Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Ebionite]

Try reading some science journals instead of tweets.

What point do you think I missed about the the data from the Israel MOH?

Now run along and get your latest booster.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What point do you think I missed about the the data from the Israel MOH?

I'm still waiting on you to address the flaws in your pre-printed non-peer-reviewed paper you are pushing.

Now run along and get your latest booster.

It always makes me laugh when people say that thinking they're clever. You guys all parrot this in unison all over social media then turn around all call others sheep. It's very amusing, but ultimately vapid. It's the last refuge of someone who has run out of talking points they cribbed from YouTube.

We don't get our scientific information from Twitter feeds and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles. At least, not if we want accurate, well-vetted data. Perhaps that's the problem on your end here.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm still waiting on you to address the flaws in your pre-printed non-peer-reviewed paper you are pushing.

Don't hold your breath. Your appraisal of the paper is of no value.

It always makes me laugh when people say that thinking they're clever.

Because trusting a product from a company who paid the largest fine is US history for unapproved marketing of their products is the epitome of wisdom.

We don't get our scientific information from Twitter feeds and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles. At least, not if we want accurate, well-vetted data.

Because any data that shows harm must be inaccurate, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't hold your breath. Your appraisal of the paper is of no value.

Actually it was the appraisal of other scientists that I posted for you, as well as my own. Others on the thread have chimed in as well.

This is like excuse #5,642 in your long list of excuses to avoid addressing counterarguments to your non-peer-reviewed pre-print article that you seem to be hanging your hat on. You don't seem to realize that your avoidance speaks volumes.

Because trusting a product from a company who paid the largest fine is US history for unapproved marketing of their products is the epitome of wisdom.

When the product has been tested and re-tested and administered in billions of doses across the globe, and continues to be tested, tweaked with the arrival of new variants, and re-tested and re-administered over and over and your dire predictions haven't come true? Then yeah, it's safe to say the vaccine is safe.

What does "unapproved marketing of their products" have to do with anything at all in this discussion?

Because any data that shows harm must be inaccurate, right?

Has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Scientists do science in scientific journals. Scientists worth their salt already know that. That's why the one's not worth their salt have to resort to making tweets and YouTube videos instead of publishing their data in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is not it's done. Sorry.

 

[Ebionite]

Actually it was the appraisal of other scientists that I posted for you, as well as my own. Others on the thread have chimed in as well.

Yes, I'm sure that there was semi-colon out of place somewhere.

This is like excuse #5,642 in your long list of excuses to avoid addressing counterarguments

An obvious lie from someone who refuses to address the issue of the harm that is indicated by the Israeli MOH data.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I'm sure that there was semi-colon out of place somewhere.

There were actually major errors in it. Major enough to make the data useless. And yet you want to claim it as factual information.
This is not the behaviour of a person who cares about believing true things. Rather, it's the behaviour of a person who wants to believe whatever they want to believe and don't give a rat's behind about the actual facts.

An obvious lie from someone who refuses to address the issue of the harm that is indicated by the Israeli MOH data.

You mean the Tweet you quoted? Already addressed in my last post.

Now you're calling me a liar. That's rich. Also, you didn't address my question or anything I said. You know, as people do in regular adult conversations.

Plus you didn't address the counterarguments pointing out the methodological flaws in your article and you've unwittingly admitted as much above. Your smugness is unwarranted and rather bizarre.

 

[Ebionite]

There were actually major errors in it. Major enough to make the data useless.

Color me skeptical.

You mean the Tweet you quoted? Already addressed in my last post.

Already avoided, you mean. Kirsch was right when he said that the only response that the official response crowd would have for the Israeli MOH data would be ad hominems.

Now you're calling me a liar.

Feel free to quote the 5642 cases of alleged avoidance and prove me wrong, then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Color me skeptical.

You could actually go and read them. I've posted them twice now. I've implored you several times to read them.


That's just something that somebody who is interested in believing true things and not believing false things would do.

Already avoided, you mean. Kirsch was right when he said that the only response that the official response crowd would have for the Israeli MOH data would be ad hominems.

I didn't respond with any ad hominem. I responded by pointing out (again) that we don't get good science information from Twitter. Rather, we get it from science journals, as any scientist worth his salt already knows.

Look, you ignored my rebuttal of your the first article you cited. Several times. And you were quite snide about it. Now you want to move onto something you quoted from Twitter. Given how this has gone down so far, I have absolutely no reason to believe you'll actually read and respond to anything I have to say about that.

