RE: The Cult Of Scientism: "Trust The Science"
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
You rightly say people should question what they hear and make their own research. I had done that already, so I just had to verify with the latest available data, and it confirms what I thought. Your very first statement on which you based your entire 'demonstration' is false. It's a common mistake that's been floating online for months now. It seems you confuse the test cutoff number of cycles and the CT value. For most PCR tests (COVID or others), it's typical to run between 40 and 45 cycles. But the CT value, which is basically the cycle when whatever you're looking for becomes visible, is usually significantly lower than the cutoff cycle. If you look at UK data (easily available there: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/covid19infectionsurveytechnicaldata), you'll see that there are very few positive CT values beyond 35 and all means are under 30, with most of them below 28. So what you're apparently missing is that you could run as many cycles as you wanted, it would not change the results, as the CT value was already reached way before. So, like many people, I wonder where the high cycles you mention come from, definitely not from the data available. If you have any data supporting it (or US data, because I didn't find much for that), I would really like to see it. Because for sure I don't trust blindly some random numbers thrown out there by a constitutional lawyer (hell, even if he was a virologist, or test Lab expert, I would not trust any numbers without supporting data). By the way, you say people sharing "actual scientific data" are censored, but I don't see one single piece of actual scientific data in your post.
Ok.
But you’re still doing a great job of dodging the point:
how the hell is it supposed to be a fair, objective, controlled science experiment when you’re setting different standards for one of the control groups?
You’ve clearly missed the point, voice, and angle of this article - none of which is to satisfy your expectations of what it should or supposed to be.
That one point your picked the fuck apart was merely one of countless examples that could have been drawn upon which served as a brief stimulus for the rest of the philosophical debate. It is of no interest to me to expend large amounts of time & energy crafting volumes of essays elaborating on every minute scientific detail of every one of those jump-off points to prove anything to folks such as yourself and those in the cult of $cientism who seem to think anyone not doing so is automatically wrong for not conforming to their rules and choosing to conduct their communications with balance in the language of common sense and emotional/spiritual intelligence rather than entirely left-brained cult dogma.
Yet another baby thrown out with the bathwater. Missed the meat and potatoes of the artistic work because there was a speck of dust on the fork.
There might be details again, but you asked a direct question (just like the first lines of your post where you ask how people can be blind to such factors, followed by two false statements...). Now for the question, I'll start with another question: where did you see "different standards for one of the control groups"? I don't find any such mention anywhere in WHO or CDC documents. The only thing I can think of is maybe you (or maybe a person whose statement you blindly repeated without checking) are referring to the CDC document about vaccine breakthrough case investigation (it was one of the documents that started many misleads and lies about the infamous '28 cycles'). It simply mentions that out of the vaccinated people testing positive (through the exact same testing process as always), specimen with CT count lower than 28 should be selected for sequencing. I’m guessing because it needs a higher viral load for that sequencing. But again, it does not change anything to the testing or the way to define a positive/negative case. Of course, I could have missed some documents or notices, in this case, point it to me
With your emotional/spiritual intelligence, if you think peddling easily debunkable clickbaits to justify categorizing a group of people as acting “dumb, deaf and blind”, is artistic and stimulate debate, then sure why not. But I don’t see how that can spark any honest, constructive debate. Instead, it just looks like you’re doing the exact thing you claim “folks such as myself” are doing. Lots of projection…
it was rhetorical.
there was news all over of how the cycle count was reduced for the vaccinated. Gallati's tweet was only one of several.
fully possible all them and myself are just scientifically-illiterate dumbfucks who took something out of context.
yes, that's the one linked to in his tweet, which could be the originating point of much of the 'gossip.'
despite a a stubborn defensive arising out of my own cognitive biases, I (begrudingly, lol) appreciate your counterperspectives to shine light on the weak link in the piece.
it's certainly feedback that can help guide for stronger presentations from hereon. (and did inspire a revision & edit to weed out the potential misinformation and focus on the point).
🍻
Thanks for your response! I am sorry if my English (second language) came off as more aggressive or defensive than intended. It's just that I don't really like the extremes: the hardcore "scientists" dismissing everything and everybody else (yes I know they do exist), AND on the other side of the spectrum, the hardcore "Big Pharma is 100% totally pure evil" (for sure some are - think Sackler family, but not all of them) crowd. In general, I like to sit in the middle, gathering info from all sides, and trying to make sense of it all. And that's why when I see any kind of misinformation (from any sides), I might sometimes respond more passionately than I should.
Anyways, cheers and have a good week end!
Maybe look at it from a different perspective? There are the hardliners and hardcore extremists on the pharmaceutical and corporate side, who in turn have the wherewithal to set in motion a very large propaganda machine. Where the most extreme statements are to be found: what do you want to oppose them with? It is a game of forces and the moral arguments that are thrown into the arena on one side must, in order for them to hit the very people who accept morality as an argument and are not impressed by any other information than moral exaggerations. What would happen if this opposite pole did not exist? What if those who do not want to go along with the dictates of the present regimes behaved inconspicuously, reasonably, quietly and thoroughly logically? (which nevertheless many do exactly). Do you think they would be heard?
The fact is that we are subjected to a gigantic PR that needs adversaries who speak out at least as loudly. Personally, I think nothing of either, but where fire burns hot and bright, you can't do much with a little splash of water.
One can take this particular phenomenon "the loud and the moralists" as one part of the many events and see all the other actors as side players, nevertheless in the same way important. Through many efforts peoples minds get influenced.
What do you think?
P.S.
To give an example: the exaggeration in the beginning of the phenomenon was "massive numbers of people will die!" "Those, wo do not follow the rules are "murderers"!"
Since the vaccinations took place the other side screams: "the vaccinations will kill a massive amount of people!" and "all who produce them and inject them are murderers!"
I don't know, but to me it seems that both poles were not correct or will not be correct in absolute terms. Though I clearly tend to support the anti corona regime movement. Because I make a difference between becoming sick by destiny or becoming sick through treatment.
this entire array of thought presupposes things that are in no way certain or valid from a scientific standpoint. the only basis for this is basically faith, namely that pathogenic viruses do exist and that government reports are somehow factual by default.
what @rok-sivante speaks of in this post is beautifully demonstrated by this very issue here - what is called "science" today presupposes everything and has not done the basic proofs necessary to make a theory into a science fact.
dissenting and qualified voices are silenced and everyone is just running with the official narrative, which is by definition akin to cultish or religious behavior, but not to science.
not trying to convince, just listen to some of the arguments that have been around long before covid was ever dreamt up and tell me there is no data problem here at all... because there really is, we just don't hear about it anywhere, curiously...