Jump to content

Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 113 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*****ing *****ed up mother *****ers are *****ing the whole *****ing *****ed up ****sucking *****head *****s. And then some.

Cutting in with a rando side comment because I haven’t kept up - I’m tired of all the conspiracy theories behind it, and all the Americans on my feeds (note: I am also an American) pointing fingers at

Welp y'all have been warned before about keeping this thread on topic but it continues to delve into Politics and other off topic subjects. So consider this thread closed. If something similar is star

Posted Images

@Arielle Popstar

If you want to know what is accurate in science you're going to need to do a lot of studying.

Science has rules to arrive at the best truth we can find, and if you know the rules you'll know which articles are more science-based.

I know how stupid I am, but you don't know how stupid you are.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arielle Popstar said:
4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Overreliance on these sort of sites to shoot the messenger rather than the message, hints strongly at an inability to counter the message.

It's very difficult to counter a pseudo-science message. To do so can take days or weeks.  All the junk science message has to do is propose a theory on shoddy evidence, usually with the aim of confirming what they desire to be true (confirmation bias).

That's why I say I know how stupid I am because I know science is so complex and what it takes to evaluate anything accurately.  You don't know that and think finding some simple proposal put out by someone (usually alt-right nuts) has much more validity than it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

@Arielle Popstar

If you want to know what is accurate in science you're going to need to do a lot of studying.

Science has rules to arrive at the best truth we can find, and if you know the rules you'll know which articles are more science-based.

I know how stupid I am, but you don't know how stupid you are.

To the contrary I do have some inkling that the actual science is way above my head and pay scale but in many cases it isn't the science that is being debated but the politics. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:
8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

@Arielle Popstar

If you want to know what is accurate in science you're going to need to do a lot of studying.

Science has rules to arrive at the best truth we can find, and if you know the rules you'll know which articles are more science-based.

I know how stupid I am, but you don't know how stupid you are.

Expand  Expand  

To the contrary I do have some inkling that the actual science is way above my head and pay scale but in many cases it isn't the science that is being debated but the politics. 

How would you know that if you don't understand the science?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of online articles giving instruction on how to critically read  and evaluate scientific articles/studies. Here's one:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/19/how-to-critically-read-and-evaluate-a-scientific-paper/

BTW, scientific abstracts are just summaries...they aren't detailed enough to base a firm opinion on...we can't see their methods clearly...many aren't peer-reviewed. The article you cited in technocracy.news used only abstracts as sources, and just like the article used these abstracts falsely to claim masks are dangerous, you did as well.

* What I did was file that info about Co2 and masks away in my brain, awaiting further info before thinking it likely to be true.  If I had time or inclination I'd research further and find better studies, and pay (if not an open study) to read the full articles the abstracts are based on.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Seems to be a legit concern that is being termed "Mask Mouth" and is caused by a lack of saliva which then allows bacteria to multiply. More info on it here: https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/

I read that, there may be something in it about dryness and bacteria - I've heard that you shouldn't inhale through your mouth as it can damage tooth enamel - but that's over years of doing it. 

Luckily though that link doesn't mention mouth bacteria getting into your lungs and overrunning your immune system :) Hopefully though, if people are just wearing masks when they go to supermarkets, shops, hairdressers, etc, it shouldn't get the chance to become a big problem? And hopefully in a year or so we won't need to wear them (hope I haven't jinxed it...)

Edited by Rat Luv
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There are lots of online articles giving instruction on how to critically read  and evaluate scientific articles/studies. Here's one:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/19/how-to-critically-read-and-evaluate-a-scientific-paper/

BTW, scientific abstracts are just summaries...they aren't detailed enough to base a firm opinion on...we can't see their methods clearly...many aren't peer-reviewed. The article you cited in technocracy.news used only abstracts as sources, and just like the article used these abstracts falsely to claim masks are dangerous, you did as well.

* What I did was file that info about Co2 and masks away in my brain, awaiting further info before thinking it likely to be true.  If I had time or inclination I'd research further and find better studies, and pay (if not an open study) to read the full articles the abstracts are based on.

So if you are able to determine that he used the abstracts falsely, point it out instead of all your handwaving and full copy pastes of mediabiascheck conclusions. To me I hear you actually saying "it doesn't agree with my politics or narrative so it must be wrong". You try to imply he did not use peer reviewed studies though at the top of the article, he states he did.

A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological.

If he was lying, it should be easy enough to point out. If there are newer studies that supersede or negate the peer reviewed  ones he did bring up, post them. Should be easy enough if you understand the science to the degree you claim or at least know how to critically read them. To me I see very little other then silly handwaving, scorn and calls to my intelligence from those who wish to be seen as superior. Well have at it but in my estimation from yours and a few others posts, there is something severely lacking in your ability to even counter someone like myself with the little scientific reasoning I can bring to the thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There are lots of online articles giving instruction on how to critically read  and evaluate scientific articles/studies. Here's one:

Here's one. Does it come from a web site promoting chemtrails, NWO conspiracies and climate change "skepticism"? If it does, it's not a scientific paper.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

Luckily though that link doesn't mention mouth bacteria getting into your lungs and overrunning your immune system :)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/gum-disease-and-heart-disease-the-common-thread

That's just about it going into your stomach thats 100x better defended then your lungs are, with the mask your breathing in all the bacteria,plaque particles, Etc.

