> RFK Jr. & the rise of scientists

FIFY

MJ20/20 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Amen brother. Science is a more fluid term than ever.

---

So you're science fluid? Sounds like a lib thing.

F84 taught me everything I know about science

GeorgiAg said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Amen brother. Science is a more fluid term than ever.

---

So you're science fluid? Sounds like a lib thing.

---

science taught me that "fluid", or liquid, is only one of several different states of matter.

The left misunderstands the process, and how a hypothesis isn't proven. It is proposed and then an experiment or multiple experiments are devised attempting to disprove it. This happens repeatedly until all other plausible alternatives are ruled out by experimentation, while the hypothesis survives.

You don't prove something. Rather, you keep failing attempts to disprove it, or keep failing to find evidence of an alternative. I think the frustration is that science is so incremental and boring and with the vast quantities of related information now available, it is getting slower and more complex and tedious.

Phatbob said:

---

When the left politicized science for global warming and then for Covid, they were hoping to use it as an undeniable authority position to end their opposition. Turns out they just tore down "Science" (Inc) and took them down with them.

---

Exactly what I was thinking, you phat ***k.

This is correct. You cannot "trust science" because actual science is perpetually skeptical of itself and attempting to prove itself wrong.

Liberals lie...constantly...it's part of their god forsaken wicked false religion. And most scientists, educators, and media members are godless Christ-hating liberals. Only a fool would blindly trust someone from either group...or even the "consensus" from that group.

Talk about tone-deaf and an utter lack of self-awareness.

I'm not sure if it is, was, or will be the final nail in the coffin but when the various "scientific experts" said it was completely safe and OK for people to gather in the streets to protest over George Floyd but grandma had to die alone in a nursing home and we couldn't visit family for Thanksgiving it's clear that "science" has been coopted by statist ideology and is no longer objective.

There's been plenty of other evidence of that coopting over the years that is too vast to catalogue here but that's one of the more recent absurdities.

William Foster said:

---

Liberals lie...constantly...it's part of their god forsaken wicked false religion. And most scientists, educators, and media members are godless Christ-hating liberals. Only a fool would blindly trust someone from either group...or even the "consensus" from that group.

---

This is no small part of it. Too much of `science' seems to have aligned with the DC-MSM Party rather than the principles of science. And since that party almost literally lies all the time, its damaged science credibility in turn.

Frankly, between the forced-consensus and imposing false results to drive the climate hysteria, and then the gender-bender agenda, and Covid abysmal analysis, 21st C "science" at least has come across as more `sciency' and compromised.

So its not RFK's doing. Its the fault of the institutions themselves.

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

titan said:

---

William Foster said:

---

Liberals lie...constantly...it's part of their god forsaken wicked false religion. And most scientists, educators, and media members are godless Christ-hating liberals. Only a fool would blindly trust someone from either group...or even the "consensus" from that group.

---

This is no small part of it. Too much of `science' seems to have aligned with the DC-MSM Party rather than the principles of science. And since that party almost literally lies all the time, its damaged science credibility in turn.

Frankly, between the forced-consensus and imposing false results to drive the climate hysteria, and then the gender-bender agenda, and Covid abysmal analysis, 21st C "science" at least has come across as more `sciency' and compromised.

So its not RFK's doing. Its the fault of the institutions themselves.

---

DOGE gonna cut off the slush fund being siphoned to these scientists.

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

The Marxist Democrat refrain of "science is real" comes from the same demonic perverts who say there are more than two genders and men can get preggers. **** all those idiots. They don't deserve a voice.

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

I don't know what causes genetic mutation. It can frequently be spontaneous. Down's Syndrome is effectively a genetic mutation caused by a spontaneous error in cell division. As I understand there are risk factors that would make for a higher chance of a child being born with Down's such as mother's age and certain genetic markers but those are not guarantees of occurrence.

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff

the covid pandemic started in a wet market, men can get pregnant, etc. funny how that works both ways.

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

---

There also hasn't been a single study to show any relation whatsoever of vaccines to autism and the rise in autism is often linked to a better understanding and expansion of the spectrum for diagnosis. Not to mention the usage of the vaccines in question for 50+ years without these alleged issues.

Phatbob said:

---

When the left politicized science for global warming and then for Covid, they were hoping to use it as an undeniable authority position to end their opposition. Turns out they just tore down "Science" (Inc) and took them down with them.

---

KidDoc said:

---

I'm interested to see what he does with the HHS. I've been digging into some nutrition literature lately and working on cutting junk from my personal diet using YUKA app. It is VERY hard to eat clean in the USA, it is really nuts how bad our food industry has become.

I believe the radical change in our diet over the last 60+ years is responsible for a significant percentage of chronic physical and mental health problems that have become epidemic in developed countries especially the USA. If we can get all the additives, preservatives, seed oils out of our day to day foods I expect we will see a pretty radical change in disease rates in 20ish years.

---

I doubt you can ever get away from it completely but I do my best to eat most everything I can from the outer ring of the grocery store. IE- fresh fruits & produce, fresh meats & fish, milk, eggs, etc. Even fresh-frozen fruits and veggies are still pretty good.

The 3 things that I consistently eat that are from the inside aisles are peanut butter, honey (although I get local, raw, unpasteurized honey from a friend who keeps bees), and coffee.

Do that with your diet and you'll be in a pretty good spot.

This has nothing to do with science - these are ad hominem attacks and character assassination on RFK & others for leaving the plantation.