Are you suggesting that medical research is more nuanced than 'fuck around and find out'? *shocked face*
Our Covid Response
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Well, that is pretty much a description of the process of experimental science.
We get it. You don't get headaches. It seems to be true for you and in general that good health combined with a "healthy" mentality is a good feeling, while it's annoying as hell to see other people's bodies failing them even though they should be fine. Thinking that your good fortune is earned makes one feel superior (a well-known phenomenon). I personally feel superior over fat people, because of course, I'm clearly healthier in body and mind than they are. But I also know people that don't get headaches, while I sometimes do, and I'm not accepting their superiority.
My father told me about one of his colleagues. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather (plus plenty other male relatives) had all died of heart attacks before the age of 50. So he was meticulous about his diet, and kept himself at a very high level of fitness, and thus became the first man in generations in his family to make it past 50.
He died of a heart attack at 52.
There's only so much you can do.
Yeah, it's the basis for the entire Scientific Method... but 'fuck around and find out' doesn't involve tedious meetings with the Ethics bods, who are the antithesis of 'fuck around'.
There's a bit of procedure involved, yeah.
It's safe to say that watching a YouTube channel and grabbing any old random paper which has a title that looks like it has a title saying the right sort of thing as evidence isn't appropriate procedure.
Dude, you can now make papers that prove you point by just collating google search terms and call it 'science' and 'definitive'....
Sorry, I meant make up papers
Good luck.
If you posting still, I hope that it indicates your not doing too bad
Nah, meta-analysis is when you get TWO books that (with maybe some rough edges polished off) agree with your opinion
You have company.
www.npr.org
Biden tests positive for COVID and shows mild symptoms, White House says
The 79-year-old president "will isolate at the White House and will continue to carry out all of his duties fully during that time," a White House statement said.
www.npr.org
I provided actual science stating why vaccines don't reduce the spread. Where's you data showing that they do? After omicron where literally everyone got it, even the most fearful that are like triple boosted, wear N95s, and more, like everyone got omicron. I don't know how you can state vaccines are slowing the spread at this point. The fact that it was censored and now it's not is a sign that it's no longer scientific consensus.
I literally responded to your statement "you were the one opining a short while ago that we were all just fine to ignore covid because we had immunity now." And thus I asked "Why should any normal person worry about covid that has immunity?" and you didn't actually answer the question.
Tell me why the video is bad, what was said by the expert doctor he had on is wrong? You all do ad hominem attacks vs actually stating why something is wrong.
No you don't, there's no evidence that masks work.
Pain is known to have a very mental component to it. Weight isn't a great signifier of health as you can be "skinny fat" and get diabetes from a bad diet. Sure, there's some luck to it no doubt no diggity... But there is a decent degree of personal choice and responsibility to it. My one friend was complaining that her doctor always tells her that her weight is a problem and she complains that no matter how little she eats she can't lose weight, but it's not really the how much you eat but what you're eating. But nobody teaches people how to properly eat, you gotta find that out yourself. Even my mom's doctor told her to limit the amount of eggs she ate when that makes no sense as they are one of the healthiest foods to eat.
Did he go by what the "guidelines" say to do for heart disease or what you should actually do?
You didn't, though. You provided a non-peer-reviewed paper that was quite obviously a piece of advocacy.
Most people have had it... at one point or another. At any given time, most people do not have it, and can catch it again. And they're more likely to do so if they're unvaccinated, vulnerable, or haven't recently had it.
The answer is fucking obvious: because immunity isn't absolute, doesn't last forever, and doesn't help against variants that develop to overcome it (like several variants already have).
I have zero inclination to watch random YouTubers setting out their stalls. You shouldn't be forming your opinions on what YouTube personalities tell you anyway.
Yet it's arrogant to think you have the strongest mentality.
While there is a morcel of truth in there and it's not wrong as far as individuals go, I bet people in general know what they should be eating, but at the same time they just don't keep that much count on their diet or at the very least they miscalculate or undervalue their meals and whatever they eat in-between. To top it off, eating isn't just for sustenance. We've around us all the junk money can buy, and that enables obesity first and small insignificant treats second. Some people default towards the second option anyways while some default to the first but fight it and prevail. Then there are various stages of losing, and by losing I mean gaining.
No, you just didn't like it is all.
Shouldn't case numbers be going down if people that have immunity don't spread it or spread it less? Why were there far more cases last winter than ever before?
What data do you have that immunity doesn't last forever (and immunity doesn't mean immune from infection btw)? SARS-1 still provides immunity to it to this day. What data do you have that immunity doesn't help against variants? Immunity doesn't have to be absolute, it just has to make covid basically the flu or common cold, which it is doing.
