Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:07:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <voro9s$ekdl$1@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:07:30 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bba090bbb710aac2a3527e5bf8a9ab4d";
	logging-data="479669"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XDRmT+4KJgsoNF3rR7ckwuVE1TUF3g3A="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zVoK63G0N1ko8RIuSsDGURWFS1E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9ed2rjdp07d6kh573u6ghkdbcnjt0t1lrt@4ax.com>
Bytes: 6764

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.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski