument was retarded.

    [–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    but the way you worded it in your argument was retarded.

    Which part?

    The person responded to me stating that science is black and white because math is black and white. They fundamentally don't understand what science is.

    [–]Comatoast 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm looking over the comments stream and I'm having trouble finding what I was reacting to, or rather thought I was reacting to. I might have misconstrued some of what I was reading there. Either way, I fucked up. I'm sorry for jumping your case.

    Edit: found it. I still did a dumb. Whoops.

    [–]Comatoast 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Well, when you have private companies that can fund research, the results can end up skewed to meet an agenda.

    We need research that cannot be funded for gain of anything outside of knowledge and betterment of understanding.

    [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Unfortunately the same thing happens with government research. Rigorous standards for publication are the only thing that prevents it, and certain fields, like social sciences, have basically lost all standards.

    [–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about that though. How can this be changed to where it actually benefits research vs holding it back?

    OT as hell, but did you know that there's a 3rd party group that goes between pharmaceutical companies and government funded programs like Medicare to price drugs? Look up information on prescription Nexium and price gouging, it's fucking insane what these people get away with while the general public takes the hit. All of these companies need to have strong repercussions for their actions.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    But your second line is the general requirement for the research, and was initially the principle behind land grand universities that were funded by state governments. Regulations of university research help develop an honest approach to the research, though of course regulation is also under attack by corporations and certain politicians. International funding for Pfizer and others is also regulated. Yes, corporations can try to skew the data. Thus is why government regulation and investment in educational institutions should be supported.

    [–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    We have pharmaceutical companies funding programs within universities, you can understand how that would cause a problem though, yeah? They're regulated, but they're not regulated enough by any stretch, and for them to be able to go in and fund programs in educational institutions makes me suspicious.

    [–]christnmusicreleases 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    2 infinity + 2 infinity = 1 infinity

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    IF there can be 2 infinities. (Perhaps a Rick and Morty equation.)

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

      I can't stand Thunberg or the people that prop her up, but you're not going to be called an anti-science nut for not "being on Thunberg's level". You're going to be called an anti-science nut for claiming that either 1) the earth isn't getting warmer, or 2) that human emissions aren't the primary cause, or 3) that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences. Or some variant of 1-3, all of which are well-established at this point.

      [–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

      if you claim the earth isn't getting warmer

      Which almost nobody does. But the entire left larps as though conservatives all say this.

      or that human emissions aren't the primary cause,

      Now we've just made a tremendous leap. Last I checked the jury was still out. While I personally think human activity is a driving factor, we've crossed the line of if you disagree with my claim that's disputed within the scientific community, "you're anti SCIENCE!".

      or that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences.

      Define disastrous. And again, what's this have to do with science? This is layman's conjecture and subjective. We've entered the realm of politics being labeled "SCIENCE!".

      [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

      You've disproved your own point. You're not being called anti-science for "not being on Thunberg's level", you're being called anti-science because in 2020 you're claiming the source of the warming is still ambiguous, denying the entire AGW theory in the process. Unless the last time you checked was in the 1980s, the jury definitely wasn't out on that, and your position is being called "anti-science" quite fairly.

      [–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

      okay...... This here..... Is not... science.

      This is believing what someone wearing a suit on the television says. This is nothing to do with science.

      [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

      No, none of this involves some shit from a talking head on TV.

      1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

      2) When you combust fossil fuels, CO2 is created

      3) CO2 levels have increased massively since the beginning of the industrial era

      4) The primary source of this new CO2 is combustion of fossil fuels and clearing of forests

      Tell me which of these points you think isn't well-established by science.

      [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

      You’ve never read a study in your life.

      You believe these things because someone on the tv told you to.

      That’s not science. That’s faith in perceived authority.

      [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

      You see /u/ReeferMadness, this is what an actual ad hominem looks like. Notice how he never addresses the argument, and just calls me a dum-dum instead.

      To address your assertion directly, you are wrong on all counts. I've read many papers, including some bad ones. One of my favorite bad papers is authored by Richard Lindzen, who tried to argue that just because the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that the warming trend is both real and human-caused, that doesn't mean that there is a consensus on the matter. By that same logic, the existence of Kurt Wise means there isn't a consensus among paleontologists that dinosaur fossils are tens of millions of years old. Why do I bring it up? Because Richard Lindzen is a climate "skeptic" (who just happens to get paid millions by oil companies to give talks around the world promoting AGW "skepticism"), and over the years he has made plenty of bad arguments just like this one.

      You want an example of another bad argument AGW "skeptics" make? You probably won't believe this, but just recently I had some idiot tell me I've never read a study in my life in response to being presented with extremely basic assertions about the theory of AGW and being asked which of those assertions he believes isn't supported by science.

