Vaccine Mandates in Communist New York and other cities

Quote from: Shifter on October 14, 2021, 10:22:21 AM

So I've been fully vaccinated and am still alive with no ill effects. Just like the hundreds of thousands of people in the city I live. Did we just 'get lucky'?

Or will we have a surprise within 2 years like dropping dead from a heart attack?

I think there is a rare chance of heart inflammation after getting it.

I like the odds. Certainly better odds than getting covid au naturel and that's only a matter of when I get it, not if.

Vaccines are like a cheat code 

Tom, you are hilarious, as ever.

Professor Arne Burkhardt and Professor Walter Lang are real people.

It's the press conference that is made up.   

OMG Tom embarrassed himself again with an own goal. AGAIN! Doesn't he ever get tired of looking like a stupid moron?

Quote from: Alexei on October 14, 2021, 10:25:15 AM

Quote from: Shifter on October 14, 2021, 10:22:21 AM

So I've been fully vaccinated and am still alive with no ill effects. Just like the hundreds of thousands of people in the city I live. Did we just 'get lucky'?

Or will we have a surprise within 2 years like dropping dead from a heart attack?

I think there is a rare chance of heart inflammation after getting it.

I like the odds. Certainly better odds than getting covid au naturel and that's only a matter of when I get it, not if.

Vaccines are like a cheat code 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 14, 2021, 10:26:41 AM

Tom, you are hilarious, as ever.

Professor Arne Burkhardt and Professor Walter Lang are real people.

It's the press conference that is made up.   

OMG Tom embarrassed himself again with an own goal. AGAIN! Doesn't he ever get tired of looking like a stupid moron?

Its rare to get.
Not only that but a study said people who recovered and got vaxxed were protected up to 13 times more than vaxx alone.
But you can still get it.
Vaxx facts: low chance of death, more likley to recover, big chance you dont get covid when exposed to someone that does.
That person is "spreading" the news.

Quote from: Stash on October 13, 2021, 09:33:47 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on October 13, 2021, 03:34:41 PM

https://principia-scientific.com/pathologists-shocking-finding-from-deaths-after-covid-19-jabs/

What kind of sources do you use? Regarding this one, from MediaBias/FactCheck:

"Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/

From DeSmog:
"Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas."
https://www.desmog.com/principia-scientific-international/

Your source is a joke.

Wow, don't you ever learn? Check your sources.  I clicked on that principia-scientific.com link and the article claims to be written by two professors.

So what? I bet I can find more than two professors who claim the earth is a globe.

When Google searching their names I find plenty of references that they are pathologists and a number of pages, bios, academic references and projects.

https://www.zwp-online.info/zwp-online-koepfe/prof-dr-arne-burkhardt

So you can google. Good for you. So he's a Professor. So what?

https://prabook.com/web/arne.burkhardt/42818

What's "Prabook". Oh yeah, it's a service where anyone can create an account/profile of someone (even themselves) and post information about them. Cool. Maybe you should create a profile for yourself. And you question my sources?

As far as I can tell this person is a doctor and a pathologist and publishes scores of references and publications which are easily found online.

https://amp.aidpool.com/en/offers/pathologist-herr-prof-dr-med-arne-burkhardt-o27161169/?oh=-2&c=198&collapse=1

Why are you posting a Yelp-like page for Dr's? Talk about anonymous sources...

Clicking on your two links in response we find that both of those links are written by ANONYMOUS WRITERS

From the top of the mediabiasfactcheck site:

There is no listed author here. We don't know whether they are a medical professional, or have the knowledge to understand or analyze this subject.

You don't check your sources.

Yes, unlike you, I check my sources. Regarding Principia Scientific International:

"Then there's The Australian newspaper which earlier this month concocted a story of a fake debate between scientists about a coming ice age.
The newspaper quoted a Russian physicist who is a member of Principia Scientific International – a group of contrarian scientists led by a man who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

Yeah, Principia seems legit...

You post any random thing you find online.

You think that articles with anonymous sources are better than articles by people with credentials in the field.

While criticizing a source you post embarrassing garbage sources that a teacher would scold a fifth grader for. Incredible. You have done this on multiple occasions. How old are you?

That's rather rich considering you are the cherry-picker in chief. Anyone with half a brain can see your wiki is a hot mess, a master class in using wildly out of context quotes, phrases, interpretations and swirling them into a vat of sewerage. Something which has been pointed out to you endlessly.

