Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

COVID-19 and the need for skeptics in science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Now more than ever:

Since World War II, America has suffered two respiratory pandemics comparable to COVID-19: the 1958 “Asian flu,” then the 1969 “Hong Kong flu.” In neither case did we shut down the economy—people were simply more careful. Not all that careful, of course—Jimi Hendrix was playing at Woodstock in the middle of the 1969 pandemic, and social distancing wasn’t really a thing in the “Summer of Love.”

And yet COVID-19 was very different thanks to a single “buggy mess” of a computer prediction from one Neil Ferguson, a British epidemiologist given to hysterical overestimates of deaths, from mad cow to bird flu to H1N1.

For COVID-19, Ferguson predicted 3 million deaths in America unless we basically shut down the economy. Panicked policymakers took his prediction as gospel, dressed as it was in the cloak of science.

Now, long after governments plunged half the world into a Great Depression, those panicked revisions are being quietly revised down by an order of magnitude, now suggesting a final tally comparable to 1958 and 1969.

COVID-19 would have been a deadly pandemic with or without Ferguson’s fantasies, but had we known the true scale and parameters of the threat we might have chosen better tailored means to both safeguard the elderly and at-risk, while sustaining the wider economy. After all, economists have long known that mass unemployment and widespread bankruptcies carry enormous health consequences that are very real to the victims suffering drained life savings, ruined businesses, broken families, widespread mental and physical health deterioration, even suicide. Decisions involve tradeoffs.

COVID-19 has illustrated the importance of free and robust inquiry…

Indeed, every major scientific advance challenged the “settled science” of its day, and was often denounced as pernicious and false, even dangerous. The modern blood transfusion, for example, was developed in the late 1600s, then banned for nearly a century by a hostile medical establishment, “canceling” tens of millions of lives at the altar of groupthink and hostility to skeptics.

Peter St. Onge, “The COVID-19 Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics” at Mises Wire

The thing is, it used to just be sympathizers of some unpopular viewpoint like ID getting deplatformed. Now, COVID-19 has raised the stakes, with so many official sources demanding obedience to conflicting and wrong ideas. And our neighbors can’t afford to ignore just how destructive the establishment line, unfettered and unhinged, can be.

It’s a good time to talk to them about the problems with Establishment Science today. Too much arrogance and politicking; not enough humility or integrity.

