4 ms·

Anti orthodoxy isn’t necessarily the same as anti science. Questioning the established science is pro science provided it’s done in good faith and it looks like

Anti orthodoxy isn’t necessarily the same as anti science. Questioning the established science is pro science provided it’s done in good faith and it looks like the parent is acting in good faith. What you’re witnessing is a great reckoning for the scientific community. We’ll see if the orthodoxy still has the faculties to deliver truth with time. I think the community has been corrupted.

di456 4y ago
> Questioning the established science is pro science provided it’s done in good faith and it looks like the parent is acting in good faith. I see the opposite here, it's another take of outrage porn based on misinformation. Good science would be having a hypothesis and doing scientific research on it. Science is based on hypothesis. It rarely gets to 100% but does work off of statistical significance. Whereas conspiracy theory regurgitation is based on opinion and story telling and does little to nothing to move science forward.
- goldenchrome 4y ago
  Asking questions is the start of the scientific process. If it turns out that vaccines cause undisclosed health problems then wouldn’t you be outraged too? Let’s see how it unfolds. Most of us can’t do the science ourselves, but we can ask questions and observe.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Throwing out a statement like: > Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't fight it? Without providing any evidence that viruses tend to become more dangerous when we combat them is anti-science. It's like saying: What if the earth is flat? Consider successful viral eradication campaigns like smallpox or polio. There's no indication that smallpox became "super smallpox" as it was about to be eradicated. Nor is there a reason to think this would happen based on what we know about how viruses work. It's pure fear mongering on the basis of nothing at all. Edit: There's so much wrong with the original post here. Not only is the flu sometimes deadly, as others have pointed out, but we already fight the flu with seasonal flu vaccines. Indeed, they seem to have a strong protective effect[1]. The flu doesn't seem to be getting stronger as a result any of this. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132866/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132866/
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - goldenchrome 4y ago
    That’s not very kind. I think maybe you just don’t agree with me. It doesn’t mean I’m not here in good faith. I’ve been a member here since 2012 and most of my comments are well received. Those that are not are still my truthful opinions stated plainly. I don’t expect people to engage with me, but I hope they do, and with their heart. Telling people to flag and move on feels like you just want to silence perspectives you don’t like.
- generalizations 4y ago
  [flagged]

di456 4y ago

> Questioning the established science is pro science provided it’s done in good faith and it looks like the parent is acting in good faith. I see the opposite here, it's another take of outrage porn based on misinformation. Good science would be having a hypothesis and doing scientific research on it. Science is based on hypothesis. It rarely gets to 100% but does work off of statistical significance. Whereas conspiracy theory regurgitation is based on opinion and story telling and does little to nothing to move science forward.

goldenchrome 4y ago
Asking questions is the start of the scientific process. If it turns out that vaccines cause undisclosed health problems then wouldn’t you be outraged too? Let’s see how it unfolds. Most of us can’t do the science ourselves, but we can ask questions and observe.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Throwing out a statement like: > Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't fight it? Without providing any evidence that viruses tend to become more dangerous when we combat them is anti-science. It's like saying: What if the earth is flat? Consider successful viral eradication campaigns like smallpox or polio. There's no indication that smallpox became "super smallpox" as it was about to be eradicated. Nor is there a reason to think this would happen based on what we know about how viruses work. It's pure fear mongering on the basis of nothing at all. Edit: There's so much wrong with the original post here. Not only is the flu sometimes deadly, as others have pointed out, but we already fight the flu with seasonal flu vaccines. Indeed, they seem to have a strong protective effect[1]. The flu doesn't seem to be getting stronger as a result any of this. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132866/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132866/

fzeroracer 4y ago
[flagged]
- goldenchrome 4y ago
  That’s not very kind. I think maybe you just don’t agree with me. It doesn’t mean I’m not here in good faith. I’ve been a member here since 2012 and most of my comments are well received. Those that are not are still my truthful opinions stated plainly. I don’t expect people to engage with me, but I hope they do, and with their heart. Telling people to flag and move on feels like you just want to silence perspectives you don’t like.
generalizations 4y ago
[flagged]