1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

So tell us a bit more about your education, kwilco, in what fields do you excel?

I could probably comment…but it would too mean.

 

Mean comments never seemed to matter when the now suffering mudbloods wanted us dead and the comments went the other way.

 

At least we have the satisfaction that we are still alive and they are the ones who are actually dying.

 

Even better when their children suffer.

6 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I could probably comment…but it would too mean.

 

Mean comments never seemed to matter when the now suffering mudbloods wanted us dead and the comments went the other way.

 

At least we have the satisfaction that we are still alive and they are the ones who are actually dying.

 

Even better when their children suffer.

 

Something seriously wrong with you ! 

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

Something seriously wrong with you ! 

Maybe people shouldn’t have spoken so unkindly about the unvaxxed at the time.

 

Do you really think I care about your opinion?

 

LOL

 

How’s your Dad.   😂 

Just now, Airalee said:

Maybe people shouldn’t have spoken so unkindly about the unvaxxed at the time.

 

Do you really think I care about your opinion?

 

LOL

 

How’s your Dad.   😂 

 

You are still traumatized, seek help and stop smoking, it is not good for you

18 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I could probably comment…but it would too mean.

 

Mean comments never seemed to matter when the now suffering mudbloods wanted us dead and the comments went the other way.

 

Indeed, there are good mean comments and bad mean comments.

 

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Indeed, there are good mean comments and bad mean comments.

 

 

You are all in the same boat! No better than the other! 

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

You are all in the same boat! No better than the other! 

 

I beg to differ, I don't wish death on my fellow humans. I do know, though, that when the pendulum is pushed too far in one direction, it swings back in the opposite direction with proportional force.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I beg to differ, I don't wish death on my fellow humans. I do know, though, that when the pendulum is pushed too far in one direction, it swings back in the opposite direction with proportional force.

You obviously gave Airalee a thumbs up, so? I dunno what to think 

26 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You obviously gave Airalee a thumbs up, so? I dunno what to think 

 

I gave him a thumbs up as I understand where he's coming from, and I do see a lot of hypocrisy from the poor little souls who "feel trolled" when they condoned segregation just three years ago.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I gave him a thumbs up as I understand where he's coming from, and I do see a lot of hypocrisy from the poor little souls who "feel trolled" when they condoned segregation just three years ago.

 

 

So it is payback time ?  Cant remember it was as bad as your screenshot above. I just have great memories from the covid time. Best time in Thailand ever! 

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

 

So it is payback time ?  Cant remember it was as bad as your screenshot above. I just have great memories from the covid time. Best time in Thailand ever! 

 

I know lots of Thais who hit poverty during Covid. Then they were coerced into taking a dangerous shot under peer pressure and the threat of not being able to work. It was a terrible time and I hope never to see anything like it again.

one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists is they have no concept of big numbers.....

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1cxPB76Ssx/

 

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

 

You are still traumatized, seek help and stop smoking, it is not good for you

 

Yeah, I think we all under-estimated how psychologically traumatized the unvaxxed actually are.

 

6 hours ago, Airalee said:

Maybe people shouldn’t have spoken so unkindly about the unvaxxed at the time.

 

What names did they call you that you are still holding a grudge and psychologically traumatized and messed up 5 years after the fact?

 

Are you planning to do something crazy? 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Are you planning to do something crazy? 

What did you have in mind?  A costume party?

 

 

How about a new ( well revived) 'conspiracy theory' for us all to ponder over.

 

That Billy Gates and the WHO at their shenanigans again.

 

https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/whogates-blueprint-for-global-digital

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12665274/

 

In a document published in the October Bulletin of the World Health Organization and funded by the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO) is proposing a globally interoperable digital-identity infrastructure that permanently tracks every individual’s vaccination status from birth.

The dystopian proposal raises far more than privacy and autonomy concerns: it establishes the architecture for government overreach, cross-domain profiling, AI-driven behavioral targeting, conditional access to services, and a globally interoperable surveillance grid tracking individuals.

It also creates unprecedented risks in data security, accountability, and mission creep, enabling a digital control system that reaches into every sector of life.

On 4/18/2025 at 12:57 PM, kwilco said:

Why Wild Ideas Are Thriving (And How to Push Back)

Twenty years ago, flat Earth, fake moon landings, anti-vax fear, and fringe politics were laughed off. Now? They're everywhere. Why?