Comments
An extremely worrying trend: Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age. German study: The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality. Vaccinated Swedes die at rates 20 percent or more above normal.Origenes
November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Will homeschooling take off? https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/parents-opt-to-home-school-rather-than-return-to-public-school/65-4bc67198-e0e2-486a-be43-73b2954f9361?__twitter_impression=true Another casualty of the lockdown. Are lower income family students hurt the most by the lockdown? Many don’t have the resources to do it effectively.jerry
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
The Stasi comes to the United States. https://twitter.com/twilabrase/status/1294512622717546498jerry
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Hope. Are we near the end?
Robust T cell immunity in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells will likely prove critical for long-term immune protection against COVID-19. We here systematically mapped the functional and phenotypic landscape of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in unexposed individuals, exposed family members, and individuals with acute or convalescent COVID-19. Acute phase SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells displayed a highly activated cytotoxic phenotype that correlated with various clinical markers of disease severity, whereas convalescent phase SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were polyfunctional and displayed a stem-like memory phenotype. Importantly, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detectable in antibody-seronegative exposed family members and convalescent individuals with a history of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Our collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust, broad and highly functional memory T cell responses, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31008-4 Is this what is happening in many hot spots now very quiet? Another opinion from Switzerland. https://swprs.org/coronavirus-antibody-tests-show-only-one-fifth-of-infections/
Coronavirus likely five times more common and less deadly than assumed
Again is this true? I hope so.jerry
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Fauci says it all right to vote in person. Maybe go back to school. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/08/14/fauci-yes-people-can-vote-in-person-safely-n2574324jerry
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Jerry, the degree of lockdown in that Australian city is not far from what we had here
A comment I made to friends who live in Maryland yesterday.
Has Hogan gone full Stasi? Or is this exaggerated? https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/bs-md-coronavirus-hotline-maryland-20200813-xmxh3qdabbgydnjhw25pesfnk4-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0USwWq3hz1jjnkhOX4qpa7NEyHN-ytWRGbPpCDIrsQzUm78DTMaBdc9ko
Hogan is the Republican governor of Maryland who the never Trumpers want to run against Trump. It seems they gone beyond the Stasi in Australia. So easy to see how Nazi Germany happened. From above - see the graphic with this tweet. https://bit.ly/33OxYjyjerry
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Jerry, the degree of lockdown in that Australian city is not far from what we had here. KFkairosfocus
August 15, 2020
August
08
Aug
15
15
2020
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
From Kulvinder Kaur, Canadian doctor being attacked by Canadian media and censored by Twitter. Becoming a hot topic schools. https://bit.ly/2XXaN2T
‘Pupils pose little risk of spreading Covid
Is this true? From article
One of the largest studies in the world on coronavirus in schools, carried out in 100 institutions in the UK, will confirm that “there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted” there, according to a leading scientist.
Requires you to sign up so there is no more to post. Will see what other countries say. Her experience with censorship this week.
Earlier this week, Twitter removed one of my tweets; first time ever in my time on this platform. It contained too much truth for this illogical time we're living through. Ultimately, history will be the judge. "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon & the truth"... Published scientific evidence is now “#wrongthink” when it goes against the political narrative. The Truth, Humanity, T-cell Immunity and Hydroxychloroquine are now #ForbiddenWords and punishable in Trudeau’s Canada.
Not much difference in United States after massive censorship two weeks ago of doctors protesting false information about HCQ,jerry
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Coming to a city near you? What happened in Melbourne last week. https://bit.ly/30ZMMu2 And https://bit.ly/2PRE8Hl
I am currently living under this communist rule here in Victoria Australia. We have stage 4 restrictions, we cannot leave our homes for more than 1 hour of exercise a day - alone! Only 1 person to the supermarket a day, we have meat and food shortages, ALL businesses have been closed, you need papers to travel and attend essential work, you need to pass through multiple police check points to go anywhere and produce your papers ie. Where you live. We are not allowed more than 5 km from our homes and we have a curfew from 8 pm - 5 am. 100,000 fines for any business breaching these rules - per person! We have the army and police going door to door checking our homes. Please google what is happening to us... We need help
Sounds like the old World War II movies where you must have your papers. Lockdowns at work! And not to be outdone Wisconsin goes full Alice in Wonderland.
Wisconsin state agency requires employees to wear masks while teleconferencing A Wisconsin state agency has required employees to wear masks while teleconferencing from home, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. A July 31 email sent to employees by the state's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reportedly reminded them that Gov. Tony Evers's (D) mask mandate went into effect the next day. Natural Resources Secretary Preston Cole said in the email that staff has to wear masks in DNR buildings and in virtual meetings, according to the Journal Sentinel. "Also, wear your mask, even if you are home, to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen - such as on Zoom or another video-conferencing platform - by non-DNR staff, " Cole reportedly wrote. "Set the safety example which shows you as a DNR public service employee care about the safety and health of others.
jerry
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Apparently there are severe mental health issues with young people in the United States as a result of the lockdown for the virus. A survey was made at the end of June. https://bit.ly/30WRZT3 1. 25.5% of all people aged 18-24 have considered suicide in the last 30 days. 2. 74.9% of this same population reported one or more mental or behavioral health issues. 3. 24.7% started or increased substance use as a result of the pandemic. 4. The numbers for 25-44 are also high, 16%, 52% and 19.5% respectively. 5. Numbers for older adults are much lower. The numbers of 18-24 for suicide are 2 1/2 to 3 times normal for this age group. These are some of the costs of the lockdown.jerry
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
F/N: let's continue the open letter's questions:
