CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
submitted 2 years ago by [deleted] from (foxnews.com)
view the rest of the comments →
[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (19 children)
u/Socks I think CNN just won shitpostnews site of the year. You said you can't trust Fox. And you can't, but you really can't trust CNN.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago* (18 children)
If CNN made mistakes, they should admit it. IDK about the mistakes, but will trust your judgement on this. What's brilliant about CNN, however, is that they called out Rogan for his show's promotion of misinformation, which is leading a movement of reactions against Spotify for its role in spreading misinformation. Awesome :-) Spotify head cheeses will continue to voice their support for their programs and for Rogan's show, because - as they admit recently - this is their edge against the completion. But those who care about the ongoing serious problems that have developed with misinformation will hopefully continue to note their consumer preferences.
[–]iDontShift 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 2 years ago* (9 children)
The misinformation in this case is anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-common sense
Hey /u/socks. You're a source of information.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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..
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (6 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (5 children)
HELP prevent (not entirely prevent)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (4 children)
That's how they work
[–]iDontShift 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (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 - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
I've not. That's how the peer review process works.
They do replicate the studies, but not with the exact same procedures or results
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.
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.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
It's All Politics
view the rest of the comments →
[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun - (19 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (18 children)
[–]iDontShift 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun - (17 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (16 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - (9 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (8 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (7 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]iDontShift 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]iDontShift 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)