I did my research and I know this to be true!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

[GrumpyOldMan]

Well, one requirement that missed is, "Are you qualified to interpret the results". If I am "researching" quantum physics, I am just kidding myself, because I am not qualified, and no amount of "common sense" applied to the subject will help. On the other hand, my wife has a degree in Physics and explains what the papers are saying - which does not good, since I don't understand her either.

So, being qualified is one of the criteria for doing actual research - even if you are only researching the research papers published. understanding 99% of the words, does not mean you understand the topic.

[jbartle1]

Bottom line, fact check, fact check, and do it again!

[golfing eagles]

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

Well, one requirement that missed is, "Are you qualified to interpret the results". If I am "researching" quantum physics, I am just kidding myself, because I am not qualified, and no amount of "common sense" applied to the subject will help. On the other hand, my wife has a degree in Physics and explains what the papers are saying - which does not good, since I don't understand her either.

So, being qualified is one of the criteria for doing actual research - even if you are only researching the research papers published. understanding 99% of the words, does not mean you understand the topic.

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

[Blueblaze]

Well, one requirement that missed is, "Are you qualified to interpret the results". If I am "researching" quantum physics, I am just kidding myself, because I am not qualified, and no amount of "common sense" applied to the subject will help. On the other hand, my wife has a degree in Physics and explains what the papers are saying - which does not good, since I don't understand her either.

So, being qualified is one of the criteria for doing actual research - even if you are only researching the research papers published. understanding 99% of the words, does not mean you understand the topic.

That's a perfect prescription for surrendering your liberty (and your country) to anyone with a sheepskin.

I don't need to understand quantum physics because it has no bearing on my life.

But when someone with a PhD tells me he's going to confiscate my right to earn a living or educate my children or participate in a secure election "for my own good", and he thinks I'm too stupid to understand his reasons -- that's a whole other thing.

I may not understand the math behind quantum physics, but I understand the basic concepts.

And I may not have a PhD in virology, but I'm perfectly capable of understanding disease death rates, vaccine response, acquired immunity, and the size of a virus compared to the size of the weave of a cloth mask -- not to mention the studies showing how pointless a cloth mask is at stopping the spread of a virus.

And you can be sure, if you tell me you need to crash the economy and pay workers not to work, in order to save them from a disease with a 99.5% survival rate that only kills retired people, I reserve the right to check your facts!

[Bucco]

This from the OP pretty much nails it.

You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”

[golfing eagles]

Well, one requirement that missed is, "Are you qualified to interpret the results". If I am "researching" quantum physics, I am just kidding myself, because I am not qualified, and no amount of "common sense" applied to the subject will help. On the other hand, my wife has a degree in Physics and explains what the papers are saying - which does not good, since I don't understand her either.

So, being qualified is one of the criteria for doing actual research - even if you are only researching the research papers published. understanding 99% of the words, does not mean you understand the topic.

So true. The most egregious example of this was about a month ago, when someone posted that they don't listen to the CDC, NIH, WHO, or FDOH----they do "their own research" and then make "their own decision" Well, rotsa ruck with that.

Yep, we should all ignore Fauci, Birx, Walensky and all the experts and just listen to this guy---he did "research"
In fact, why isn't this guy standing at the podium at the White House instead of all the others???:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Aces4]

That's a perfect prescription for surrendering your liberty (and your country) to anyone with a sheepskin.

I don't need to understand quantum physics because it has no bearing on my life.

But when someone with a PhD tells me he's going to confiscate my right to earn a living or educate my children or participate in a secure election "for my own good", and he thinks I'm too stupid to understand his reasons -- that's a whole other thing.

I may not understand the math behind quantum physics, but I understand the basic concepts.

And I may not have a PhD in virology, but I'm perfectly capable of understanding disease death rates, vaccine response, acquired immunity, and the size of a virus compared to the size of the weave of a cloth mask -- not to mention the studies showing how pointless a cloth mask is at stopping the spread of a virus.

And you can be sure, if you tell me you need to crash the economy and pay workers not to work, in order to save them from a disease with a 99.5% survival rate that only kills retired people, I reserve the right to check your facts!

Do you mean that a wise, comprehending intellect and common sense have value? What an astute observation and thank you for your contribution!