      [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      What argument?

      How about you address mine?

      Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

      Also, there’s no ad hominem in my comment.

      [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Co2 is just harmless plant air, plants love it

      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Ya you’re an idiot if you don’t rush to be a part of an untested experimental vaccine!

      Shouldn't go for any new drugs, procedures, nothing. It takes a significant amount of time before long term effects are understood, just due to the nature of them being long term, and then even longer for that information to disseminate.

      I've mentioned a few times about cox-2 inhibitors, the second gen NSAIDs. They turned out to be no more effective than the less expensive first gen meds, and the new ones came with all sorts of nasty side effects, including death. Great example of why not to be an early adopter.

      Having said that, I am not against a covid vaccine but I would like other people -- and plenty are willing -- to go first. It won't be perfectly void of risk, but at least any really obvious problems will be noticed.

      That'll probably work out better anyways since we don't have enough supply of the vaccine for everyone anyways.

      [–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This meme isn't just about COVID-19 vaccines, though; you can have genuine concerns about a vaccine that has been developed as quickly as possible. That being said, the anti-vax movement has always been based on shit research.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]bobbobbybob 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        The science behind the MRNA vaccine is pretty well understood and considered very safe.

        Name another mRNA vaccine

        [–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I was speaking to a virologist friend of mine who's been publish plenty, and a MD colleague of his the other week. He's super pro lockdown and left wing, but he still said you generally don't want to be in the first round of things like a vaccine, you want them to work out the kinks. Like updating your OS, you want to give it a couple months for them to work out all all the bugs, then install it.

        As far as I understand, this vaccine's high risk because we really don't know shit about it compared to most which are developed for years before being released.

        Was also told if you're not in the at risk demographics, you basically wont have to worry about the first round, as you wont be able to get it yet. I'm 32 and they straight up told me with confidence in their voice, they're not going to let you get it for a while.

        [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Ya you’re an idiot if you don’t rush to be a part of an untested experimental vaccine!

        This meme isn't about the COVID-19 vaccine specifically, it's about vaccinations in general. If your genuine concern is the rushed nature of the vaccine, then that's fair. But, there were plenty of anti-vaxxers even before COVID-19 was a thing, and this was despite those other vaccines having gone through extensive testing before being released. It's the people opposed to those vaccines that would be doing their "research" on the shitter.

        [–]icebong 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

        They aren't happy that this site has less propaganda then reddit.

        Also 6 months of research when usually it takes on average decades to develop a new drug is the joke. What other drugs took less then 6 months of testing before being forced on the world?

        [–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        This site has like 50 active users. They’ll worry when we have some influence.

        [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Yeah, I usually only come on here to hang out on /s/GenderCritical and /s/LGBDropTheT, but I can't help but notice that a lot of the rest of you are paranoid & self-important as hell. Believing that someone would actually pay anyone to try to sway opinion on this site that's only used by a handful of people, many of whom are heavily invested in their fringe views already laughed at by the mainstream (young earth creationism, anti-vax shit, etc), is just ridiculous.

        [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        You’re saying “you” while in agreement with my comment. Comes across weird. Also, I’ve only been here for a few months.

        [–]Bowiebow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The UK government said in a debate yesterday its due to the various stages of trails all beginning at the same time and running in parallel. Still is too short to understand long term effects e.g fertility

        [–]Velocity 11 insightful - 7 fun11 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

        Low quality shit post.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        How insightful of you.

        /s

        [–]Velocity 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        Must be the new sock puppet troll. Creativity was never a strong point for you.

        [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        "Low quality shit post" = meme that makes me uncomfortable

        [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        This meme belongs in the toilet.

        [–]Canbot 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (21 children)

        If you think pharma company studies on their own vaccines is trustworthy you are hopeless. Even the CDC refuses to do a comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. All independent research shows higher instances of autism, allergies, and auto immune diseases. As to why vaccines cause these things to be more likely is speculative. But to claim that the research disproves it is an outright lie.

        [–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

        All independent research shows

        Care to quote your source on this?

        [–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        if i could be bothered, i'd dig up the correlation study that shows that result. It was dismissed as being 'only correlation', when vaccine efficacy is only quantified using correlation. You'd find it in snopes.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Let me Google that for you:

        https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/04/05/vaccine-wars-social-media-battle-outbreak-of-bogus-claims/

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

        Canbot's argument seems to be a influenced by anti-vax talking points, which have no basis in reality or science. I know someone who believes in the anti-vax arguments, but the articles she sends me are all nonsense, without any evidence that can be corroborated. She will not be deterred from her beliefs, however, and will continue to send me these articles. It's insane, and it predates Trump. Groups that push this pseudo-science nonsense are harming people.

