Florida Surgeon General
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Pretty sure all the america frontline doctors are banned from Twitter. The demon sperm lady plus the capitol rioter. And apparently this guy.
What did he say? I don’t think it has anything to do with him being surgeon general.
Love this guy. Once he pulls back the curtain on early treatment, the entire pharma house of cards and charade will begin to collapse. I look for Florida to adopt in the near future.
We got MD's in the USA alone with 7000, 8000, 5000 with NO DEATHS using HCQ, Ivermectin and a grab bag of other goodies. Thousands and millions of happy customers. Entire countries like India using early treatment. NO COVID.
We got MD's in the USA alone with 7000, 8000, 5000 with NO DEATHS using HCQ, Ivermectin and a grab bag of other goodies. Thousands and millions of happy customers. Entire countries like India using early treatment. NO COVID.
Say what you will about AFD, and I don't like their Trump politics of the past, but they are the most engaged physicians on social media. They are not ivory tower academics.
Richard Urso is really sharp. Guy is an ophthalmologist but taught himself how to treat. Saving thousands of lives. His do nothing robot colleagues are too timid to go outside "protocol" , which is ... do nothing
Richard Urso is really sharp. Guy is an ophthalmologist but taught himself how to treat. Saving thousands of lives. His do nothing robot colleagues are too timid to go outside "protocol" , which is ... do nothing
Who knew ophthalmologists are experts on COVID?
I guess it doesn't matter if this Urso guy is "really sharp" and an "engaged" Twitter eye doctor instead of some "ivory tower academic" (i.e. somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.)
Exactly who would you say is an expert on Covid?
You guys like to discredit anyone that doesn't agree with your confirmation bias even if they are an epidemiologist or a virologist, so apparently you fancy yourselves as the expert. Regardless of credentials, those doctors don't know shit if you disagree with them.
Those ophthalmologists really have an eye for Covid skepticism.
Anyone relying on a singular “expert” opinion will be left with a biased and flawed conclusion. The strength of an expert opinion is directly proportional to the number of equally qualified experts who share it.
And the best way to accomplish that is to scare enough opposing opinions from speaking.
Many politicians (and others) deny climate change is a serious issue, so not exactly sure who has been scared of speaking about it, or about covid for that matter.
This article speaks to vaccinations. The ivermectin part is anecdotal on the tweeters part. No evidence only rumor.
It’s not about the politicians, it’s about getting blacklisted in the scientific community and, more importantly, getting frozen out of competing for federal grant money.
Ah, THAT must be it!!!!!
It's not like any dire predictions have come true or anything, right?
Climate Change: They warned you!
This week NBC News interviewed Al Gore about his old movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" which warned people what might happen 20 years from now if we didn't take man-made climate change seriously. Despite all the angst the movie generated from the Right and their loud cries of 'bullsh!t,' it turns...
ucf.forums.rivals.com
No, I think that scientists are studying very real phenomena in their field honestly. I think they are trying to make sense of things and have been throwing theories out that time has largely proven wrong. But that doesn’t mean they are lying or their work is wrong. East Anglia and the UN IPCC were actually caught lying to bolster the threat and preserve their funding but not all are like that.
The issue is with mob mentality. There has been a critical mass, fostered by the way studies are funded, that has driven an almost religious fervor. In this state, any dissension causes derision or worse. Many scientists have come out against parts of the consensus and the public and even scientific mob has silenced them and ruined careers. At some point, you learn to keep quiet.
All of that said, they can all be very right, that climate change is occurring, that humans are having an effect, that other things are driving it, that we can/should stop it, all of that. But the opposition is being silenced actively and that should not happen in scientific discord.
The opposition is being silenced??!? I have a younger brother who is a Professor of Climatology at a Pac 12 university. He's about an 'non-political' as it gets and literally groans at the way the climate change issue has become politicized.
He's told me that the data is clear-cut and the vast majority of researchers in his field are in agreement that man-made climate change has been occurring. I asked him once that if that's the case, how do you account for the vocal minority of nay-sayers? He grinned and said, "Check out who is funding their research. He said one of his colleagues who is a climate-change denier has his big money research grants funded by Big Oil."
The opinions held by the preponderance of experts are the ones that should be given the most weight. If the “opposing opinion” was held by the vast majority of experts, then it would be the accepted truth.
The idea of mob mentality is way over used. If a vast majority of people believe something is true, have evidence and support to back up that it is true, then why is it that the very small minority should be given the same weight? We don't have to have a 50/50 opposing sides on every issue if the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side of the issue.
Accepted truth is an interesting concept this early in the study of any virus or pandemic. What they’re really working with at the moment is “educated guess” based on the studies being performed as the experts that study this all the time are frantically trying to get closer to the truth.
Unfortunately, this has and will lead to missteps and that’s understandable. But it should never be represented as an understanding to the level of a truism.
But the problem today is that the experts aren’t in full consensus, it just seems that way because some voices are amplified far beyond others and politicians are picking the voices that further their goals. If we could trust our institutions and leadership, that would be one thing. But we can’t and so here we are.
We essentially live in a world now where people don't think expertise matters. Marjorie Taylor Greene literally printed off memes to make a point in congress this week, and this is essentially what people view as expertise and legitimate knowledge now, just reading memes.
You cant trust them because you don't want to trust them, not because you actually cant. It is just another conspiracy theory to think scientists are silencing anyone who speaks out against climate change. Funny enough, we know for a fact that exxon has actually covered up their findings in the past because their own studies showed that climate change was most certainly real and driven by humans.
East Anglia and the IPCC got caught red-handed skewing their coefficients to make their graphs look more dramatic. Their dire predictions of Apocalypse by this date or that never came to pass when we actually got to those dates. When reality disproves theories and modeling, it makes it hard to continue to trust the modelers.
But don’t pin me into a binary position, there are plenty of experts that I trust. I’ve also worked with PhDs in the government in some of the very institutions that are responding to COVID that are great and some that are shit. Just because they’ve spent a lifetime doing something doesn’t automatically make them right. Science isn’t religion.
Throwing theories out? Hate to break it to you, but that's not how the scientific method works.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: San Diego Knight
-
-
-