As for criticizing the source here, pretty self-evident how fringe, unreliable, and cringe-worthy it is.

So I've been fully vaccinated and am still alive with no ill effects. Just like the hundreds of thousands of people in the city I live. Did we just 'get lucky'?

Or will we have a surprise within 2 years like dropping dead from a heart attack?

5 years.  Then everyone dies.

Oh and we're all sterile.
Which we'll all find out way before 5 years which is going to cause massive riots and destruction.

Which means that it isn't a communist conspiracy it's a plot by the Southern godbotherers and the white supremacist Odinists to bring forward the end times/Gotterdammerung!

Which means that it isn't a communist conspiracy it's a plot by the Southern godbotherers and the white supremacist Odinists to bring forward the end times/Gotterdammerung!

Oh no, its "The great Reset".  Where rich people will wipe out the world and start over.  With only a handful of people.

So what? I bet I can find more than two professors who claim the earth is a globe.

Seriously, these two people are real, but the rest of it is entirely made up.

Prof Lang is "Co-Director of the Institute of Microsensors, Actuators and Systems".  He's an electrical engineer, not a pathologist.

Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt is a real pathologist - specialising in the larynx.  He hasn't published since 2007 and certainly hasn't had press conferences making ludicrous claims about "sharp metal objects" being found in the vaccine.  It looks like he might have retired a while ago.

Which means that it isn't a communist conspiracy it's a plot by the Southern godbotherers and the white supremacist Odinists to bring forward the end times/Gotterdammerung!

Aha....  so we are thinking the rapture leads to Valhalla?  Thus uniting the Odinists and Evangelicals?   Or are they just white numnuts hankering for a race war?   I suspect elements of both might be true.

Seriously,  some of the weirder aspect of the right wing occultists is bizarre in the extreme.  To sum up...  some of these right wing people are insane.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-25/white-supremacists-are-killing-name-ancient-nordic-religion

Thus uniting the Odinists and Evangelicals? 

No, it's the onanists and the Evangelicals who will unite.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on October 15, 2021, 01:37:48 AM

Which means that it isn't a communist conspiracy it's a plot by the Southern godbotherers and the white supremacist Odinists to bring forward the end times/Gotterdammerung!

Aha....  so we are thinking the rapture leads to Valhalla?  Thus uniting the Odinists and Evangelicals?   Or are they just white numnuts hankering for a race war?   I suspect elements of both might be true.

Seriously,  some of the weirder aspect of the right wing occultists is bizarre in the extreme.  To sum up...  some of these right wing people are insane.

I would probably say most, but yes.

Somewhere in crossing the Atlantic, and in the intervening years English Protestantism diverged.
Here (UK) it became the peal of church bells, church bazaars, jam, Jerusalem, and largely irrelevant funny old custodians of some nice architecture, in the US, probably down to the amount of sun and the fact we persecuted our loonies enough that they migrated there, it became a hard-line doomsday cult, I suppose having your political system, the obvious upshot is that the world is headed for a reckoning.

The Wotan clan are poorly raised white boys brought with this toxicity who see a god of white people with a hammer fighting world encircling snakes and moon eating wolves and want a bit of that instead of one tainted with those Jewish types.

They are both happy to kid the other on to gain the same result.   

So you can google. Good for you. So he's a Professor. So what?

So you responded to an article written by a qualified professional with an anonymous source. School children get scolded for submitting sources like that. I am embarrassed on your behalf that you attempted to criticize a source by qualified professionals with anonymous sources.

What's "Prabook". Oh yeah, it's a service where anyone can create an account/profile of someone (even themselves) and post information about them. Cool. Maybe you should create a profile for yourself. And you question my sources?

Actually Prabook is user-collaborated factual informational. Your source was opinionated. It is possible for the Prabook entry to be a falsity, just as any website can be a falsity. However, if taken as fact as it is presented it is further evidence for other collected sources and the information provided. Seeing that you admit that he's a professor and that it aligns with other information about him in your message above it immediately discredits you.

On the other hand, your source which claims to identify certain sites and authors as bad science is just pure opinion, is reliant on the science education of the author, and cannot be taken as a fact that the works or websites identified are bad science without knowing the qualifications of the writer.

