The Coronavirus thread

What do you think of the following:

A scientist gives us both a pill which look exactly alike. One is a real drug and one is an inert substance. Neither of us know which one was the real drug or the fake drug. The scientist doesn't know either.

A scientist records what effects happen to us.

This is done to thousands and thousands of people.

Then they finally look at who got what pill and the reported effects. This is a randomized double-blind study. This is what they did in the clinical trials of covid vaccine only it was a shot not a pill.

Even if you don't believe viruses exist, people getting less sick or not dying was the result of the study when the vaccine was used vs no vacine.

Other than claiming everyone is lying, what is wrong with that process? Why wouldn't you use it? As i said, we aren't even concerned with proving what it is that is causing sickness, just the results.

The first thing are the results are dependent upon many variables, not on one variable.

It's like changing two variables at the same time in computer code and then testing for bugs.

So the interaction of one person relative to the other person depends on many variables, such as DNA, diet, condition, current bacterial state, etc.

You expect me to believe Covid science is not fake when people are dying from Cancer and Aids every day?

The underlying science is based upon germ theory.

It's obviously wrong.

I call it fake science.

But it's more than fake science.

It's intentionally choosing one method over another and then using clout to censor.

The motive is money.

Quote: DoubleGold

The first thing are the results are dependent upon many variables, not on one variable.

It's like changing two variables at the same time in computer code and then testing for bugs.

So the interaction of one person relative to the other person depends on many variables, such as DNA, diet, condition, current bacterial state, etc.

Sorry, dude, this is so simple. Let's say each person is given an inert pill and the other a 100% deadly poison. You're saying the ultimate result of all the people dying given the poison pill is the result of other random variables? That it can't be attributed to the poison pill?

All I really did was made the results of the one pill so strong it can't be ignored vs the other pill.

Quote: rxwine

Sorry, dude, this is so simple. Let's say each person is given an inert pill and the other a 100% deadly poison. You're saying the ultimate result of all the people dying given the poison pill is the result of other random variables? That it can't be attributed to the poison pill?

I'm saying that is not scientific.

But sure, you can perform that experiment and if it works the way you expect, make sure you get the government to give you a liability disclaimer.

Quote: DoubleGold

I saying that is not scientific.

But sure, you can perform that experiment and if it works the way you expect, make sure you get the government to give you a liability disclaimer.

The principle is very scientific, even if too extreme as an actual experiment. It's practically the pure definition of the scientific method. In fact it is the methodology of a lot of science.

There's other ways to do science, but that's just a basic procedure used.

Now, if I had a Cancer breakthrough that could save many lives, why would I get a liability disclaimer?

-------------------------------------

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either

DEC 23 2020
.
.
.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

--------------------------------------

Double Gold, you're my biggest waste of time use on this site I've ever engaged in. And in such a short time. And that's saying something.

Have fun.