How was I "lecturing"? Because I asked you questions that you were unable to answer? And what did I assume? Remember, all I did was ask you questions. Which, by the way, you failed to answer.

I will repeat. What makes you think you are in the position to judge that people you work for are hot shit?

You didn't "just ask questions". You asked a question paired with an assumption. "Why do you think they're hot shit, because they work in science?" That is obviously not the case, because I work in science and I already said I am not hot shit. See how your question answers itself? It's because it's not really a question, it's an assumption and a judgement.

To answer the question you are pretending to ask, I work for and with people who are making real differences in the treatment of the most difficult to treat and research diseases. Individuals who you can directly tie back to things like declining cancer mortality. People who when you have no other options you go to them because they are the foremost expert in your disease with the best outcomes of anybody in the country.

I am not them. I am honored to be able to work for them and I can make a real difference in how well they can accomplish their goals though.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 1 2021 04:00pm

And just like I said in that other thread, the discussion is 90% political, and only 10% science. The person you were initially responding to had an innate distrust of the academia, as well as politicians and other major institutions. This distrust is political in nature, and it has very little to do with science. So, it doesn't matter how stellar the scientists you work for supposedly are.

Btw, I still can't get over how off-putting and arrogant when you said you had the "real answers". Seriously, you are such a typical lefty. They tend to have a little bit of smart, have gone to a college, and now consider themselves authorities on a whole range of topics.

Man you are so triggered that I said "real answers".

I work in the field. My answers are going to be as real as you can get. I'm sorry that triggers you.



Also your "90% political 10% science" is an exceptionally dumb statement. Like, it is a really fast way to tell you don't know shit about shit lol. It's like somebody spouting homeopathy to doctors.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 1 2021 04:39pm

paid or played
Dr Merritt: Face Masks Don't Work! You're Either Being Paid or Played!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vpffR07rUn87/

Just because you supposedly work in a relevant field, it does not mean that you are automatically correct, much less that you have the "real answers". Note that this isn't about who has the right answer. It's your brazen assumption that other people are not as educated as you are and you arrogant belief that only you and people you agree with are right.

And yes, arrogant lefty fatties who think only they have the "real answers" do bother me quite a bit.



You are in no position to judge whether a statement is "dumb" or not, sir. Given your track record.


Again, you still think this discussion is about science. Lol.

Let me be very plain with you: it's true that I am probably not as well-versed as you are in science, however that doesn't mean I can't tell when a discussion is about politics, not science. For you to keep masturbating and crying how you "work in the field' and how you are supposedly "the doctor", it just tells me that you can't read.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 1 2021 04:52pm

Somebody who blanketly asserts that "academic science is corrupt" doesn't really know anything about academics or science. Modern academic science is exceptionally non-corrupt. It's industry you have to watch out for, and in areas where they're appropriately regulated you can basically trust the results. Things like vaccines are exceptionally well regulated. Supplements have virtually non to speak of. If you publish a claim and can't back it up you will get ripped to shreds in the literature. My PI is getting ready to publish a paper completely shitting on his Ph.D mentor because the paper was dumb and not well supported. Just to give you an idea of how cut throat this is.

I'm not the only one who has answers. We're not talking to somebody with their own good track record in science. We're talking to a facebook educated science denier. I am totally within reason to say I have "real answers" to them lol.

Science and politics don't get to be separated. Good policy relies on science. When you say something that implies they can be categorically separated it shows how little you know and how little you can contribute to the discussion.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 1 2021 05:13pm

This psychopat is a member of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

Again with the arrogance. I am not saying that you don't know a few things or two about science. It's about how you automatically discount someone's view just because he doesn't have the same background in science as you are. And it doesn't matter whether he is a "facebook educated science denier". You should still give fair consideration to what he has to say, as long as he is being rational and showing that he sincerely wishes to discuss. As far as I can see, he is.



Stupid and patently false. There are plenty of polices that don't rely on science, and it's because they are political in nature and have nothing to do with science. For you to say this, it just makes me think you get a hard-on whenever you think about your precious science degree.


I think you need to stop worrying about how much (or little) I know or don't know, or how much I can or cannot contribute to the discussion. Let me worry about that, ok?

He literally said anything that contradicts his view will be disregarded. That is not rational and shows an explicit insincerity. So what are you on about? It's almost like you didn't even read the conversation and decided I was the bad guy because I trigger you so hard.

Can you give me an example of something in politics that doesn't rely on science at all?

Why wouldn't I worry about your ability to contribute? We're in a discussion. I have to tailor my responses to my audience. When my audience is a moron, I have to take that into account. So when we talk I don't use the same level of argument I might against snipa or thundercock, because you're just not as capable as they are.