Yes, unlike you, I check my sources. Regarding Principia Scientific International:

"Then there's The Australian newspaper which earlier this month concocted a story of a fake debate between scientists about a coming ice age.
The newspaper quoted a Russian physicist who is a member of Principia Scientific International – a group of contrarian scientists led by a man who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

Yeah, Principia seems legit...

You just did it again. Amazing! Give the author of that article a search.

https://www.readfearn.com/about/

Graham Readfearn isn't even claiming to have a college degree. You are quoting someone with no degree and no claimed post-secondary education on the matter on the quality of a physicist's work.

How moronic is that?

Honestly, do you really think that you have an acceptable source by quoting anonymous authors and people without college degrees on the quality of a scientist's work?

That's rather rich considering you are the cherry-picker in chief. Anyone with half a brain can see your wiki is a hot mess, a master class in using wildly out of context quotes, phrases, interpretations and swirling them into a vat of sewerage. Something which has been pointed out to you endlessly.

Incorrect. If you think it's cherry-picked evidence you need to show overwhelming of the opposite. Since you have not done so, and have continuously failed at doing so over the years the Wiki has been up, it is not cherry picked and remains as evidence.

Quote from: Stash

So you can google. Good for you. So he's a Professor. So what?

So you responded to an article written by a qualified professional with an anonymous source. School children get scolded for submitting sources like that. I am embarrassed on your behalf that you attempted to criticize a source with anonymous sources.

Ummm, where's the article of the Prof's study? Peer reviewed? They held a press conference. Wow, a press conference!

Quote from: Stash

What's "Prabook". Oh yeah, it's a service where anyone can create an account/profile of someone (even themselves) and post information about them. Cool. Maybe you should create a profile for yourself. And you question my sources?

Actually Prabook is user-collaborated factual informational. Your source was opinionated. It is possible for the Prabook entry to be a falsity, however if taken as fact it is further evidence for the information provided. Your source which claims to identify certain sites and authors as uncredible pseudoscience is pure opinion, and cannot be taken as fact for evidence for the information provided.

You complain about "anonymous sources" yet you cite Prabook? It's basically like a LinkedIn. Anyone can post their own CV, so to speak, and it's not vetted by anyone. When you create your profile, you can flag it so only you can edit it, like only you can edit your Linked In profile. It's not necessarily "collaborative" at all. Would you want anyone to have edit access to your profile?

You can create your own profile for yourself and put anything you want in it describing how learned you are. How is that unbiased and authoritative?

Seeing that you admit that he's a professor in your message above discredits you and shows that Prabook provided information supporting other informational sources.

"Praybook" does not provide the info, people do. And people can provide info about themselves. Get it?

So let me get this straight, if I reference something coming from a "Professor", that's all I need to do to show that I'm right? So if I reference some virology professor's article stating that the vaccines are safe and effective, you'll accept it because it came from a virology Professor?

Quote from: Stash

Yes, unlike you, I check my sources. Regarding Principia Scientific International:

"Then there's The Australian newspaper which earlier this month concocted a story of a fake debate between scientists about a coming ice age.
The newspaper quoted a Russian physicist who is a member of Principia Scientific International – a group of contrarian scientists led by a man who claims CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

Yeah, Principia seems legit...

Well you just did it again. Give the author of that article a search.

https://www.readfearn.com/about/

Graham Readfearn isn't even claiming to have a college degree. You are quoting someone with no degree on the quality of a physicist's work.

How stupid is that?

Honestly, do you really think that you have an acceptable source?

How do you know he doesn't have a college degree? Again, you don't do your research.

Just like Praybook, anyone can post whatever they want as their CV, like linkedIn. Here's Graham Readfearn's CV on linked in, for example:


https://au.linkedin.com/in/graham-readfearn-0753871a

Feel free to check with the University.

Now how stupid is that that you couldn't even find this?

More on Principia Scientific as a source. John O'Sullivan is the Chief Executive Officer & Founder Member. He seems to have a sorted past as a climate change denier and a liar...

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan

"Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

- that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
- that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
- that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
- that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
- that he is a member of the American Bar Association.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581

Feel free to check the affidavits in the article.

Principia Scientific is the furthest thing from credible.