Feel free to quote the 5642 cases of alleged avoidance and prove me wrong, then.

What is that supposed to mean?

Oops, you "forgot" to post the rest of what I said:

Now you're calling me a liar. That's rich. Also, you didn't address my question or anything I said. You know, as people do in regular adult conversations.

Plus you didn't address the counterarguments pointing out the methodological flaws in your article and you've unwittingly admitted as much above. Your smugness is unwarranted and rather bizarre.


Your claim of dishonesty coming from me is obvious psychological projection on your part.
I proved you wrong long ago. And you confirm it every time you fail to address my rebuttals.

 

[Ebionite]

You could actually go and read them. I've posted them twice now. I've implored you several times to read them.

Just like you could look at the actual data.

I didn't respond with any ad hominem.

Rejecting the data because it wasn't presented in the context of a peer-reviewed paper is an ad hominem because the data is the same regardless of the context.

What is that supposed to mean?

It means that you're not credible and anyone who treats you as such is a fool.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just like you could look at the actual data.

I did.

You still haven't responded to the problems with the article you've cited Still.

And so it can be dismissed, given that you've refused to defend it.

Rejecting the data because it wasn't presented in the context of a peer-reviewed paper is an ad hominem because the data is the same regardless of the context.

No, it's not. That's just how science works. It also hasn't even been printed.

This is a deflection.

It means that you're not credible and anyone who treats you as such is a fool.

And this is projection.

You've not provided any credible evidence for your claims on this thread.

It's near impossible to discuss anything with someone who can't even be bothered to read criticisms and counterpoints to the claims they've made.
Get back to me when you're able to do that.

 

[Ebionite]

No, it's not. That's just how science works. It also hasn't even been printed.

You don't know what you're talking about. The scientific method isn't conditional on peer review.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't know what you're talking about. The scientific method isn't conditional on peer review.

Having one's work vetted by other experts in the relevant fields of science is an integral part of science.

 

[Ebionite]

Having one's work vetted by other experts in the relevant fields of science is an integral part of science.

You don't get to define what science is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't get to define what science is.

I'm not. And you didn't even address what I said.

Have you ever taken a science course?

"Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results."

Scrutinizing science: Peer review - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"As a peer reviewer for a Science journal, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the trustworthiness of communicated information, and the peer-review process is a vital means to that end."

https://www.science.org/content/page/peer-review-science-publications

"How does peer review contribute to science?
Yuan Qin [Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, China] : Peer review contributes to science in a big way by acting as a quality-control system and applying checks and balances for ideas and scientific discoveries before they are widely accepted by the scientific community. That is why this time-honored tradition continues till today and it is followed by all the reputable journals and funding agencies.

Si Ming Man [ Australian National University, Australia] : Peer review has its merits and flaws. Traditional peer review (pre-publication peer review) is considered the “gatekeeper” of science. However, our work is subject to evaluation by our peers even after it’s published via post-publication peer review. On the whole, peer review is still the very essence of science, which is important for the advancement of knowledge."

What is the role of peer review in science?

Editorial Board Members from Communications Biology share their perspectives on the role of peer review in modern science

microbiologycommunity.nature.com

Peer review helps us weed out the errors, bias, bad data, etc.. It's also how we replicate results to verify the data and the conclusions. It's part of the self-correcting part of science.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm not.

Yes, you are. The scientific method is about repeatability and falsification, not peer review.

scientific method
noun

noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.

Scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The scientific method is applied broadly across the sciences.

www.britannica.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, you are. The scientific method is about repeatability and falsification, not peer review.

scientific method
noun

noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.

Scientific method | Definition, Steps, & Application

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. The scientific method is applied broadly across the sciences.

www.britannica.com

I just gave you a bunch of evidence backing up my claim.
No surprise you didn't read any of it. Or respond to any of it. Or answer my question.

You are not being a reasonable and rational interlocutor. And you don't seem to understand how science operates.

 

[Ebionite]

I just gave you a bunch of evidence backing up my claim.

If the evidence was relevant you could have shown how that was the case. Don't expect any further responses from me on this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the evidence was relevant you could have shown how that was the case. Don't expect any further responses from me on this.

I just did. With further explanation even. Do you need reading glasses or something??

This is absurd.

 

[Kathryn]

OK. Nevertheless, in medicine, it's called an influenza vaccine.

OK. My doctor calls it a flu shot.

 

[Kathryn]

OK. Nevertheless, in medicine, it's called an influenza vaccine.

OK. My doctor calls it a flu shot.