At about the 4min mark
He has expert doctors on. Yeah, one shouldn't listen to expert doctors... that's smart advice...
When did I say that? I do have a strong mentality among the people I do know. Some younger people I know are so mentally fragile. You have to power to not let things bother you, but people don't seem to realize that.
Nobody is really taught to eat properly. When I went to school, the food pyramid was basically backwards. You currently have a rather big focus on getting people to stop eating burgers and eating the beyond/impossible garbage (processed garbage) when it's the fries and pop that are far worse for you than the burger. Burgers aren't bad for you (they'd have to be super over processed to be bad). And if you do eat right, you won't even be hungry much, avoiding junk food really isn't that hard. It's usually like after 8pm and I'm like I should probably make dinner even though I'm not too hungry and all I had the whole day was a soup. I currently just snack on bananas and pistachios. Getting on the right diet fixes so many problems that cascade like people being tired in the morning and getting a dessert in a cup from Starbucks when you can eat a lot less food that's the right food and not be tired in the morning and thus not need that morning dessert.
It's guff. If you think you're presenting "the science", you should at least be able to provide something goddamn peer reviewed.
Lol, maybe because of mutation? Immunity doesn't perfectly cross over between variants.
Jesus dude, this is mega basic stuff, universally recognised.
Did you know you are unlikely to have any antibodies at all from your first covid shot left in you?
Do you think this is how the scientific consensus is determined? We find the shiniest, most media-rific doctors, and what they say is now more likely to be true than their peers in the journals and research institutes?
Andrew Wakefield was an "expert doctor". And for a hot minute, he was probably also the most media-present "expert doctor" in his field, with a massive presence in news print and television.
He was also a shill, completely out of step with the scientific consensus, and plain wrong. But that's not the impression the public would get, reading an article about how "expert doctor states the MMR jab can give kids autism". It gave the entire idea a baseless veneer of scientific credibility.
And as a result, a huge number of people died. It didn't matter that his paper was removed from the journal after his conflicts of interest and procedural issues were uncovered. It didn't matter that he was struck off the register altogether. That kind of stuff came way later, and didn't make headlines.
Last edited:
Wrong, there's plenty of evidence that masks work.
In fact, it is precisely that evidence that has led you to contract your own arguments that masks don't work into ever-smaller defences (except when you're flagrantly misrepresenting science instead). You're talking about RCTs so much now precisely because you realise at some level that numerous non-RCT studies undermine your prior claims. As a result you've shifted your goalposts to a different standard because you can't defend your original. It's even more tragic that you don't apparently realise that.
Stupid questions don't merit answers.
And what's your actual complaints about the paper?
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job
The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.
Do you not see how much covid spreads in very highly vaccinated and immune populations? Yet you're gonna be concerned if the dude a table over from you in a restaurant is unvaccinated?
Yes, this is mega basic stuff. Do you not know that you don't need to constantly have antibodies to be protected against a virus? Antibodies are only one part of your immune defense. And why do you need a constantly active antibodies against something when you body remembers which antibodies to make if you were to get infected again? You've gone rabbit hole deep into the "antibodies are everything" covid messaging.
The Flawed Science of Antibody Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Immunity
This Medical News article discusses why experts recommend against patients getting antibody testing to assess their protection from SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination or infection.
jamanetwork.com
“The immunological component that is associated with protection against severe disease is immunological memory B cells,” Offit said in an interview. “These cells aren't making antibodies, but they remember that they have seen this SARS-CoV-2 spike protein before.”
Theel noted that circulating antibodies against the virus peak 2 or 3 months after natural infection or vaccination and then begin to decrease. But the immune system’s ability to mount a defense lasts longer. “Just because we’re seeing a decrease in antibody levels doesn’t necessarily mean that your immunity is gone,” she said. “We know from a lot of studies now that your memory T cells and memory B cells persist for at least 6 to 8 months and continue to evolve and mature, and none of that information is relayed by an antibody test.”
Offit explained that reinfection with the virus activates memory B cells to differentiate into antibody-secreting cells. Because this process can take 3 to 5 days, it doesn’t stop SARS-CoV-2 infections from occurring, but it does help tamp down severe COVID-19. And that’s a success story, in his view: “The goal of the vaccine is to protect you against serious illness.”
You're using Andrew Wakefield as why you don't trust experts? His own fucking redacted study literally says it didn't prove anything. You just had to read, that's it.
Show me a RCT that masks work. What actual mask studies that aren't RCTs are gonna prove masks work? Again, pre-covid there was literally no evidence saying masks worked then. We magically figured out masks definitively work in 2 years but couldn't in like 50 other years? Why are you allowing evidence that masks work that you wouldn't accept if masks were a drug?
The guidelines have been wrong for 50+ years.