Quote from: Stash

That's rather rich considering you are the cherry-picker in chief. Anyone with half a brain can see your wiki is a hot mess, a master class in using wildly out of context quotes, phrases, interpretations and swirling them into a vat of sewerage. Something which has been pointed out to you endlessly.

Nope, wrong. If you think it's cherry-picked evidence you need to show overwhelming of the opposite. Since you have not done so, and have continuously failed at doing so over the years the Wiki has been up, it is not cherry picked and remains as evidence.

Overwhelming evidence has been shown over and over again regarding your cherry-picking. It's a well known fact that that's your MO.

You complain about "anonymous sources" yet you cite Prabook? It's basically like a LinkedIn. Anyone can post their own CV, so to speak, and it's not vetted by anyone. When you create your profile, you can flag it so only you can edit it, like only you can edit your Linked In profile. It's not necessarily "collaborative" at all. Would you want anyone to have edit access to your profile?

You can create your own profile for yourself and put anything you want in it describing how learned you are. How is that unbiased and authoritative?

LinkedIn is also presented as factual information, dummy.

It's presented as fact from the a source who claims to be qualified to know this, which is evidence, and so if we are considering it as source of evidence LinkedIn should be taken as fact barring no other contradictory information.

Your anonymous piece that you presented was presented as an opinion that certain science is bad. It is not presenting factual information like PraBook or LinkedIn claim to do. Therefore it must be taken as an opinion. In order to give that opinion any credence we must know the educational status of the author. We can't know, because he's anonymous.

For your second source whish is criticizing a physicist, that author claims to have gone to university for a single year and received a "diploma in journalism", which he was apparently too ashamed of to list on his about page on his website. Laughable. Does this allow him to credibly criticize the science of physicists? No. He is still unqualified.

You wouldn't know an acceptable source if it bit you on your arse. You continuously post utter garbage. None of that is acceptable to call a scientist's work bad science.

More on Principia Scientific as a source. John O'Sullivan is the Chief Executive Officer & Founder Member. He seems to have a sorted past as a climate change denier and a liar...

What are you talking about now? You were criticizing the work of multiple scientists with illegitimate sources written by anonymous and unqualified authors. Now you want to talk about someone else who runs the website and who has nothing to do with the science. The owner of The Guardian newspaper, for example, has nothing to do with the qualifications of its authors to comment or contribute on certain works. Pathetic.

Overwhelming evidence has been shown over and over again regarding your cherry-picking. It's a well known fact that that's your MO.

Show where one of the articles has been contested with "overwhelming evidence". You have shown none and only dismiss sources.

Ummm, where's the article of the Prof's study? Peer reviewed? They held a press conference. Wow, a press conference!

No they didn't!  No such press conference was held - it's total bullshit.  Prof Lang isn't even a pathologist, he's an electrical engineer.

The entire thing is made up and gullible morons like Tom just lap it up.

Why does Tom always cherry pick people he agrees with and uses 'they're scientists/professionals' etc as the reason he agrees with them?

But when millions of scientists around the world claim the Earth is a globe or that vaccines work - all of a sudden it counts for nothing?

Why does Tom always cherry pick people he agrees with and uses 'they're scientists/professionals' etc as the reason he agrees with them?

But when millions of scientists around the world claim the Earth is a globe or that vaccines work - all of a sudden it counts for nothing?

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

Also, if LinkedIn is evidence....I'll be right back...


Ok.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-d-64a545171

There we go.
I am now a medical doctor from harvard medical school specializing in virology.  By Tom's own admission, this is evidence and therefore, I am an expert.

Quote from: Stash

You complain about "anonymous sources" yet you cite Prabook? It's basically like a LinkedIn. Anyone can post their own CV, so to speak, and it's not vetted by anyone. When you create your profile, you can flag it so only you can edit it, like only you can edit your Linked In profile. It's not necessarily "collaborative" at all. Would you want anyone to have edit access to your profile?

You can create your own profile for yourself and put anything you want in it describing how learned you are. How is that unbiased and authoritative?

LinkedIn is also presented as factual information, dummy.

Yeah, and it looks like LinkedIn kicked Principia Scientific dummies to the curb:

LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Written by John O'Sullivan on October 9, 2020. Posted in Current News
https://principia-scientific.com/linkedin-bans-principia-scientific-international-without-warning/

I guess LinkedIn is factual.

It's presented as fact from the a source who claims to be qualified to know this, which is evidence, and so if we are considering it as source of evidence LinkedIn should be taken as fact barring no other contradictory information.

Your anonymous piece that you presented was presented as an opinion that certain science is bad. It is not presenting factual information like PraBook or LinkedIn claim to do. Therefore it must be taken as an opinion. In order to give that opinion any credence we must know the educational status of the author. We can't know, because he's anonymous.

For your second source who is criticizing a physicist he claims to have gone to university for a single year and received a "diploma in journalism", which he was apparently too ashamed of to list on his about page on his website. Laughable. Does this allow him to credibly criticize the science of physicists? No. He is still unqualified.

Are you qualified to discredit physicists and healthcare professionals? Seems you attempt to a lot. What makes you qualified to do so?

You wouldn't know an acceptable source if it bit you on your arse. You continuously post utter garbage. None of that is acceptable to call a scientist's work bad science.

Where's the paper? Where's the data? Has it been peer reviewed?

Quote from: Stash

More on Principia Scientific as a source. John O'Sullivan is the Chief Executive Officer & Founder Member. He seems to have a sorted past as a climate change denier and a liar...

What are you talking about now? You were criticizing the work of multiple scientists with illegitimate sources written by anonymous and unqualified authors. Now you want to talk about someone else who runs the website and who has nothing to do with the science.

For someone who has nothing to do with science and lies about his credentials and is the founder and CEO of the site, he sure seems to have a lot of articles by him. Here's a recent one:

Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People”
Written by John O'Sullivan on July 10, 2021. Posted in Current News

What are his credentials for authoring such an article?

Here are a bunch more from John O'Sullivan:
https://principia-scientific.com/?s=o%27sullivan

Seeing that he is not a scientist nor a Professor, is he an "acceptable source"? He seems pretty prolific on his site.

The owner of The Guardian newspaper, for example, has nothing to do with the qualifications of its authors to comment on certain works. Pathetic.

What's completely pathetic is you contradicting yourself when it's convenient. Over here, you recently said:

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

It seems that you consider a newspaper endorsing the articles written by their journalists in one case, but not in this case? Oddly hypocritical. And ironic that this is in regard to the same publication, The Guardian.

You went on...

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

So I guess, according to you, I too can claim that a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage.

Quote from: Stash

Overwhelming evidence has been shown over and over again regarding your cherry-picking. It's a well known fact that that's your MO.

Show where one of the articles has been contested with "overwhelming evidence". You have shown none and only dismiss sources.

Check out the site tfes.org. You'll find plenty of overwhelming evidence that contests your ever-present cherry-picking & hypocrisy.

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

I've never been able to work that out.  He's been doing this shit for a long time.

He seemed genuinely in to that QAnon bullshit - if he's a troll he's very committed to the part.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 15, 2021, 11:41:05 AM

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

I've never been able to work that out.  He's been doing this shit for a long time.

He seemed genuinely in to that QAnon bullshit - if he's a troll he's very committed to the part.

He is either the most dedicated troll of our time, or insane.  Maybe both.

Quote from: Shifter on October 15, 2021, 11:22:35 AM

Why does Tom always cherry pick people he agrees with and uses 'they're scientists/professionals' etc as the reason he agrees with them?

But when millions of scientists around the world claim the Earth is a globe or that vaccines work - all of a sudden it counts for nothing?

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

Also, if LinkedIn is evidence....I'll be right back...


Ok.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-d-64a545171

There we go.
I am now a medical doctor from harvard medical school specializing in virology.  By Tom's own admission, this is evidence and therefore, I am an expert.

Yes, if you didn't admit it here that it was fake it would be evidence that you were a failed doctor who became an IT Technician.

When people put that sort of their thing in their bio it is evidence that it's true. The information comes from a primary source. Primary source information is evidence, and it is acceptable in academia to reference someone's CV as evidence that the person is qualified.

Whether that person is ultimately a liar like you are is another question entirely, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence in the first place.

Why does Tom always cherry pick people he agrees with and uses 'they're scientists/professionals' etc as the reason he agrees with them?

But when millions of scientists around the world claim the Earth is a globe or that vaccines work - all of a sudden it counts for nothing?

The tfes.org wiki cites those scientists and shows that they are arguing that the physics of RE Theory do not actually work despite their belief in RE.

