The factory of ignorance (Arte Reportage)

[ABC2019]

it's technological proof if you will, but it's proof. And the advantage with technological evidence is that you can't cheat with it by just saying any junk, when it doesn't work, it shows right away.

[Janic]

ABC2019 / pedro »13/03/21, 13:54

it's technological proof if you will, but it's proof. And the advantage with technological evidence is that you can't cheat with it by just saying all the blah, when it doesn't work, it shows right away.

A little I want, my nephew! I am - (I was!) A creator of technologies and we must give back to Caesar what belongs to him.
At the same time as a scientist, I have found that, what you denigrate, it works as I have professionally done throughout my career. which does not seem to be your case since you refuse to do it, by yourself, to check if it does not work, containing you fakenews of your darling AFIS!
So you can tell right away that you are talking about any blah
damn it, but you're a conspirator then!

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 / pedro »13/03/21, 13:54

it's technological proof if you will, but it's proof. And the advantage with technological evidence is that you can't cheat with it by just saying all the blah, when it doesn't work, it shows right away.

A little I want, my nephew! I am - (I was!) A creator of technologies and we must give back to Caesar what belongs to him.
At the same time as a scientist, I have found that, what you denigrate, it works as I have professionally done throughout my career. which does not seem to be your case since you refuse to do it, by yourself,

I do not have the means at all to verify "by myself" the effectiveness of substances against diseases, it requires tests on thousands of patients and careful checks for the absence of bias - see for example the discussions on ivermectin. Something that I am obviously unable to organize myself.

So the only way to verify it is to read publications describing these experiences, and confirmed by several independent sources. As I told you, if you let us know, I will consult them with interest.

[Janic]

I do not have the means at all to verify "by myself" the effectiveness of substances against diseases, it requires tests on thousands of patients and careful checks for the absence of bias - see for example the discussions on ivermectin. Something that I am obviously unable to organize myself

This is why, when we do not know we do not say and I am not talking about HCQ or ivermachin, but what is easily verifiable after a professionals knowledgeable and specialized in their field and verified on millions of people.

So the only way to verify it, is to read publications describing these experiences, and confirmed by several independent sources. As I told you, if you let us know, I will consult them with interest.

therefore consult all the documents and works published by the professionals of the H and not those of non-independent sources (of BP) and especially incompetent in this field.

[ABC2019]

I do not have the means at all to verify "by myself" the effectiveness of substances against diseases, it requires tests on thousands of patients and careful checks for the absence of bias - see for example the discussions on ivermectin. Something that I am obviously unable to organize myself

This is why, when we do not know we do not say and I do not speak of HCQ or ivermachin, but of what is easily verifiable after a professional [

absolutely not, a professional alone does not have at all the means to verify the effectiveness of drugs!

a good professional also relies on publications and studies carried out by entire teams, benefiting from sufficient resources to carry them out. It's like you want to build a GPS or a computer all by yourself!

So these studies must exist and be published, in any case. The most reasonable thing you can do as an individual is to see if these studies exist.

[ABC2019]

all documents and works published by professionals of the H and not those of non-independent sources (of BP) and especially incompetent in this field.

I haven't seen any mention of these reliable studies anywhere, it's like saying "go see a unicorn yourself!" . Especially since you have never been damned to give a single link on a single study to support what you claim. Even sites defending HCQ indicate hundreds of studies, even if their quality is questionable, they at least give the links so that we can precisely verify their quality!

[Janic]

abc / pedro

therefore these studies must exist and be published, in all cases. the most reasonable thing you can do as an individual is to verifier if these studies exist.

Well there you are, you finally start to think! so start there!

I have seen no mention of these reliable studies anywhere,

You only find if you look for and research studies on fish, you will not find them in studies on birds!

Especially since you have never been damned to give a single link on a single study to support what you claim.

Look for them yourself. I gave you the procedure to follow: you type HOMEOPATHY, etc ... Even a 10 year old kid is able to do it, but not you? Not glop the guy!

Even sites defending HCQ indicate hundreds of studies, even if their quality is questionable, they at least give the links so that we can precisely check their quality!

Consult, then, the organizations professionals who talk about it, since you managed, painfully, to find one and there you will have what check! (except that since you do not have any skills, you did not come out of your ignorance!)

[Obamot]

An interesting site studying the characteristics of conspiracy theories.

I found this comparative table interesting

In the current period, those who shout “fi the“ conspirators ”, are the very ones who ignite backfires to hide big pharmas shenanigans by placing themselves de facto in an indefensible position, and it is they. that you, Izy, Pédro and Kiki have been defending tooth and nail for a year!

In the current rather peculiar period, unfortunately, there are many more “to charge” against those * who claim to protect the world against “conspiracy” than against the oddballs who are in sectarian drifts and other mental frailties - because they are harmless, since they are detected in a single sentence - and you like to portray and associate with those with real arguments, which is not an honorable position.

ABC2019, you don't have the monopoly to say what would be “conspiracy” of what would not be ...

ABC2019 the scoundrel who supports the schemers!

* (who are themselves behind the support for conspiracies, up to publications in the Lancet, up to the Codex Alimentarius ... up to the 9/11 attacks, etc ... we cannot in a simplistic way, to claim that someone "is a conspirator", that no longer makes sense, even national TV channels are labeled "conspirators", think ...!)

[Ahmed]

ABC, you write:

uh ..

GPS would not work with a flat earth theory ...

and the computer you are using is concrete proof that scientific theories produce "much more" than wacky conspiracy theories.

I am afraid that you did not understand the content of my message well: I do not at any time question the performative reality of science, only that it is inappropriate to take a comprehensive look at it; it is not a deficiency on his part, but an area which escapes him by definition. You will also note that, far from supporting conspiracy theories (in the sense of generalized conspiracy, not of conspiracies in the restricted sense), I limit myself to examining their origins from a sociological point of view.

[ABC2019]

abc / pedro

therefore these studies must exist and be published, in all cases. the most reasonable thing you can do as an individual is to verifier if these studies exist.

Well there you are, you finally start to think! so start there!

I have seen no mention of these reliable studies anywhere,

We only find if we look for

like unicorns what?