refurb

27 ms·

631.
by refurb 1y ago
What LLM’s? I’m a chemist and I asked it to show me the structure for a common molecule and it kept getting it really wrong
632.
by refurb 1y ago
I know a few doctors and the vast, vast majority of patients have what you thought they had when they walked in the door. Boring, could-have-guessed illnesses (or maybe not). 99 times out a 100, if the doctor thinks it's something els
633.
by refurb 1y ago
Have you not see the video? It wasn't civil, it looked like a couple of long-lost best friends catching up. Obama had made his comments about "wannabe dictator" only a week or so earlier. Actions speak louder than words.
634.
by refurb 1y ago
I absolutely am! Which is why when Obama and Trump looked like they were best friends, that action spoke way louder than Obama's words.
635.
by refurb 1y ago
You're not supposed to take the Democratic talking points about Trump being a "wannabe dictator" seriously. It's just political mudslinging. I figured that was obvious after Trump and Obama were all buddy-buddy at Carte
636.
by refurb 1y ago
> They didn't make public statements because they were a secret military project. Yeah, that's my point. How is your example at all relevant?
637.
by refurb 1y ago
There isn't much point in answering your question when you're denying something everyone already agrees happened.
638.
by refurb 1y ago
You're comparing decades of science that results in different conclusions, to a 13 day period? And don't you think it's smart to not make definitive statements if you don't really know ? This is all basic public relatio
639.
by refurb 1y ago
> An expert opinion based on knowledge of virology and the impact of the vaccine on symptoms that lead to transmission is "making things up" much in the same way the Manhattan project "made up" nuclear weapons. I don&
640.
by refurb 1y ago
> Again, you either lack basic comprehension of written text, unable to imagine the conversation taking place with a context in mind, and understand that just because the message wasn't communicated the way you would have preferred
641.
by refurb 1y ago
So you're saying he just made things up?
642.
by refurb 1y ago
> The 2 explanations of why you think like this is either you are incapable of reading comprehension, or you are so ideologically driven that you basically make up reality in your head real time that fits your world view. And either reas
643.
by refurb 1y ago
> If your doctor has information that some vaccine comes with big risks, sure, refusing that is scientific. Now that wasn't that hard huh?
644.
by refurb 1y ago
> We both know those 2 questions differ. But no problem, I'll answer your last question. Do you have the right qualifications to interpret those initial results? Let’s go with a real life example from my link. Your doctor says to yo
645.
by refurb 1y ago
I directly answered your questions with actual facts that contradict each of your points. I even provided sources.
646.
by refurb 1y ago
How you can read even just this conversation and walk away without thinking Fauci is at best terrible at public health communications, at worst guilty of flip flopping is beyond me. Even in this one conversation - "The masks are import
647.
by refurb 1y ago
> In this scenario, are you also refusing vaccines that do work? No, I'm asking about vaccines that were eventually pulled from the market for safety reasons. > Or are you magically able to predict what the FDA will say in a few
648.
by refurb 1y ago
That's makes no sense at all . You're ignoring the fact that the FDA approved them initially. They said "the risks are worth the benefits". Then years later, after more data was collected, the FDA changed their determ
649.
by refurb 1y ago
When people deny what the government said during Covid that turned out to be lies, that's the anti-intellectualism you should be concerned about.
650.
by refurb 1y ago
> Masks absolutely work, just ask any nurse who didn't catch COVID while working 12-hour shifts for weeks in a COVID ward. The issue like you said is the right type of mask, and wearing it properly. “Right now in the United States,
651.
by refurb 1y ago
No it is not true. Please don't be anti-science! Take a look at the vaccine studies - only J&J actually tested the effect on transmission, and J&J was hardly used. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines never tested transmission .
652.
by refurb 1y ago
Why would you ignore the six vaccines pulled for safety reasons? So I ask again - If someone refused to take those vaccines would they be "anti-science"?
653.
by refurb 1y ago
“People are too dumb to understand so we have to lie to them” How’s that working out so far?
654.
by refurb 1y ago
I agree 100%. The absolute clusterfuck by Fauci when he lied about masks, lied about vaccine efficacy, and the Biden administration saying being in groups was dangerous unless it was a BLM protest, did far, far more to destroy confidence in
655.
by refurb 1y ago
How about the vaccines pulled from the market for safety risks? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/ Are you being anti-humanity and anti-science if you didn’t want to take one of those
656.
by refurb 1y ago
I agree. When Fauci made comments about “get vaccinated and it’s unlikely you’ll transmit Covid” when the trials never tested viral transmission (1) was shameful. Once it turned out not to be true public trust was seriously eroded. (1) ht
657.
by refurb 1y ago
DOGE absolutely falls under the Dept of Digital Services agency. No different than an office within the CDC like HIV Care Iniative. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is defined by the OIG well before Trump. Just because you don’t like him means it
658.
by refurb 1y ago
I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?
659.
by refurb 1y ago
It's almost as if your undergrad biology gave you just enough information to make assumptions that aren't true? The medical journals are filled with studies that "should have worked" and didn't. Heck, there are a
660.
by refurb 1y ago
What a intellectually lazy response. No, it would be more accurate to say "any ethicist worth his salt would argue: don't make changes that could be harmful based on a hunch"

More ›