If you disagree with this, you would need to cite and reference works from qualified sources, showing that the tfes.org citations were incorrect cherrypicked, not just claim that they are and that there is evidence in your favor.

Likewise, the scientists that do claim that the vaccines are safe need to address the specific claims of the scientists who claim that it is not to appropriately contradict them. You would need to cite and reference those scientists if you are trying to contradict the ones nay-saying the vaccine.

If you can't post any contradicting information or references from qualified sources to the specific claims made then you have no evidence and have lost the argument, simply put.

Again, if you don't have a qualified source you don't have an argument. In this case Stash is posting garbage from anonymous authors and unqualified individuals to answer a science question and attempt to contradict a physicist. Totally wrong. Totally inept.

Yeah, and it looks like LinkedIn kicked Principia Scientific dummies to the curb:

LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Written by John O'Sullivan on October 9, 2020. Posted in Current News
https://principia-scientific.com/linkedin-bans-principia-scientific-international-without-warning/

I guess LinkedIn is factual.

LinkedIn's users are posting factual information about themselves and are acting as the primary source for that information. What LinkedIn's content managers do to censor their users is unrelated.

Are you qualified to discredit physicists and healthcare professionals? Seems you attempt to a lot. What makes you qualified to do so?

I rarely ever present myself as a source. I directly cite the physicists and health professionals making the argument.

Where's the paper? Where's the data? Has it been peer reviewed?

I did not assess the physicist's claims or work in that off-topic article that you decided to criticize by posting an unqualified source for. It doesn't matter. He could have written something completely wrong by scientific standards. But the source you posted does not demonstrate that. The fact remains that you can't contradict a physicist by quoting unqualified sources.

For someone who has nothing to do with science and lies about his credentials and is the founder and CEO of the site, he sure seems to have a lot of articles by him. Here's a recent one:

Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People”
Written by John O'Sullivan on July 10, 2021. Posted in Current News

What are his credentials for authoring such an article?

Here are a bunch more from John O'Sullivan:
https://principia-scientific.com/?s=o%27sullivan

Seeing that he is not a scientist nor a Professor, is he an "acceptable source"? He seems pretty prolific on his site.

Did your careless mother drop you on your head as a child? It says right in the tile of the article you posted that he's citing a doctor. The source for the claim is the doctor.

So I guess, according to you, I too can claim that a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage.

What a British news service thinks about a scientific work is notable, but its journalists who went to University for a single year for a diploma in Journalism are unqualified to contradict a physicist on a scientific level.

It takes a science professional to contradict a science professional on matters of science and physics. Why do you keep arguing that you should be able to use unqualified non-science sources?

Oh, wait, it's because you have nothing else and actually have no evidence.

Check out the site tfes.org. You'll find plenty of overwhelming evidence that contests your ever-present cherry-picking & hypocrisy.

So I asked you for overwhelming evidence that contradicts a single article that quotes scientists and you were not able to do it. You're wrong. In order to claim cherry picking you need to actually have substantial evidence in your corner. You do not.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 15, 2021, 11:41:05 AM

Quote from: Shifter on October 15, 2021, 11:22:35 AM

Why does Tom always cherry pick people he agrees with and uses 'they're scientists/professionals' etc as the reason he agrees with them?

But when millions of scientists around the world claim the Earth is a globe or that vaccines work - all of a sudden it counts for nothing?

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

Also, if LinkedIn is evidence....I'll be right back...


Ok.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-d-64a545171

There we go.
I am now a medical doctor from harvard medical school specializing in virology.  By Tom's own admission, this is evidence and therefore, I am an expert.

Yes, if you didn't admit it here that it was fake it would be evidence that you were a failed doctor who became an IT Technician.

When people put that sort of their thing in their bio it is evidence that it's true. The information comes from a primary source. Primary source information is evidence, and it is acceptable in academia to reference someone's CV as evidence that the person is qualified.

Whether that person is ultimately a liar like you are is another question entirely, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence in the first place.

Academia also verifies that their CV is accurate, rather than taking it at face value.  Otherwise anyone could get a job as a researcher, all you need is to write that you are , in fact, a doctor of science.
In fact, would you agree that anyone who claims things on their CV, writes papers that are not peer reviewed, and publishes papers on sites that do not check credentials... are not trustworthy?

