Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 04:39:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <dgc3rjph84p7gn62it0p52thhg0fb9lvvh@4ax.com>
References: <kl2rqjhtclsfcouku8s511rrr9o0ddm9s8@4ax.com> <vol2bc$2uqgd$1@dont-email.me> <vonsp7$3hmi0$9@dont-email.me> <vonuj5$3htuk$3@dont-email.me> <vop413$3ojl2$4@dont-email.me> <voq66s$1vl7$2@dont-email.me> <m1bnsbFl7s3U1@mid.individual.net> <voqitv$4aek$2@dont-email.me> <voqnbk$59iv$1@dont-email.me> <vor1g7$70t2$1@dont-email.me> <jr62rjlal8ra20q6uqdhmqti7hvif8mpps@4ax.com> <9ed2rjdp07d6kh573u6ghkdbcnjt0t1lrt@4ax.com> <voro9s$ekdl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bdc04ab34fb4c0b572cf965ce10b6e03";
	logging-data="572830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AsFlPT1DN/M2+OYmkdIJzdWxNev26ulw="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tlWV4s4147kzV+NELRRIQtnNjWQ=
Bytes: 7557

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:07:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2025 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
>>>>>>>> Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
>>>>>>>> manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
>>>>>>>> contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
>>>>>>>> (those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
>>>>>>>> is actually true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
>>>>>>>> check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who
>>>>>>> well does
>>>>>>> like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie
>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>> folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
>>>>>>> that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
>>>>>>> overwhelmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
>>>>>> social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
>>>>>> that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
>>>>>> I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
>>>>>> 100% effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
>>>>>> People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
>>>>>> first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
>>>>>> healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
>>>>>> tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
>>>>>> unknown and was causing great damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
>>>>>> normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
>>>>>> try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
>>>>>> hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
>>>>>> even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
>>>>>> turned out to have low value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
>>>>>> toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
>>>>>> useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
>>>>>> politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
>>>>>> own, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The world is a bit more complicated than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
>>>>> speech-briefing-transcript
>>>>
>>>> That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
>>>> where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
>>>> don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
>>>> knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
>>>>> none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
>>>>> assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
>>>>> and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
>>>>> among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
>>>>> skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
>>>>> are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
>>>>> scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
>>>>> more error.
>>>>
>>>> It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
>>>> there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
>>>> the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
>>>> entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
>>>> are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
>>>> have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
>>>> "How's that law working out?"  Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
>>>> don't work"?
>>>>
>>>> Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
>>>> sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
>>>>
>>>> John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
>>>> worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
>>>> make any study yield whatever data is desired.
>> 
>> 
>> There goes Frankie telling lies again.
>> 
>> What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
>> a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.
>You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study 
>that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that 
>studies are not to be trusted.

I agree with that implication regardless of whether or not it was
John's.

Everyone has an agenda. People who spend money and time to do a
"study" obviously have an agenda. In my opinion, the odds that their
agenda is pure honest enlightenment are extremely low, as are the odds
that their agenda hasn't influenced the conclusions.

I recall that Krygowski actually bought on to nonsense "studies" that
concluded that a gun in your home made it more likely you'd get shot
because some people who got shot had a gun in their home.

<sigh> Some people are incredibly gullible and will believe anything
told to them by the people they've chosen to tell them what to
believe.

--
C'est bon
Soloman