No more gatekeepers. Anyone can post anything, and shock spreads faster than truth.

Social media rewards outrage, not accuracy.

People have lost trust in institutions after wars, recessions, and pandemics.

Echo chambers reinforce beliefs, no matter how wild.

Simple lies beat complex truths. It's easier to blame a conspiracy than understand science.

Identity politics. Beliefs become tribal, not logical.

How to fight back?

Stay calm. Mockery fuels their fire.

Ask questions. Get people thinking, not defending.

Share sources they might trust—not just "mainstream."

Most importantly: build trust. No one listens to someone they think looks down on them.

It’s not about winning arguments. It’s about planting seeds.

 

Go sit on the beach and read a book or something.   Spending too much time on social media rots a person's brain.  Thank dog I'm not one of those people addicted to their phone sitting in coffee shops doom scrolling for hours.

5 minutes ago, shdmn said:

 

Go sit on the beach and read a book or something.   Spending too much time on social media rots a person's brain.  Thank dog I'm not one of those people addicted to their phone sitting in coffee shops doom scrolling for hours.

You remind me of that dyslexic atheist that wonders if there's a dog!

Not to mention the dyslexic devil worshippers that sold their souls to Santa.

On 12/16/2025 at 10:24 AM, BritManToo said:

You remind me of that dyslexic atheist that wonders if there's a dog!

Not to mention the dyslexic devil worshippers that sold their souls to Santa.

You mean an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic – lies awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

of course flat earters know better than this guy....

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DGgoSuByx/

 

 

or to put it another way.....

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17khhUnZeZ/

 

this makes flat earthers and conspiracy theorists seem so dismally mundane

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CGKGjCtq8/

 

The scientific method – critical thinking, scepticism and why conspiracy theorists are missing out….
The problem isn’t that people question science — questioning is essential. The problem is that many refuse to listen when science answers. The scientific method isn’t a belief system you pick or reject; it’s a process: observe, ask a question, research what’s already known, form a testable hypothesis, test it, analyse the data, and revise conclusions as new evidence appears. It’s deliberately slow, self-correcting, and uncomfortable — which is exactly why it works. Science doesn’t claim absolute, unchanging “truths”; it produces the best explanations available so far, refined as evidence improves.
Conspiracy thinking skips this process entirely. It jumps straight from suspicion to certainty, clings to one idea regardless of contradictory evidence, and mistakes confidence for understanding. Surveys repeatedly show large gaps in basic scientific literacy — not just in complex topics, but in core ideas like what a hypothesis is or how evidence works. That matters, because societies that don’t understand science don’t just make bad arguments — they make bad decisions. History shows where that leads: fear replacing reason, ideology replacing evidence, and loud certainty replacing critical thinking. Science literacy isn’t elitism — it’s self-defence. E.g . Donald Trump, Brexit and border conflict….
 

43 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The scientific method – critical thinking, scepticism and why conspiracy theorists are missing out….
The problem isn’t that people question science — questioning is essential. The problem is that many refuse to listen when science answers. The scientific method isn’t a belief system you pick or reject; it’s a process: observe, ask a question, research what’s already known, form a testable hypothesis, test it, analyse the data, and revise conclusions as new evidence appears. It’s deliberately slow, self-correcting, and uncomfortable — which is exactly why it works. Science doesn’t claim absolute, unchanging “truths”; it produces the best explanations available so far, refined as evidence improves.
Conspiracy thinking skips this process entirely. It jumps straight from suspicion to certainty, clings to one idea regardless of contradictory evidence, and mistakes confidence for understanding. Surveys repeatedly show large gaps in basic scientific literacy — not just in complex topics, but in core ideas like what a hypothesis is or how evidence works. That matters, because societies that don’t understand science don’t just make bad arguments — they make bad decisions. History shows where that leads: fear replacing reason, ideology replacing evidence, and loud certainty replacing critical thinking. Science literacy isn’t elitism — it’s self-defence. E.g . Donald Trump, Brexit and border conflict….
 

The gullible have no idea that paid 'science' is more often than not hijacked by those with an agenda, and they feverishly keep on defending their religion.