[Dana1963]

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."
Another conservative Florida radio host who dubbed himself "Mr. Anti-Vax" and criticized the COVID-19 vaccine died of the coronavirus on Saturday.
Proving Covid 19 Vaccine doesn't work if you refuse to take it POWER TO THE PEOPLE

[rustyp]

So true. The most egregious example of this was about a month ago, when someone posted that they don't listen to the CDC, NIH, WHO, or FDOH----they do "their own research" and then make "their own decision" Well, rotsa ruck with that.

Yep, we should all ignore Fauci, Birx, Walensky and all the experts and just listen to this guy---he did "research"
In fact, why isn't this guy standing at the podium at the White House instead of all the others???:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Without doing the proper research my guess is his contribution check bounced.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

[/COLOR]

Without doing the proper research my guess is his contribution check bounced.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

My guess is that he had no idea of what to research where, so he didn't write that "check" in the first place. (Nor would he listen to a banker with 30 years experience as to how to fill it out correctly---he'd "research" it on his own then fill it out the way HE thought was best):1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:. And the sad part is that he has plenty of company.

[camaguey48]

That's a perfect prescription for surrendering your liberty (and your country) to anyone with a sheepskin.

I don't need to understand quantum physics because it has no bearing on my life.

But when someone with a PhD tells me he's going to confiscate my right to earn a living or educate my children or participate in a secure election "for my own good", and he thinks I'm too stupid to understand his reasons -- that's a whole other thing.

I may not understand the math behind quantum physics, but I understand the basic concepts.

And I may not have a PhD in virology, but I'm perfectly capable of understanding disease death rates, vaccine response, acquired immunity, and the size of a virus compared to the size of the weave of a cloth mask -- not to mention the studies showing how pointless a cloth mask is at stopping the spread of a virus.

And you can be sure, if you tell me you need to crash the economy and pay workers not to work, in order to save them from a disease with a 99.5% survival rate that only kills retired people, I reserve the right to check your facts!
Agreed, allow me to add this:


If you’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this virus is to control people’s behavior, whether through lockdowns, coerced vaccinations, forced masking, or any other liberty-destroying tactic, you are a petty tyrant and a menace to our country.

[daniel200]

Some data to think about:

Japan
Population: 126 million
Coronavirus Cases: 1,454,364
Total Covid Deaths: 15,946
55% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
44% of population are fully vaccinated

Florida
Population: 22.2 million
Coronavirus Cases: 3,182,726
Total Covid Deaths: 43,979
63% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
52% of population are fully vaccinated

Japan has almost 6 times the number of people as Florida.
Florida has almost 3 times the number of covid deaths as Japan. So the Florida covid death rate per 1000 people is almost 16 times greater than Japan!

But Japan is substantially behind Florida in vaccinations (44% fully vaccinated in Japan vs 52% in Florida).

Having spent more than 20 years in Asia, I was always somewhat perplexed at the Asian propensity to wear masks everywhere. But if you do some investigation you will find that this started with the 1910 pneumonic plague outbreak in China where it was found that masks was the only effective deterrent at that time. And later in the 1918 flu epidemic masks were again found to reduce transmission.

Mask wearing became "normal" and continued long after those pandemics subsided. So when the covid pandemic began Asian countries already had a long history of using and accepting masks. The Japan data for covid is not so different from other Asian countries.

[Aces4]

Some data to think about:

Japan
Population: 126 million
Coronavirus Cases: 1,454,364
Total Covid Deaths: 15,946
55% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
44% of population are fully vaccinated

Florida
Population: 22.2 million
Coronavirus Cases: 3,182,726
Total Covid Deaths: 43,979
63% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
52% of population are fully vaccinated

Japan has almost 6 times the number of people as Florida.
Florida has almost 3 times the number of covid deaths as Japan. So the Florida covid death rate per 1000 people is almost 16 times greater than Japan!

But Japan is substantially behind Florida in vaccinations (44% fully vaccinated in Japan vs 52% in Florida).

Having spent more than 20 years in Asia, I was always somewhat perplexed at the Asian propensity to wear masks everywhere. But if you do some investigation you will find that this started with the 1910 pneumonic plague outbreak in China where it was found that masks was the only effective deterrent at that time. And later in the 1918 flu epidemic masks were again found to reduce transmission.

