forcry

21 ms·

151.
by forcry 5y ago
>There are good journals with a strict vetting process This is a myth. Vetting process cannot help if the persons involved are corrupt. Getting a "good reputation" might be just the first step in the journey to corruption.
152.
by forcry 5y ago
What I don't get is this this "growing body of evidence" does not seem to apply when it comes to things like Ivermectin, where they don't consider anything other than some high quality RCT, and reject all observational d
153.
by forcry 5y ago
Meanwhile I posted this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27941820 And some people here have promptly flagged it for some reason. @dang can we please give
154.
by forcry 5y ago
Yes, found an old thread about this. It appears that the issues raised in that thread are not that hard to solve.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216827
155.
by forcry 5y ago
> lets us keep up with our family and friends, have productive discussions, share pictures, invite each other to parties E-mail, with a better interface? Seriously, this all can be done with E-mail and some locally stored data? It is jus
156.
by forcry 5y ago
> pharma company doesn't know which ones are handing out placebos.. Not sure I get you. If all the physicians are bribed, then why would the company need to know anything? Everyone can cook up some data and go along with the result
157.
by forcry 5y ago
>a gold standard for good reasons. What does this mean exactly? Is it the best possible? Or the best available? If it is the latter, then it does not mean much. If it is the former, then your statement is not true.
158.
by forcry 5y ago
> that the scientific community is under-selling and under-discussing the risks of the vaccine. > human tendency to extrapolate small edge cases as more significant than they actually are No. That is not at all what I am trying to say
159.
by forcry 5y ago
But here is a story that deserves on frontpage, but didn't https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27941820
160.
by forcry 5y ago
>Facebook that won was more like Wikipedia. Wikipedia actually is failing as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
161.
by forcry 5y ago
There lies the crucial difference. People who got and died of Covid did not opt into it. There people made a risky choice for the benefit of the others. That is exactly why I think these people deserves acknowledgement and support. I don&#x
162.
by forcry 5y ago
I don't care about Johnson or what they say. I posted this only because what the victims had to say. Also, I made it clear in this comment so that responses such as this would be avoided.
163.
by forcry 5y ago
This is not supposed to be commentary on covid vaccines. These are some of the people who has taken part in the very essential trials, that resulted vaccines being available to everyone, and has suffered the adverse effects for it. We norma
164.
by forcry 5y ago
>What is the alternative to following the science? Actually it is not the science that is causing this issue. But research in various forms is. Trusting science is fundamentally different from trusting "scientists". Trusting sc
165.
by forcry 5y ago
>Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. Obviously, I know that, which is why I am asking the question. >It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, How does it make s
166.
by forcry 5y ago
>I don't see this changing without fundamentally realigning incentives in academia. I think the corruption in science is a manifestation of Goodharts law. People started to believe everything with the science label blindly. Like if
167.
by forcry 5y ago
> When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal. Let me share some similar signals that I see. Let us talk about the VAERS database. I wonder why is it not ma
168.
by forcry 5y ago
You don't have to respect me. But you have to respect the fact that trust in "science" is fundamentally different from trust in "scientists".
169.
by forcry 5y ago
Try https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926
170.
by forcry 5y ago
>You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. Replace "research" with "stuff a bunch of people you believe say", and the situation will become much more cle
171.
by forcry 5y ago
>poor people don't have access to healthcare, whereas everyone has access to vaccines. You are answering to some argument that I didn't make.
172.
by forcry 5y ago
>All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it. When you say that someone else is irra
173.
by forcry 5y ago
>The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. Poor people can be thought of a being more risky to be around, because they have low standard of living, can't aff
174.
by forcry 5y ago
Just in my comment I showed cases where it didn't
175.
by forcry 5y ago
> It's your personal responsibility not the harm those around you as much as possible Sure. But there is also a bigger responsibility to oneself. To not do things that might harm themselves. So with that conflicting forces, it becom
176.
by forcry 5y ago
He is not alone in making that connection regarding vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic As you can see here. I am not sure what the exact time is, but they also suggest this possibility. It appears to me that this is common knowledge..
177.
by forcry 5y ago
So can't generalize. Which was the point.
178.
by forcry 5y ago
>What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? This is actually a smaller issue. The big issue is that measures based on science that is tainted with trust issues must not be mandated. Have written about this here. https:
179.
by forcry 5y ago
> If the people holding out won't listen to evidence Different people have different definitions for "evidence". Something that can convince me, might not be enough to convince you. That does not mean I can force my trust
180.
by forcry 5y ago
>The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of

More ›