As we approach May 11…

Ok, I get your argument. Do you get mine though? If my expert, not me, but the expert I cite disagrees with your expert does that make mine a propagandist and yours correct? If I am arguing for what a credentialed expert I believe in, and discount another credentialed expert with opposite beliefs, does that make me a narcist?
I know you are not calling me a narcist and I appreciate that I just wonder what the thought process is for someone arguing against something, citing experts, but not what may be believed by most others here.

 

And where do you think people caught covid to spread in their house? Did it magically appear or did maybe someone in the household catch it while they were gassing up their boat or grabbing some snacks from a store for the beach?

 

You legitimately sound like a cult leader. Just repeating the same mantra over and over.

 

People had to make sacrifices for the good of the collective. This thread is a) an "I told ya so" that was oh so predictable long before we emerged from the most dangerous stages of the pandemic. Many of us knew such revisionism was forthcoming. b) Yet another pathetic cry for attention.
To this point, I've posted a Randy Rainbow video and my response to you. Like others, I'm done here and refuse to grant any more attention to those who seek it.

 

No, I think belief in that has roots in narcissism, I agree. However, I don't see that extensively on here. In fact, speaking purely for myself, when I disagree with a research article (I tore up the Santa Clara seroprevalence study, for example), it comes from a place of attacking the methods/procedures not just attacking the results. However, there is a balancing act in relation to people like Bhattacharya, who engaged in academic fraud, a statement based upon my knowledge of research methods and the reasoning that somebody with his background doesn't accidentally make the extremely elementary mistakes that he made. I grant there is a degree of balancing on the margins.

It is a very interesting question and one that I think is heavily debated in philosophy of science. I doubt that any of us completely lack some degree of narcissism. I actually think it would be unhealthy to completely be devoid. But, like almost all things, it is on a scale and way too much of it runs you into problems. In this case, it leads to a person declaring that all experts are idiots, everybody who listens to those experts have been had by propaganda, and that eventually everybody will agree with him, a person with absolutely no applicable background in either the substantive or methodological issues related to the study of this issue.

 

Notice the lack of a substantive point on which I was actually wrong. That is because you actually don't have any background and you do exactly as I described, decide how good a scientific article is based upon its congruence with your beliefs (which are translated into being factually correct in your mind). It is why you need to believe other people are all just following propaganda and that they are a minority. Not liking the light it puts you in is not the same thing as being wrong.

 

To be clear. I agree we make sacrifices as adults. I did so willingly, as did you. Sacrificing the well being of my children though is off the table if this ever happens again.

 

In 2020ff we were all hounded and bullied into participating in the Common Bad.

 

A statement that your narcissism takes as fact, despite the fact that healthy people died. There are reasonable points to be made on relative danger. However, claiming something that killed people is not at all dangerous is obviously false. But, again, the issue is the narcissism here. No amount of evidence of healthy people dying will penetrate.

Yeah, here is an expert discussing asymptomatic spread in 2022. So your claim is factually false. Your false belief is born of a few things arising from the narcissism: 1. That you didn't hear about it, so it must not have happened; 2. That you want it to not be true. Therefore, it isn't, because the world is here to confirm your obviously extensive knowledge on this subject.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/98632?trw=no

 

Event a category of Healthy Sick and drive multitudes to their deaths through gaslighting, panic and despair.

 

Again, here is the narcissism. You admit that people have died from something you declare not dangerous. How many? What is the threshold level for considering something dangerous or not? Is there one? Is it a continuum? These are the questions you won't ask, as they in no way benefit you.

Next, you declare that you know the FDA approval process so well that you can definitively state that the drug wouldn't have been approved under any other circumstances. And yet, you little about that process, nor the research typically required, nor the research done to reach overall approval. But the narcissism says you are a world expert on all of those topics, to the point that you know more than the actual experts (who are all idiots in your world) do.

The article was from 2022. And yes, it states that asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) spread is a thing. And they are a media source. So your claims were false. But since you hadn't read that media article, "it disappeared" because things you didn't notice don't exist.