Mask wearing became "normal" and continued long after those pandemics subsided. So when the covid pandemic began Asian countries already had a long history of using and accepting masks. The Japan data for covid is not so different from other Asian countries.


Excellent, now please provide the vetted statistics of ages and comorbitiy factors and circumstances at the point of death. There is MUCH wrong with the way hospitals in the US were rewarded for reporting a “covid death”.

I agree masks helped control contagion even though they are poo pooed by some here and N95 masks are probably better but complete isolation works the best. Should isolation be mandated?

[graciegirl]

Well, one requirement that missed is, "Are you qualified to interpret the results". If I am "researching" quantum physics, I am just kidding myself, because I am not qualified, and no amount of "common sense" applied to the subject will help. On the other hand, my wife has a degree in Physics and explains what the papers are saying - which does not good, since I don't understand her either.

So, being qualified is one of the criteria for doing actual research - even if you are only researching the research papers published. understanding 99% of the words, does not mean you understand the topic.

This is profoundly true, but no one should consider themselves lacking if they are not "math brained". There are so many kinds of splintered mental skills and lack of them. People scoff at "emotional intelligence" but it is real and very needed in many areas of cognition. Some folks are born without the ability to appreciate color and balance such as found in lovely decor and architecture. Some people have excellent memory of details but do not know how to value information..........just as the article from Coach K says.

Nothing really beats common sense and living a long time.....for those of us who are average.

[Wyseguy]

That's a perfect prescription for surrendering your liberty (and your country) to anyone with a sheepskin.

I don't need to understand quantum physics because it has no bearing on my life.

But when someone with a PhD tells me he's going to confiscate my right to earn a living or educate my children or participate in a secure election "for my own good", and he thinks I'm too stupid to understand his reasons -- that's a whole other thing.

I may not understand the math behind quantum physics, but I understand the basic concepts.

And I may not have a PhD in virology, but I'm perfectly capable of understanding disease death rates, vaccine response, acquired immunity, and the size of a virus compared to the size of the weave of a cloth mask -- not to mention the studies showing how pointless a cloth mask is at stopping the spread of a virus.

And you can be sure, if you tell me you need to crash the economy and pay workers not to work, in order to save them from a disease with a 99.5% survival rate that only kills retired people, I reserve the right to check your facts!

YES YES YES You are correct.

[Boomer]

I have been trying to figure out whatinthehellisthematter with people. As I have said before, the psychology of those who insist on digging in their heels by clinging to what they think is “research” would be fascinating — if the rest of us did not have to be trapped with them.

Recent, real-life, in-person reporting of hospitals having to postpone heart surgeries because of Covid patients (mostly unvaccinated) taking up beds and staff is damned scary.

The medical community is calling deaths from postponing needed surgeries “collateral deaths.” That term surely should get the attention of those who need to just get the vaccine — but it does not.

I saw the psychology term “cognitive dissonance” in an article on npr.org this morning. Maybe that explains the attitudes that I was beginning to see as bsc. I will have to read up on cognitive dissonance — you know — do my research. . .

Research — which I actually know how to do — and have taught others.

But geez, in those days, I never had to face down the Facebook snake pit. All I had to do back then was to teach them that Wikipedia is not a legit source BUT you can back-source it and then back-source the back-sources.

Boomer

[coffeebean]

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

I will continue to Google. Thank you very much.

[Kelevision]

Another conservative Florida radio host who dubbed himself "Mr. Anti-Vax" and criticized the COVID-19 vaccine died of the coronavirus on Saturday.
Proving Covid 19 Vaccine doesn't work if you refuse to take it POWER TO THE PEOPLE

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) :ohdear: 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

[golfing eagles]

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) :ohdear: 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I have been trying to figure out whatinthehellisthematter with people. As I have said before, the psychology of those who insist on digging in their heels by clinging to what they think is “research” would be fascinating — if the rest of us did not have to be trapped with them.

Recent, real-life, in-person reporting of hospitals having to postpone heart surgeries because of Covid patients (mostly unvaccinated) taking up beds and staff is damned scary.

The medical community is calling deaths from postponing needed surgeries “collateral deaths.” That term surely should get the attention of those who need to just get the vaccine — but it does not.

I saw the psychology term “cognitive dissonance” in an article on npr.org this morning. Maybe that explains the attitudes that I was beginning to see as bsc. I will have to read up on cognitive dissonance — you know — do my research. . .