7 hours ago, kwilco said:

The scientific method – critical thinking, scepticism and why conspiracy theorists are missing out….
The problem isn’t that people question science — questioning is essential. The problem is that many refuse to listen when science answers. The scientific method isn’t a belief system you pick or reject; it’s a process: observe, ask a question, research what’s already known, form a testable hypothesis, test it, analyse the data, and revise conclusions as new evidence appears. It’s deliberately slow, self-correcting, and uncomfortable — which is exactly why it works. Science doesn’t claim absolute, unchanging “truths”; it produces the best explanations available so far, refined as evidence improves.
Conspiracy thinking skips this process entirely. It jumps straight from suspicion to certainty, clings to one idea regardless of contradictory evidence, and mistakes confidence for understanding. Surveys repeatedly show large gaps in basic scientific literacy — not just in complex topics, but in core ideas like what a hypothesis is or how evidence works. That matters, because societies that don’t understand science don’t just make bad arguments — they make bad decisions. History shows where that leads: fear replacing reason, ideology replacing evidence, and loud certainty replacing critical thinking. Science literacy isn’t elitism — it’s self-defence. E.g . Donald Trump, Brexit and border conflict….
 

 

Talk your way out of that one. New York Times, September 2022:

 

F.D.A.’s Drug Industry Fees Fuel Concerns Over Influence

 

The pharmaceutical industry finances about 75 percent of the agency’s drug division, through a controversial program that Congress must reauthorize by the end of this month.

 

Funding from the pharmaceutical industry alone has become so dominant that last year it accounted for $1.1 billion of the F.D.A.’s drug division budget.

 

Every five years, top officials of the Food and Drug Administration go behind closed doors to negotiate the terms of its core budget — about $3 billion this year.

 

But the F.D.A. is not at the table with members of Congress or with White House officials. Instead, it’s in dozens of meetings with representatives of the giant pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency regulates. The negotiations are a piece of the “user fee” program in which drug, device and biotech companies make payments to the agency partly to seek product approvals. The fees have soared since the program’s inception three decades ago and now make up nearly half of the F.D.A.’s budget, financing 6,500 jobs at the agency.

 

“It’s kind of like a devil’s bargain,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine who has studied F.D.A. policies, “that I think is not in the best interest of the agency, because it turns this every-five-year cycle into the F.D.A. essentially asking industry, ‘What can we do to secure this money?’ ”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/health/fda-drug-industry-fees.html

https://archive.ph/GMBbq#selection-549.0-553.40

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

The scientific method – critical thinking, scepticism and why conspiracy theorists are missing out….
The problem isn’t that people question science — questioning is essential. The problem is that many refuse to listen when science answers. The scientific method isn’t a belief system you pick or reject; it’s a process: observe, ask a question, research what’s already known, form a testable hypothesis, test it, analyse the data, and revise conclusions as new evidence appears. It’s deliberately slow, self-correcting, and uncomfortable — which is exactly why it works. Science doesn’t claim absolute, unchanging “truths”; it produces the best explanations available so far, refined as evidence improves.
Conspiracy thinking skips this process entirely. It jumps straight from suspicion to certainty, clings to one idea regardless of contradictory evidence, and mistakes confidence for understanding. Surveys repeatedly show large gaps in basic scientific literacy — not just in complex topics, but in core ideas like what a hypothesis is or how evidence works. That matters, because societies that don’t understand science don’t just make bad arguments — they make bad decisions. History shows where that leads: fear replacing reason, ideology replacing evidence, and loud certainty replacing critical thinking. Science literacy isn’t elitism — it’s self-defence. E.g . Donald Trump, Brexit and border conflict….
 

What a load of opinionated, bloated nonsense.

 

there is only one truth. Nature.

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The gullible have no idea that paid 'science' is more often than not hijacked by those with an agenda, and they feverishly keep on defending their religion.

 

That’s just a bundle of clichés standing in for an argument.
Who exactly has been “paid”? By whom? Since which century? To push what agenda? If you can’t name names, mechanisms, or evidence, it’s not scepticism — it’s hand-waving.
And comparing science to religion gets it exactly backwards. Religion relies on faith and authority; science relies on doubt, transparency, replication, and being proven wrong. Scientists build careers by challenging existing ideas, not defending them like dogma.
If “paid science” were the norm, contradictory results wouldn’t exist, peer review wouldn’t work, and rival nations wouldn’t independently reach the same conclusions. Conspiracy claims collapse the moment you demand specifics instead of slogans.
Suspicion without evidence isn’t critical thinking — it’s just suspicion.
 