        [–]ReeferMadness 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

        influenced by anti-vax talking points

        This is an ad hominem. Instead of addressing the argument you are making the blanket statement that it must be wrong because of the source. That is ignorant.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        independent research shows higher instances of autism, allergies, and auto immune diseases

        You're not paying attention. Canbot noted "independent research shows higher instances of autism, allergies, and auto immune diseases," which is almost a cut and paste from the anti-vax consipracy playbook, and is not corroborated in scientific research. Which part of this argument do you not understand? Canbot said something that is not supported corroborated by scienticfic research. I noted that it's not corrobotated by scientific ressearch. Is that clear?

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        All you did was repeat the claim that it must be wrong because of the source. Repeating it 5 times does not make it any less stupid.

        and is not corroborated in scientific research.

        All research is scientific research even if it comes from non authority figures. Unless canbot is lying and there is no independent study, whatever they are talking about IS scientific research.

        You are simply making the baseless claim that they are wrong because their evidence is not something you recognize because it does not come from a source that you call "scientific research" and it just so happens that nothing that proves you wrong will ever be considered scientific research by you. This is ignorant AF.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

        OMFG, ReeferMadness, this:

        "All research is scientific research even if it comes from non authority figures."

        Is not true. And this:

        "...whatever they are talking about IS scientific research."

        Is not true.

        Do you understand why those statements are not true?

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        So if two identical studies are done the thing that determines which one is science is who did the research? Do you understand that this is illogical?

        Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        No - that's not true. And the best way to avoid the interference of authoritarian or more powerful influences is to have a democracy support the science of the research. Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.

        Science is supported by the scientific method, and must be supported by rigorous attempts to negate the hypothesis. The least refutable evidence is the scientific result.

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        You literally just contradicted yourself.

        Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.

        That is exactly what IS happening and you are the fool enforcing it by denying unapproved science. It doesn't matter who does the science as long as it follows the scientific method and is sound in its execution.

        You literally made the opposite claim, that it is not science, not because the scientific method wasn't followed, but because it wasn't done by oligarchy approved scientists.

        As of right now no study has been provided, either for or against the correlation hypothesis. But I suspect even if one is provided you will deny it anyway. Facts be damned.

        [–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Alright, I have questions about this, and please keep in mind that I'm not antivaxx, I'm just deeply disconcerted by the time the Covid-19 vaccine has been researched.

        Alright, food for thought here and I'm talking hypotheticals to clarify: when looking at the data taken from research papers, it's easy enough to see the direct information noted in the results of the study and looking at the data to see how the researchers came to their conclusions. So it says within the results that by looking at X particular criteria, they could determine no correlation between Y and Z. I think that the problem comes in when we're not looking at a complete picture. Let's say that a girl in her teens receives Y and starts having side effects. It's not necessarily clear that Y caused it directly, but could Y have actually caused Z in a roundabout way by creating a domino effect to another bodily process? A lot of things are missed this way even in diagnosing illnesses, so I could see it being an issue.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Actually - I think that's true. It's often difficult to isolate the cause of a side effect. Drug manuals have so many side effects listed perhaps for legal reasons, though also to admit that there is a small percentage of the test group that will have horribly adverse effects. Antidepressants are for example famous for having the side effect of depression and death. Thus concerns about potential side effects of vaccines are understandable in this context of drug side effects. Do they cause autism? I've seen no reliable report that can connect autism to vaccines (though I've received reports from a friend who believes this). Is it too early to know what will happen with the COVID vaccine? I am not sure. Vaccine research has come a long way in the past century, solving a number of epidemics and pandemics. Hundreds of people are tested in the trials, which have to show very good results to be accepted. The trials lasted several months. I was invited to be in a couple of them (and did not reply). So, yes, using basic logic, we know that there will be prolems. But the history of vaccine research and trials also offers reliable evidence.

        [–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        This is not an ad hominem. How is it that the tards on this site can't even understand a handful of basic terms even when they're referenced all the time. An ad hominem is an attack on the character of the one making the argument.

        That aside, even "anti-vax" could be replaced with any other group, and it's still just an observation that you're repeating often-used lines by that particular group. It's only with the tacit acknowledgement that most people (correctly) think of anti-vaxxers as conspiratorial anti-science quacks that the phrase can be interpreted as some kind of attack.

        [–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Calling someone a conspiracy theorist as an argument is attacking the speaker instead of the argument. What part of that don't you understand?

        [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050312120925344

        [–]zyxzevn 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        The reverse is true.

