CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective

submitted by [deleted] from (foxnews.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iDontShift 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

ongoing serious problems that have developed with misinformation will hopefully continue to note their consumer preferences

i get the feel you are on the side of the vaxx.. they re-defined the word itself is misinformation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

no longer has prevent disease as defined by EVERYONE

literally lying to people about what they think they are getting

safe and effective cures, being ignored by cnn.. and you think they are good?

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

The misinformation in this case is anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-common sense.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The misinformation in this case is anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-common sense

Hey /u/socks. You're a source of information.

Are vaccines supposed to prevent diseases?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Seems it will be impossible to discuss this with you, if that's your view of the history of virology.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

/u/socks. The history of virology is another subject entirely.

You seem to have plenty of information available.

Surely you can answer this basic yes or no question..

Are vaccines (independent of the history of virology) supposed to prevent diseases?

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

yes - HELP prevent (not entirely prevent)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

HELP prevent (not entirely prevent)

"HELP"..? Sounds like you're inferring that vaccines are intended to support NATURAL IMMUNITY.

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

That's how they work

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You've denied natural immunity for over a year.

Hypocrisy incarnate.

[–]Entropick 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

  • Upton Sinclair

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

nope

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

science has a 70% unreproducibility problem.

being anti science is common sense

as is being anti-symptom relief bullshit

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

No - in all three cases.

And of course think of the alternative to scientific evidence. Yep, the 8th century. Good times.

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

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments. source

so yes.. in all three cases

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

That argument is used sometimes on Saidit, and I'll agree it's an interesting problem, but it's also explained by the fact that experiments always have significant variables and slightly varying results. What's significant is the comparative data across the disciplline for similar experiments.

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

What's significant is the comparative data across the disciplline for similar experiments.

you don't get to pick what is significant

if they can't replicate their studies. they might as well just do nothing.

you can't base anything on it. literally violates logic.

and you, my dear dead friend.. are promoting lies and it requires mental gymnastics as you avoid truth.. such as this

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

you don't get to pick what is significant

I've not. That's how the peer review process works.

if they can't replicate their studies. they might as well just do nothing.

They do replicate the studies, but not with the exact same procedures or results

you can't base anything on it. literally violates logic.

This is why it's peer reviewed and similar studies ar conducted, to see if there are similar results. When there are similar results, this is useful.

and you, my dear dead friend.. are promoting lies and it requires mental gymnastics as you avoid truth.. such as this

I'm just telling you about the peer review process among scientists, in response to concerns about repeatable experiments, which scientists do appreciate are problematic, and for that reason they try to find similar results in their studies, or conversely, try to show that the original experiments were faulty and should be corrected or the results retracted. Unlike other disciplines, science is not supposed to be a self-affirmative process. Doubt is rule #1. The least refutable evidence is the bit we look for.