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

What a load of opinionated, bloated nonsense.

 

there is only one truth. Nature.

 

 

Calling the scientific method “opinionated nonsense” completely misses the point.
Science is as said earlier nothing more than the systematic study of nature — observing it, testing ideas against it, and discarding those that fail.
Saying “there is only one truth: nature” doesn’t reject science — it literally describes what science does.

The difference is that science measures, tests, and revises its understanding of nature, rather than declaring a slogan and stopping there.
Nature doesn’t speak for itself — pretending it does is how people smuggle opinion in while accusing others of doing exactly that.
 

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Talk your way out of that one. New York Times, September 2022:

 

F.D.A.’s Drug Industry Fees Fuel Concerns Over Influence

 

The pharmaceutical industry finances about 75 percent of the agency’s drug division, through a controversial program that Congress must reauthorize by the end of this month.

 

Funding from the pharmaceutical industry alone has become so dominant that last year it accounted for $1.1 billion of the F.D.A.’s drug division budget.

 

Every five years, top officials of the Food and Drug Administration go behind closed doors to negotiate the terms of its core budget — about $3 billion this year.

 

But the F.D.A. is not at the table with members of Congress or with White House officials. Instead, it’s in dozens of meetings with representatives of the giant pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency regulates. The negotiations are a piece of the “user fee” program in which drug, device and biotech companies make payments to the agency partly to seek product approvals. The fees have soared since the program’s inception three decades ago and now make up nearly half of the F.D.A.’s budget, financing 6,500 jobs at the agency.

 

“It’s kind of like a devil’s bargain,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine who has studied F.D.A. policies, “that I think is not in the best interest of the agency, because it turns this every-five-year cycle into the F.D.A. essentially asking industry, ‘What can we do to secure this money?’ ”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/health/fda-drug-industry-fees.html

https://archive.ph/GMBbq#selection-549.0-553.40

Your post proves exactly nothing about the scientific method being invalid — and that’s the key point you keep missing.
The NYT article does not claim science is fake, corrupted, or faith-based. It highlights regulatory funding structure risks, which are already well known, openly debated, studied, and criticised by scientists themselves. That scrutiny is part of the scientific method, not evidence against it.

Science does not say “trust the FDA because it’s pure.” – that’s a fallacious appeal to authority
Science says: test, replicate, challenge, audit, disclose conflicts, and revise conclusions when evidence changes.
Regulatory agencies are not science itself. They are bureaucratic gatekeepers applying scientific evidence under political and financial constraints. Confusing the two is a category error — like blaming mathematics because a bank commits fraud.
If industry funding automatically invalidated science, then:

• Independent replication wouldn’t matter (it does)
• Peer review wouldn’t matter (it does)
• International, competing research groups wouldn’t converge on the same results (they do)
• Whistleblowers and corrections wouldn’t exist (they do — and are published)

 

Ironically, citing concerns raised by scientists, reported by journalists, debated publicly, and studied academically is evidence that the system is self-correcting, not religious.

 

Comparing science to religion fails because:
Religion asks for belief without evidence
Science asks for doubt despite evidence — and demands better evidence tomorrow

 

If you genuinely care about “paid science”, start with how evidence is tested, replicated, and challenged, not vague insinuations about “agenda.”

 

May I suggest you read “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre, as it is an excellent place to start. It explains precisely how bias, funding, cherry-picking, and bad statistics are identified and dismantled using the scientific method, not ignored.
In short: - This citation critiques how science is administered, not whether science works.

.......And mistaking the two is exactly the misunderstanding under discussion. 
 

  

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The NYT article does not claim science is fake, corrupted, or faith-based.

 

“It’s kind of like a devil’s bargain,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine who has studied F.D.A. policies, “that I think is not in the best interest of the agency, because it turns this every-five-year cycle into the F.D.A. essentially asking industry, ‘What can we do to secure this money?’ ”