Pam Popper, Fight for Health Rights |526|

I haven't the foggiest idea about what Fauci said in the 80's.

Well, at least you're beginning to admit you're poorly informed.

/AIDS changed because the virus was identified and accurate tests were developed to screen people. And then most importantly, effective treatments were developed.
The CDC says 13% of those infected don't even know it. People who have tested positive are still out there as sex workers, etc. So how does screening help?
 
Well, at least you're beginning to admit you're poorly informed.

I've admitted this like a gazillion times. Whatever snippet from 40 years ago, taken out of context, that is used to prove that Fauci is evil, stupid, blah, blah, blah by you CTers, I'm unlikely to be familiar with.

The CDC says 13% of those infected don't even know it. People who have tested positive are still out there as sex workers, etc. So how does screening help?

Where are you going with this? Do you know what "screening" means?
 
Last edited:
I've admitted this like a gazillion times. Whatever snippet from 40 years ago, taken out of context, that is used to prove that Fauci is evil, stupid, blah, blah, blah by you CTers, I'm unlikely to be familiar with.



Where are you going with this?

Why be so poorly informed? Why show up in a forum to discuss topics which you seem to know nothing about? Could you be trolling perhaps???
 
Why be so poorly informed? Why show up in a forum to discuss topics which you seem to know nothing about? Could you be trolling perhaps???
I don't consider "keeping up with CT misinformation" to be "informed". To me, well-informed means that I read primary sources of information, and then read references to get additional information. For example, when you gave the link earlier about the six case reports on shingles in people with AIIRD, I read the paper, and then read some of the references to find out what the baseline risk of shingles is (compared to people at normal risk) in that group. What I did not do, was go onto any of the Fake COIVD/Anti-vax sites to see what they made of the study.

And I am starting to realize that that sort of behavior is what is meant by "trolling". I wondered for a long time about that. But I did not "show up in this forum" to talk about something Fauci said 40 years ago, either.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider "keeping up with CT misinformation" to be "informed". To me, well-informed means that I read primary sources of information, and then read references to get additional information. For example, when you gave the link earlier about the six case reports on shingles in people with AIIRD, I read the paper, and then read some of the references to find out what the baseline risk of shingles is (compared to people at normal risk) in that group. What I did not do, was go onto any of the Fake COIVD/Anti-vax sites to see what they made of the study.

And I am starting to realize that that sort of behavior is what is meant by "trolling". I wondered for a long time about that. But I did not "show up in this forum" to talk about something Fauci said 40 years ago, either.
But none of that is true, Ellis - and we can all see it.

You summarily dismiss experts in the field who are anti-vax - like Warren and Malone just on this thread, but many others too - yet you take Fauci and the CDC as gospel.

You have summarily dismissed many experts who are skeptical about the risks posed by covid, but, again, unquestionably accept what Fauci says. I know that is not because you've proactively read all of the studies. I know it's not because you're familiar with all of the data and analysis. Rather, you just sit their sniping at what is presented on these threads. That is the very definition of trolling. You do not contribute anything.

Yes. unfortunately, this forum has a lot of low level CT types on this and many other topics (I have raised that issue many times), but not everyone here fits into that category. Certainly not everyone in the scientific community that rejects your/Fauci's view is a CTer.

Again, you're obvious and I'm wondering what kind of sick pleasure you get from your trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
But none of that is true, Ellis - and we can all see it.

You summarily dismiss experts in the field who are anti-vax - like Warren and Malone just on this thread, but many others too - yet you take Fauci and the CDC as gospel.

You have summarily dismissed many experts who are skeptical about the risks posed by covid, but, again, unquestionably accept what Fauci says. I know that is not because you've proactively read all of the studies. I know it's not because you're familiar with all of the data and analysis. Rather, you just sit their sniping at what is presented on these threads. That is the very definition of trolling. You do not contribute anything.

Yes. unfortunately, this forum has a lot of low level CT types on this and many other topics (I have raised that issue many times), but not everyone here fits into that category. Certainly not everyone in the scientific community that rejects your/Fauci's view is a CTer.

Again, you're obvious and I'm wondering what kind of sick pleasure you get from your trolling.

I sometimes wonder how many trolls are getting a paycheck.

https://www.straight.com/news/48284...ology-based-influence-techniques-social-media

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now have solid proof that paid government trolls are using “psychology-based influence techniques” on social media websites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Documents leaked by Snowden also reveal that government agents have been conducting denial-of-service attacks, flooding social media websites with thinly veiled propaganda, and have been purposely attempting to warp public discourse online. If we do not stand up and object to this kind of Orwellian behavior, it is only going to get worse and worse.
 
But none of that is true, Ellis - and we can all see it.

You summarily dismiss experts in the field who are anti-vax - like Warren and Malone just on this thread, but many others too - yet you take Fauci and the CDC as gospel.

I prefer anything that's referenced, and anywhere there's accountability. Which happens to describe the CDC, but not Warren or Malone.
 
I'm sorry. I tried, but I did not find that at all credible. I may not be a doctor, but there was a lot wrong with that story. And when I got to the part where she was upset that she didn't get referred to a cardiologist because her heart rate would increase to 125 when she climbed a flight of stairs, I gave up.

Maybe there's a clue in your statement that "wasn't how doctors used to treat their patients".

The person conducting the interview is a doctor. He also happens to believe in taking the vaccine. But he doesn't sugarcoat the effectiveness of the vaccine or discount reports of bad reactions to the vaccine.

I personally believe getting the vaccine or not is a personal choice and something people should discuss with their doctors. I don't think vaccines should be mandated, and I don't think people should lose their jobs over this. What ever happened to "My body, my choice"? I get just as annoyed at those who tell vaccinated people that they are going to die as I do at those who think the unvaccinated should be locked up.