Open Letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci Regarding the Use of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19 By George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California . . . . QUESTIONS REGARDING SAFETY: The FDA writes the following: “In light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.” So not only is the FDA saying that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years? Isn’t it true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses? Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID-19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns? Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study), just to name a few? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned? Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15 percent or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities? [-> a decision theory challenge. Quite often, doctors recommend fairly risky interventions such as surgeries, radiation therapy, chemotherapy or drugs with long lists of potential side effects.] To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”? Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for five to seven days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years — does it make any sense to you logically that a five to seven day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous? You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that? If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct? After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree? In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct? According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings? Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine? Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions? Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s? Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it? And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct? So, people who want to be treated in that critical five- to seven-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct? So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to get this treatment, correct?
Some very good questions that need straightforward answers. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
DS, that top the charts list includes several countries with first rate medical systems, suggesting that we are dealing with a hard global problem. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
JVL, if you looked you would have seen that I have noted that gross mismanagement would have been obvious then ie April, that I gave further data showing tracking to Aug 9, that one such shows the US not only tracking world average but comparable to enough states with similarly top class medical systems, and that by April, the epidemic was in fact trailing off. It was in June that a fresh injection of growth began, which is beginning to trail off two months later. In short, you knocked over a strawman. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Jerry: I know that sometimes when one fails to answer a question, it is tantamount to admitting they do not have an answer but when the questions or comment are off the wall, best to ignore or just restate your answer with clarity without directly addressing the specific comment. Does this have anything to do with the fact that RHolt answered some of your queries point by point and then you just dropped the whole thing? He even asked if you were referencing the same study and I believe you rudely failed to answer him. Is that correct.JVL
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Dr. Daniel Solomon, who is editor in chief of Arthritis and Rheumatology and chief of clinical sciences for rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston Initially there was the observation, or the recognition that hydroxychloroquine had some activity against coronaviruses. They were not large studies or necessarily studies particularly done in people with COVID. These were other coronaviruses. But there was biologic plausibility to the notion that hydroxychloroquine might have some action against COVID. We didn’t know which patients, whether it was preventive, whether it was early, whether it was mild or severe. But there was some biologic plausibility. And, then people made observations in small case series where they saw that patients who received hydroxychloroquine often with other antibiotics. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial. It was some immunomodulatory effects as well so it seems like an interesting drug. It has been on the market for decades so people felt comfortable using an approved drug. It wasn’t a new investigational drug. And, in these small case series, there was some suggestion that it might work. But we all know that a case series is an uncontrolled experiment. You look at three, four, five patients, but you don’t look at the counterfactual:What would have happened if they didn’t get this. You don’t have the randomized control arm. And, so a small case series is just that. It’s just a small case series. They sometimes give us some insight of ‘yeah maybe there’s something going on here.’ And, then we would go to more formal observational studies. We look at group of patients who did or did not receive the drugs so now we have a contrasts and we try to match them up in certain ways and we adjust for differences and regression analyses. These are typical observational studies. And, maybe the first one looked like there might be some benefit. But quickly as people did larger and better designed observational studies, those too found no benefit and at the same time people were organizing randomized controlled trials which is our goal standard and is how we prove how a drug works or doesn’t work. We think about a hierarchy of evidence from biologic plausibility to case series to poorly done observational to better done observational to randomized controlled trials to very large randomized trials or meta-analyses randomized trials. So, we worked our way through the hierarchy just over weeks---if not two or three months. And, as we got to the randomized trials (there’s been three or four randomized trials that have shown no benefit. Have these trials tried the drug at every dosage and in every subgroup of patient? No, but now we have a lot of data to suggest it doesn’t work. So, in reality, the onus of proof of still on the people who still believe it works because all of the data---the best data---show that it doesn’t work. So, might it work? It’s possible. I wouldn’t say very possible. I’d say there’s a slim possibility that in certain subgroups at certain dosages, it’s possible it could work, but all of the best data is suggesting that it doesn’t work. https://www.rheumatologynetwork.com/view/making-sense-of-the-covid-19-infodemicrhampton7
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Kf above referenced the letter to Fauci from 3 doctors in California and Florida. Here is a link to it https://bit.ly/2FqvcXF It is long so may be in the category for many of TLDR. But it lays out in exquisite logical progression the case for HCQ and the case against opposition to it. Essentially, there is plenty of information that HCQ works. Almost none that it does not work. Also that it is extremely safe. It is also very inexpensive. So to ague against it is to argue for continued high death rates when there seems a good way to lower them dramatically. Why would anyone do that? But yet we have here on this site and in the society around us those that are doing so. They are all over this particular thread. Even if the drug combination did not work, why argue against it. It is safe and inexpensive. How many would not spent $10 to save their life or the life of a loved one? But that is what those who oppose HCQ are doing. Save the $10, and see if they die. Reminds me of the quote from a Man for All Seasons
“For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales!”
jerry
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
The problem with the USA is we have too many unfit people. McConaughey interviews Fauci:
What about letting everyone get infected so we all become immune and the disease dies out? No way, Fauci said. That would cause big problems, particularly in America, where obesity is prevalent and related conditions like diabetes and hypertension are considered risk factors in how sick a person gets. "If everyone contracted it ... a lot of people are going to die," Fauci said. "The death toll would be enormous and totally unacceptable," Fauci added. "And that's the reason why we're against saying, 'Let it fly. Let everybody get infected and we'll be fine.' That's a bad idea."