        Real experts on vax are often against vaccinations, because they need to weight off against the risks.
        The experts are more anti-vax than you may think.
        If they did actually read the science reports, which they often do not.

        [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

        What’s your field of study/work? Really curious to see how nice your glass house is.

        Have you ever written/conducted a study? I have. Are you certified by your state to conduct Human Trials/Research after receiving permission from an IRB? I am.

        There are a lot of educated users here who are smarter than you think. And have done more with their lives, than you’d think. I can name a few users off the top of my head but it isn’t my place to do so.

        [–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        I've been published, and my work referenced in Nature articles.

        Wouldn't get a vaccine.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        Anti-vaxers can be exceptional mental gymnasts. It's a demographic that includes smart people. Problem is: why work so hard to refute what 99% of scientists have confirmed? There must be emotional and psychological reasons to side with the anti-vax theorists. I'll admit I don't want to take a vaccine, but I can also easily locate the appropriate scientific studies that support that vaccine. Regarding the COVID vaccine, I will see how long I can wait, but I will still side with the science, rather than the reports that are not supported with scientific evidence. Why trust those reports and not the scientific reports? Why put your faith in pseudo-science? How is that a better argument? (Genuine questions.)

        [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Based

        [–]hfxB0oyA 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

        Congrats @FediNetizen. You seem to have touched a nerve. LOL

        [–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        Nah, everyone has grown to despise how dense and ignorant he is with his reddit tier juvenile understanding of the world. He's like Saidit's retarded little brother.

        [–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        Oh, glad to know about everyone.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Zahn is brilliant.

        [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Just like u/socks

        [–]FediNetizen[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        Lots of Saidit users in their comments have done their research apparently. Did you know that you've been lied to by big pharma and vaccines do in fact cause autism?

        [–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        True fact - I've been vaccinated for years and I just decided to identify as autistic today!

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Me too, I think. Saidit is amazing.

        [–]dissidentrhetoric 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

        Vaccine science is junk science

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        "Corrupt science" is the technical term.

        [–]dissidentrhetoric 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

        I prefer junk science.

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

        Junk can be old and unintentionally shitty. Corruption happens with purpose.

        As long as you don't mistake it for "pseudoscience" which is another field altogether. IMO we need a /s/PseudoScience sub for that stuff, though I don't come across it much, because I'm not looking for it. /s/CorruptScience and /s/VaccineSkepticism are more pressing.

        [–]dissidentrhetoric 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Junk science is actually a real term, look it up.

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        I know. Junk science = bad science. It doesn't carry the malevolence of "corruption" though. People need to know WHY and HOW the science got to be junk and dangerous on purpose.

        [–]dissidentrhetoric 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        I know.

        That article doesn't even mention corruption. It intentionally uses softer clinical words like: spurious, fraudulent, and pejorative

        Corruption brings excessive greed, rotten to the core, and death, war, and famine - painfully drawn out in agonizing suffering - affecting real lives that matter in the MILLIONS or BILLIONS.

        I wish there was a better term than "junk science" or "corrupt science". "Exploitative shit science for epic profits, global intense suffering, and psychopathic global-cidal eugenics" doesn't roll off the tongue.

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

        I wonder what is that reporter doing with facts in her lab.

        [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        I wonder what is that reporter doing with facts in her lab.

        She's the director of the fake news lab.

        Fresh News Stories: Concocted Daily

        [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        vaccine research with no flow hood or containment. hmmm.

        [–]PencilPusher55 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        What? Constantly people post videos about legions of doctors who have said that Ivermectin worked (Peer reviewed studies, too!) and that it's cheap and kicks ass. Extremely high success rate with like no side effects.

        But what happens? Silenced. "Quack Doctors", Conspiracy theorists.

        It's funny how you can say "But you're not a doctor", and then when you post proof of not one, but MANY docs backing up research of alternate drugs - well fuck them, right? They're not media chosen so they must be crazy.

        [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Ivermectin

        why it works:

        https://www.ajmc.com/view/study-identifies-ivm-as-potential-candidate-to-promote-remyelination-for-ms

        [–]redditsuxx 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        The issue is there is scientific dialogue allowed.
        Pharma Owns all avenues.
        Media, Lawmakers, Universities and Academics.
        Hell for a vaccine you can't even get legal remedy or recourse against the manufacturers.

        [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Vaccine gib autism

        [–]Druullus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        https://s.abcnews.com/images/Health/hamilton-bennett-ht-jef-201213_1607877311261_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg

        https://abcnews.go.com/Health/35-year-scientist-led-modernas-efforts-create-covid/story?id=74701220

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Research is hot either way.

        Ironically corporate backing doesn't make the results that come out of her end any better.

        load more comments (2 replies)