Academia also verifies that their CV is accurate, rather than taking it at face value.  Otherwise anyone could get a job as a researcher, all you need is to write that you are , in fact, a doctor of science.
In fact, would you agree that anyone who claims things on their CV, writes papers that are not peer reviewed, and publishes papers on sites that do not check credentials... are not trustworthy?

It's possible that a hiring manager would want to verify the evidence, in part or in whole. The fact that the primary source wrote it on the CV is evidence though.

In this case we had a multitude of websites claiming that the pathologist was a doctor, and there were references to his publications, references to his office, etc. All of this is just further evidence corroborating that he is a doctor and that Stash is a dumbshoe for trying to use an anonymous source to contradict a qualified professional.

I'm just going to make a LinkedIn profile and say I'm a scientist that proved the earth is a spinning globe. Apparantly that's considered evidence and all Tom needs to believe it to be true.

brb...

https://time.com/4136607/peking-duk-fan-wikipedia-backstage/

Fan Gets Backstage by Listing Himself as Family on Band's Wikipedia Page

Quote from: Lorddave on October 15, 2021, 03:29:23 PM

Academia also verifies that their CV is accurate, rather than taking it at face value.  Otherwise anyone could get a job as a researcher, all you need is to write that you are , in fact, a doctor of science.
In fact, would you agree that anyone who claims things on their CV, writes papers that are not peer reviewed, and publishes papers on sites that do not check credentials... are not trustworthy?

It's possible that a hiring manager would want to verify the evidence, in part or in whole. The fact that the primary source wrote it on the CV is evidence though.

In this case we had a multitude of websites claiming that the pathologist was a doctor, and there were references to his publications, references to his office, etc. All of this is just further evidence corroborating that he is a doctor and that Stash is a dumbshoe for trying to use an anonymous source to contradict a qualified professional.

I'm curious Tom..
Lets say you have 5 experts in a field.  Each one has equal credentials. (Ie. Same degrees)
Three have one opinion, two have another.
How do you, someone who does not have their expertise, decide who to agree with?

If experts disagree with each other then they simply disagree with each other and it's not the "settled science" that you liberals try to push. It means that we can point to it and shame and embarrass you for claiming or implying that you knew the science when there are highly educated people in the field who say otherwise.

Quote from: Stash

Yeah, and it looks like LinkedIn kicked Principia Scientific dummies to the curb:

LinkedIn Bans Principia Scientific International Without Warning
Written by John O'Sullivan on October 9, 2020. Posted in Current News
https://principia-scientific.com/linkedin-bans-principia-scientific-international-without-warning/

I guess LinkedIn is factual.

LinkedIn's users are posting factual information about themselves and are acting as the primary source for that information. What LinkedIn's content managers do to censor their users is unrelated.

34% of Respondents Lie to Some Degree on Their LinkedIn Profiles
"The majority of participants, 64 percent, answered “Completely accurate, I only add things that I’ve actually done.”

Contrarily, 23 percent responded with “There are a few lies.” While 11 percent stated “My profile is almost entirely made up of things I have never done.”
https://lendedu.com/blog/drawbacks-deceptions-linkedin/

Censoring Principia Scientific is relevant because it shows they were punted by LinkedIn for violating their terms of service by spreading their garbage. So now LinkedIn & and a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage. And according to your previously mentioned quotes and below regarding your defense of another article and journalist at a large British news source, all you need is a large British news source as evidence.

Quote from: Stash

Are you qualified to discredit physicists and healthcare professionals? Seems you attempt to a lot. What makes you qualified to do so?

I rarely ever present myself as a source. I directly cite the physicists and health professionals making the argument.

You're joking, right? The wiki is chock full of your narrative without citing anyone else. As well, chock full of your mis-interpretation/mis-representation of cherry-picked quotes from other people's work.

Quote from: Stash

Where's the paper? Where's the data? Has it been peer reviewed?

I did not assess the physicist's claims or work in that off-topic article that you decided to criticize by posting an unqualified source for. It doesn't matter. He could have written something completely wrong by scientific standards. But the source you posted does not demonstrate that. The fact remains that you can't contradict a physicist by quoting unqualified sources.

I'm not talking about the Guardian article. I'm asking about the "professors" who held a "press conference" regarding their "findings" that Principia Scientific wrote about.
Where is their paper? Where's their data? Has it been peer reviewed?