ET
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Mac- The culling of the less fit is supposed to be good for any given population. Driving is a privilege, not a right.ET
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
to sell himself as persecuted
The solution is to not answer anything foolish. Your answer is entering a black hole and no light will emerge from it. If a person presents some legitimate questions, then answer them. But once they become irrational in their answers, it is best to just ignore. Otherwise it ends up with hundreds of back and forth with no progress in understanding. I know that sometimes when one fails to answer a question, it is tantamount to admitting they do not have an answer but when the questions or comment are off the wall, best to ignore or just restate your answer with clarity without directly addressing the specific comment.jerry
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
ET
And free people choose to live free. Not living free is not the life to lead for free people.
Freedom isn't ultimate. We wear seatbelts. Most states require bicycle helmets. Lab staff must wear lab coats, gloves and safety glasses. What is wrong with temporarily giving up some of our freedoms (e.g., restricting assemblage, wearing masks, etc.) if it prevents people from dying?Mac McTavish
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
. The hypocrite wants to sell himself as persecuted by those who would point out his hypocrisy. yawnUpright BiPed
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Bornagain77,
Actually, since you (JVL) bring it up, it very much is about science and how Darwinists have tried to highjack science away from its Christian moorings with their pseudoscientific garbage.
And their botched philosophy. Don't forget to add bullying and wild ego trips to the lethal mixture.Truthfreedom
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
LoL! @ JVL- The culling of the less fit is supposed to be good for any given population. JVL:
Eugenics, wow.
Add "eugenics" to the long list of things that elude JVL.ET
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Bornagain 77,
Ignore the elephant in the living room much JVL?
Well. Atheists/ materialists are very good at denying proof when they have it in front of their eyes. Even when it is big, very big, and very noisy, and very smelly. Because for a lot of them, it is not about truth, it is about ideology. An emotional commitment I'd say. JVL: your worldview (materialism) does not make sense. And it is very Christian not to bear false witness. Look, we love to teach people that materialism is a lie. We get Heaven Points , you know? On the other side, your atheist Darwin points are pretty pointless. Because there is nothing to enjoy when you do not exist/ are dead.Truthfreedom
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
ET: The culling of the less fit is supposed to be good for any given population. Eugenics, wow.JVL
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
JVL, "So, it’s not about science at all? It’s about theism?" Actually, since you bring it up, it very much is about science and how Darwinists have tried to highjack science away from its Christian moorings with their pseudoscientific garbage.
A Heavyweight Look at the Negative Impact of Modern and Postmodern Philosophies - Casey Luskin April 22, 2014 Excerpt: "Not only divine Scripture, but also sound reason teaches us that we must look with amazement on the machine of the universe produced and created by the hand of the infinite Artist. ... Neither art, nor genius, can even imitate a single fibre of the endless tissues that make up each body. The smallest filament, in fact, shows the Finger of God and the Artist's signature." (p. 120) Carl Linneaus, inventor of our modern system of biological classification (Paul Gosselin, Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West) Gosselin observes that "we have discovered further levels of complexity that Linneaus, or even Darwin, could not have imagined." (p. 121) He concludes: "Before the twentieth-century, this symbiotic relationship between science and Christianity was the norm, but since then the Enlightenment and modern propaganda have 'buried' it, keeping such facts out of view." (p. 122) According to Gosselin, this is just another way that modernist philosophy has engaged in a form of intellectual fracking, trying to destroy the theological, philosophical, and other intellectual foundations that built the West. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flight_from_the084581.html
bornagain77
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
The culling of the less fit is supposed to be good for any given population. And free people choose to live free. Not living free is not the life to lead for free people.ET
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
UprightBiped: I wouldn’t get too worked up over it JVL. It may not have fully occurred to you, but all the current comments on UD are listed in the same spot on the same page, so my eyes only had to travel one inch from one comment to another. I was able to accomplish it with little effort. I'm terribly sorry, I thought you'd understand sarcasm. My bad. Perhaps situational awareness is the real issue here, JVL. After having your position so thoroughly and publicly trounced by empirical observation (and recorded history), you’ve spun around in the same spot and are now calling on others to substantiate their comments with empirical observation. The hypocrisy is both obvious and unavoidable. Attempting to hide that hypocrisy behind manufactured rhetoric (that you are being hounded on a website you voluntarily choose to visit each day) is amateurish and silly. It's not the whole website though is it? Not everyone cares so much about what I say like you do. Why do you spend so much time and energy persecuting someone? What does it gain you? Yes, I am quite aware of that. The fact that you dismiss physical evidence and history in order to maintain your prior assumptions is not a defense of your position, JVL. It’s the central problem. A 'problem' you're going to focus on like a dog hunting a 'coon. Obsession is rarely a good thing you know. It will eat you up in the end.JVL
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
ET: People are dying due to their own choices. That is by far much better than being a sheep and living scared. Give me liberty or give me death eh? Except that you'd think that free people would choose life wouldn't you?JVL
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
. #635
I am greatly flattered that you choose to follow me around UD…
I wouldn’t get too worked up over it JVL. It may not have fully occurred to you, but all the current comments on UD are listed in the same spot on the same page, so my eyes only had to travel one inch from one comment to another. I was able to accomplish it with little effort. Perhaps situational awareness is the real issue here, JVL. After having your position so thoroughly and publicly trounced by empirical observation (and recorded history), you’ve spun around in the same spot and are now calling on others to substantiate their comments with empirical observation. The hypocrisy is both obvious and unavoidable. Attempting to hide that hypocrisy behind manufactured rhetoric (that you are being hounded on a website you voluntarily choose to visit each day) is amateurish and silly.
Unfortunately I don’t have anything of substance to add to our previous conversations.
Yes, I am quite aware of that. The fact that you publicly dismiss physical evidence and history in order to maintain your prior assumptions is not an effective defense of your position, JVL. It’s the central problem.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2020
August
08
Aug
14
14
2020
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 23

Leave a Reply