You asked why doctors and dentist have not been effected since they wear masks? up until this year most of them never ever did ! so enough time and studies have not taking place to truly study the effects..you could rarely get them to even wash there hands!

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/23/potential-consequences-of-wearing-face-masks/

Doctors are not the final word as they offer only an opinion and rarely solid facts..thats why they call it medical advice and you can see 10 doctors who will give you 10 different diagnosis.

Are doctors really gods? no they are nothing close and claim to offer all the godlike advice but they still know not even 50% about the body..they are still discovering new organs in the human body after 1000s of years.. how can they be experts but not know or understand everything inside yet? yet want to prescribe endless drugs to your family(legal drug dealers)

Western medicine is about profits, corporations and seeing people as products to be exploited.  and any doctor in America who speaks up is likely to lose there license, livelihood and still owe 15yrs of college tuition so good luck anyone finding a doctor disagreeing with masks.

8 hours ago, Rat Luv said:

I am not being snarky, I just don't understand how killer mouth viruses haven't already become a thing? :S

It's OK to be snarky.. we all are at one time or another, thats part of the human condition.

People transmit millions of disease to each other every day..STD'S are at an all time high as 1 in 4 passes a non curable disease to unsuspecting partners daily like herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis and those are passable by kissing..they are also deadly as 75% of AIDS patients do not die from that virus but the Oral strain of Herpes virus is often so destructive the patient can no longer be recognized facially and dies from infected skin lesions..

My thoughts are wear a mask if you have to, if not, then don't..question your government you pay there salaries..god did not put them in power, your vote did..they answer to us not the other way around! they tell us to wear masks and lock us down yet they are found themselves not wearing them/breaking the rules.

Yeah wear a mask around the sick and elderly in consideration not gunpoint

We should question the official narrative... but no worries I will not go on an endless Luna Style Rant to get any point across as most posters in the forum are adults who will or have come to there own conclusions and thats OK.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what we teach children and have been for years in regards to the flu and it's the last thing I'm going to say on the subject. 

The 'cover your mouth' part can certainly be added onto to include, With A Mask. 

49c6932b8687a13e2bddc75f64d46e1e.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So if you are able to determine that he used the abstracts falsely, point it out instead of all your handwaving and full copy pastes of mediabiascheck conclusions. To me I hear you actually saying "it doesn't agree with my politics or narrative so it must be wrong". You try to imply he did not use peer reviewed studies though at the top of the article, he states he did.

A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological.

If he was lying, it should be easy enough to point out.

Why would you trust anything on the technocracy.news website?  Did you check it out...look at some of the other articles?  It is wackadoo city!

And, anybody can SAY they're citing peer-reviewed medical literature...that doesn't mean it is.  Some of pubmed is, but not all, according to a librarian @ Saint Francis University:

https://asklibrarians.francis.edu/faq/44274

Here is someone debunking the authors claims (Colleen Huber, NMD naturopath) of that article you worship on technocrappy.news who says masks are ineffective and dangerous.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202007/masks-still-work-debunking-more-pseudoscience

So read it and decide yourself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If he was lying, it should be easy enough to point out. If there are newer studies that supersede or negate the peer reviewed  ones he did bring up, post them. Should be easy enough if you understand the science to the degree you claim or at least know how to critically read them. To me I see very little other then silly handwaving, scorn and calls to my intelligence from those who wish to be seen as superior. Well have at it but in my estimation from yours and a few others posts, there is something severely lacking in your ability to even counter someone like myself with the little scientific reasoning I can bring to the thread

The abstracts simply don't provide enough evidence. You need more than one or even a few abstracts claiming anything before science gives the concept more credibility & designs further testing.  They are so brief and lacking in detail we can't even evaluate the methods used.

I trust the current recommendations of the CDC. You can scroll down and find a wealth of studies:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arielle Popstar

See number 2 in this article...it says not to rely on titles and abstracts:

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/08/03/10-steps-for-evaluating-scientific-papers/

2. Don’t rely on titles and abstracts
Another common mistake that people make is to just read the abstract (or sometimes just the title). The problem is that abstracts and titles are often misleading. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, abstracts often misrepresent what the scientists found (I think that this is usually just an accidental result of trying to condense your research into a few attention grabbing sentences). Further, the abstract is necessarily terse, so you don’t get the details of how the study was conducted or how the data were analyzed. Thus, you simply cannot evaluate a study if you are only reading the abstract.

Many people argue that you shouldn’t even read the abstract until you have read the rest of the paper, that way it doesn’t bias you. That is a perfectly valid argument, but I personally prefer to start with abstract, because I view it as a thesis statement of what the author’s think that they found. Then, as I read the paper, I compare that thesis statement to what the authors actually did and what their data actually say in order to see if their claims check out. So, you can use either approach as long as you keep in mind that the interpretation that is presented in the abstract may not actually be correct, and it is your job to assess the validity of the authors’ claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
29 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Much better. Something to read and consider as a response. Not so hard was it?

I forgot you only read alt-right rags!   Here.....

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 113 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...