- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Covid 19 vax helps to cure cancer according to peer reviewed study
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:44 pm to TigerDoc
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:44 pm to TigerDoc
We'll never know because you're chicken sht.
I lost all faith in your profession since 2020, and well earned.
I lost all faith in your profession since 2020, and well earned.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:50 pm to lsupride87
Well sure. Once the vax kills you, the cancer dies with you. 100% effective
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:52 pm to Hognutz
Our profession made a lot of mistakes, but geez, adopt reasonable critiques. This is like being mad at NASA and becoming a flat earther.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:56 pm to TigerDoc
You won't bother because you know you'll get owned by these "charlatans" and I would 100% share it here. Reasonable, lmao, sure.
Virology is pseudoscientific bs
Virology is pseudoscientific bs
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:59 pm to Hognutz
I don't think you get it.
It won't convince them. People there using identity-protective cognition won't be convinced either.
Good science communication is to persuadables, like open-minded people here who don't have a dog in the fight.
But even that doesn't matter nearly as much as the worlds of actual research and practice. You have to actually convince the legions of people actually doing the science around the world. These people aren't trying to do that.
They're trying to clout-chase off angry laypeople like you.
It won't convince them. People there using identity-protective cognition won't be convinced either.
Good science communication is to persuadables, like open-minded people here who don't have a dog in the fight.
But even that doesn't matter nearly as much as the worlds of actual research and practice. You have to actually convince the legions of people actually doing the science around the world. These people aren't trying to do that.
They're trying to clout-chase off angry laypeople like you.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 10:07 pm to Hognutz
quote:
Virology is pseudoscientific bs
Imagine being convinced by a 5 minute inane rumble video. Jesus tap dancing Christ.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 10:13 pm to Jbird
It's a massive problem for scientific legitimacy, but surmountable.
We should start with teaching kids (and adults) how to evaluate the quality of medical research. You can't be an expert in all the fields, so you need some general evaluation skills and science literacy is poor af.
We should start with teaching kids (and adults) how to evaluate the quality of medical research. You can't be an expert in all the fields, so you need some general evaluation skills and science literacy is poor af.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 10:15 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Trump just can’t stop winning
You mean except for all the cases of cardiovascular deaths that y'all have blamed on the vaccine since COVID? I think the last "Pureblood Roll Call" here was only a week or two ago.
I never saw anyone blame Trump for any of that.
But he gets the credit for this?
Posted on 10/27/25 at 10:21 pm to TigerDoc
Dude, you don't know anything about any of them except what they're saying goes directly against your faith in pseudoscientific nonsense. How would you, you're dismissing everything out of hand without even looking.
A former VP for Pfizer agrees with them now. Why, because he looked, for 2 years. And he's honest, willing to stake his reputation on it. He had plenty to lose.
A former VP for Pfizer agrees with them now. Why, because he looked, for 2 years. And he's honest, willing to stake his reputation on it. He had plenty to lose.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 10:26 pm to FutureMikeVIII
Imagine thinking that when you have no clue. No, I've been reading and looking into it since 2020. It was not a conclusion reached in 5 minutes. In fact I dismissed it as insane for 6 months until I finally decided to look. It's very clear, virology is based on logical fallacies and circular reasoning. Exactly the conclusion Grok arrived at. What have you done to see if the claims of virology are true, anything?
I bet you didn't even bother with this little 5 minute video before commenting.
I bet you didn't even bother with this little 5 minute video before commenting.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 10:28 pm
Popular
Back to top

1