Quote from: Stash

For someone who has nothing to do with science and lies about his credentials and is the founder and CEO of the site, he sure seems to have a lot of articles by him. Here's a recent one:

Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People”
Written by John O'Sullivan on July 10, 2021. Posted in Current News

What are his credentials for authoring such an article?

Here are a bunch more from John O'Sullivan:
https://principia-scientific.com/?s=o%27sullivan

Seeing that he is not a scientist nor a Professor, is he an "acceptable source"? He seems pretty prolific on his site.

Did your careless mother drop you on your head as a child? It says right in the tile of the article you posted that he's citing a doctor. The source for the claim is the doctor.

I gave you the link above. John O'Sullivan has 8 pages or articles he wrote or are attributed to him (That's 15 entires per page). The first of which is him speaking for 25 minutes regarding his crazy thoughts about the pandemic, vaccines, the whole shooting match. He's a known liar and the founder of Principia Scientific and its main contributor. He is not a scientist, nor a lawyer. Is he qualified to speak on such matters? According to you, he is not qualified, yet he is main editor vetting the articles posted on his publication.

Quote from: Stash

So I guess, according to you, I too can claim that a large British news source reviewed Principia Scientific's claims and found that it supported the conclusion that they are garbage.

What a British news service thinks about a scientific work is notable, but its journalists who went to University for a single year for a diploma in Journalism are unqualified to contradict a physicist on a scientific level.

It takes a science professional to contradict a science professional on matters of science and physics. Why do you keep arguing that you should be able to use unqualified non-science sources?

Oh, wait, it's because you have nothing else and actually have no evidence.

Remember, you're the one who was arguing that a British journalist named Rod Liddle, who wrote an opinion piece in the Sunday Times regarding how he thought the US election was rigged as some sort of "evidence" that it was rigged. Remember, you said:

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

AND...

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

He also writes about covid & football. Is Rod Liddle qualified to write about such things? According to you, no, because it takes a covid or football professional to contradict a covid or football professional on matters of covid and football.
Now all of a sudden a journalist for a major British publication is unqualified yet your journalist from a major British publication is qualified to write about the intricacies of US media and election procedures and how, somehow, our election was rigged. That was your evidence, an opinion piece and went on to argue the validity of the piece because it was published and, according to you, defacto endorsed by the publication. Now, all of a sudden, your argument doesn't apply. Could you be more hypocritical?

You said, "Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.".

And here we have John O'Sullivan as CEO and founder of Principia Scientific and the major contributor, and a known liar about his credentials, according to you, any article in his publication is the voice of the publication. I guess that makes sense coming from a liar and a piece of trash website like his.

Do you have no shame regarding your hypocrisy?

If experts disagree with each other then they simply disagree with each other and it's not the "settled science" that you liberals try to push. It means that we can point to it and shame and embarrass you for claiming or implying that you knew the science when there are highly educated people in the field who say otherwise.

That wasn't what I asked.
Which one do YOU choose?  Because right now it sounds like you shouldn't have any opinion on vaccines but you clearly do.  I'm just trying to figure out what led you to accept a minoroty of experts/people over the majority.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 15, 2021, 01:40:51 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 15, 2021, 11:41:05 AM

Because he's a troll.  Duh.

I've never been able to work that out.  He's been doing this shit for a long time.

He seemed genuinely in to that QAnon bullshit - if he's a troll he's very committed to the part.

He is either the most dedicated troll of our time, or insane.  Maybe both.

Yeah, he could be genuinely insane.  In fact if he's a troll - doing it with this much commitment doesn't suggest a sound mind.  If he's not trolling then he believes all sorts of insane shit.  It ain't looking good for him, whichever way you slice the cheese.


@Tom - there was no press conference.  This entire debate over whether some guys blog "principia-scientific.com/" has any credibility (pro tip: it doesn't) is completely irrelevant.

Meanwhile in Texas.... 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/we-re-nothing-like-you-michael-gunner-hits-back-at-ted-cruz-over-covid-19-vaccine-policy/8434e20c-cb4d-46fa-8109-d26097c05832

Let's compare,  70,000 Texans dead from Covid.    ZERO Territorians dead from Covid.

Americans don't understand freedom, includes freedom from disease.