It's pretty clear the full story isn't making it to the MSM.

Here is an overview of the shortcomings of the vaccine, from a doctor who is pro-vaccine.

 
I prefer anything that's referenced, and anywhere there's accountability. Which happens to describe the CDC, but not Warren or Malone.
The CDC is accountable?

Bwa ha ha ha ha

Keep pulling this crap out of your ass, Ellis. Just proves my point(s) about you.

But, Ok. Explain how they are accountable.

I am unaware of any government agency (or elected) that is accountable (and I used to work for Uncle Sam) - unless it's a purely political hit job, but that's not accountability.
 
Last edited:
The person conducting the interview is a doctor. He also happens to believe in taking the vaccine. But he doesn't sugarcoat the effectiveness of the vaccine or discount reports of bad reactions to the vaccine.

I personally believe getting the vaccine or not is a personal choice and something people should discuss with their doctors. I don't think vaccines should be mandated, and I don't think people should lose their jobs over this. What ever happened to "My body, my choice"? I get just as annoyed at those who tell vaccinated people that they are going to die as I do at those who think the unvaccinated should be locked up.

It's pretty clear the full story isn't making it to the MSM.

Here is an overview of the shortcomings of the vaccine, from a doctor who is pro-vaccine.

On the Andrew Paquette thread Ellis implied that it would be inconceivable that doctors would be liars. Of course he's already suggested that some doctors, those that disagree with his idiocy, are indeed liars.

It's not like we should expect a low pay troll to be consistent and make sense.
 
The CDC is accountable?

Yeah, like any professional body - e.g. American Academy of Pediatrics. What they say will be scrutinized by people who know the subject just as well as they do, many of whom will be skeptical, so what they say has to hold up. They can't just make stuff up, like "all the doctors faked the death certificates" or "tens of thousands of people have died from the vaccines". Instead it has to be referenced, and the research has to actually show what they claim it shows.
 
Ha ha. you are such a troll and such a phony.
He seems to be leading you around on a leash. Yah, the only reason I recognize it is because up until i found Skeptiko Forum I had spent way too much time on Reddit. I had a game I would play, where I would challenge myself to argue in good faith and positive regard, no matter how poignant the troll.. Ultimately, I've come to learn that there's a certain type of troll; lets call it a "Keep-you-busy type.", with whom debate is generally fruitless. You can spot them by their methods which are something like:
Primary
#1 Keep you busy
Secondary
#2 Excite you
#3 Sharpen debate skill
#4 Draw others into the debate
Tertiary
#5 Consider absorbing a tiny piece of new info but only if there's energy leftover from 1-4.

How do you know you've been arguing with a Keep-you-busy type? Maybe go back though the thread and count how many times you thought "huh, he has an interesting point here, I wonder what he thinks about _______."
 
I think "studies" are referenced to show "my story has scientific plausibility", in which case, the details described in the Forbes article aren't relevant.
I also think it's "brass tacks".
So, no one can point me to the relevant study itself and address the criticisms from the article?
Then, this is what bothers me. I take stuff that Alex says on the show, and get very quickly rebuffed by people who have done more reading than I.
 
On the Andrew Paquette thread Ellis implied that it would be inconceivable that doctors would be liars.

LOL. I figure doctors are about as likely as anyone else to lie. Maybe a bit less, because they are subject to professional ethics (if they want to keep practicing), which most people aren't. I just find the "pretty much everyone is this group is lying" get-out-of-jail arguments to be unhelpful. After all, it can be applied indiscriminately, so it applies to any argument you want to make (not just the ones you argue against).
 
He seems to be leading you around on a leash. Yah, the only reason I recognize it is because up until i found Skeptiko Forum I had spent way too much time on Reddit. I had a game I would play, where I would challenge myself to argue in good faith and positive regard, no matter how poignant the troll.. Ultimately, I've come to learn that there's a certain type of troll; lets call it a "Keep-you-busy type.", with whom debate is generally fruitless. You can spot them by their methods which are something like:
Primary
#1 Keep you busy
Secondary
#2 Excite you
#3 Sharpen debate skill
#4 Draw others into the debate
Tertiary
#5 Consider absorbing a tiny piece of new info but only if there's energy leftover from 1-4.

How do you know you've been arguing with a Keep-you-busy type? Maybe go back though the thread and count how many times you thought "huh, he has an interesting point here, I wonder what he thinks about _______."
Dude, you are putting way too much effort into this. You are giving me way too much credit. I'm not capable of that kind of planning and forethought.

Just ignore me.
 
The person conducting the interview is a doctor. He also happens to believe in taking the vaccine. But he doesn't sugarcoat the effectiveness of the vaccine or discount reports of bad reactions to the vaccine.

It's pretty clear the full story isn't making it to the MSM.

Here is an overview of the shortcomings of the vaccine, from a doctor who is pro-vaccine.


I don't disagree with any of that. I think my problem is that I don't look to the MSM to be informed on what's happening with COVID, so I find it hard to know what you're complaining about. As far as I can tell, this information is all readily available, because he didn't say anything that surprised me, or I wasn't aware of.

And I'm not discounting bad reactions to the vaccine, if the bar is calling a vasovagal reaction "bad" (not the bar I was referring to previously).
 
So, no one can point me to the relevant study itself and address the criticisms from the article?
Then, this is what bothers me. I take stuff that Alex says on the show, and get very quickly rebuffed by people who have done more reading than I.
Curious as to why you would "take stuff that Alex says on the show"? Does he really strike you as a "reliable source"?
 
Back
Top