Research — which I actually know how to do — and have taught others.

But geez, in those days, I never had to face down the Facebook snake pit. All I had to do back then was to teach them that Wikipedia is not a legit source BUT you can back-source it and then back-source the back-sources.

Boomer

Yup, I use wikipedia as a "first source" when I'm looking up a term, or phrase, or illness, or person. And then I back-source it by diving into the rabbit hole of footnotes, until I have enough information that I could write a 2-4-page summary report for a typical college course on the subject. WITH footnotes.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

There've been plenty. But none of them went out of their way and became internet-famous for warning people to NOT get vaccinated.

[lkagele]

So true. The most egregious example of this was about a month ago, when someone posted that they don't listen to the CDC, NIH, WHO, or FDOH----they do "their own research" and then make "their own decision" Well, rotsa ruck with that.

Yep, we should all ignore Fauci, Birx, Walensky and all the experts and just listen to this guy---he did "research"
In fact, why isn't this guy standing at the podium at the White House instead of all the others???:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I think that was me. The reason I don't necessarily listen to those entities is because they are too often political.

I don't doubt Fauci is a very smart man but I also don't doubt he has hidden agendas. When he flip flops several times on the advice he gives, he loses me. When he claims no one should question him because he is science, he loses me. When he tries to change the definition of gain of function research, he loses me.

The CDC loses me when it claims gun violence is a disease. The WHO loses me when it covers up for China. The NIH loses me when it won't admit it funded gain of function research. Those organizations all have agendas.

I'm not really a sheeple type of guy. Go ahead and accept everything hook, line and sinker that comes out these governmental agencies. Me, I'll continue to take everything they say with a healthy grain of salt and look for other reliable sources to validate or refute.

[KAM+6]

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) :ohdear: 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

Anti Vaxer Linda Zuern dies of covid. Held signs at Cape Cod bridge.

Outspoken anti vaxer Caplain Joe Manning died of complications of covid yesterday. He was self medicating with ivermecten. Sheep wormer.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

And your point is? dying from the thing you are downplaying and dying despite fighting are two very different things. The irony is deep on this one...

[golfing eagles]

And your point is? dying from the thing you are downplaying and dying despite fighting are two very different things. The irony is deep on this one...

My point is that COVID does not care what political party, philosophy or religion one follows, therefore it was unnecessary for the OP to label those 3 radio host deaths as "conservative". Radio host would have sufficed. His post was just a sideways political "jab"

[MDLNB]

My point is that COVID does not care what political party, philosophy or religion one follows, therefore it was unnecessary for the OP to label those 3 radio host deaths as "conservative". Radio host would have sufficed. His post was just a sideways political "jab"


Thank you! It seems that there are some (I label as TROLLS) that bait folks on here, to get them to respond with defensive political posts, with their intention of getting the thread closed or persons suspended from posting.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Many people of today conflate reading up to educate themselves on a topic, <good> with research, which is a professional term as described in the original post's quote <not the same as posters have referenced here as it won't hold up in a professional setting>. In order to perform professional research, you must have a professional education to properly evaluate the research, either performing or reading. Otherwise its just general education for your own benefit, and it won't qualify you to skip professional course credits without passing an exam. Bachelor's degrees are not professional degrees, just general education to be able to be competent in the non experienced job market.

I laughed at the posters to the medical mandate history post who argued lay legal arguments between their lay education's interpretation of today, with legal precedent and legal history. Without being a legal professional, they are just arguing their hopes and dreams with a conceptual construct which can give the illusion of being informed, but not being a professional.

The distinction is that non professional research doesn't confer professional status, nor does it confer knowledge equal to a professional. At best, it will give one confidence to better understand a professional, make a choice between two professional's for your primary source. . . that's why i argue even with my professional background in finance, to go see a CPA for tax advice, as my ability to fill out and understand taxes is better than a lay person, but its not a professional tax advice.

None of these google conferd professionals would succeed in a professional setting. I was a profession oil tanker ship captain and ship pilot in my 20s, and on a national championship sailing team in college. When i was introduced to boat owners who called themselves captains with my background, generally they stopped talking and changed topics. They realized that they were not professional, but were only trying to impress others with their stories. . .

I am sure doctor golfing raptor would most likely agree. . there is a huge difference between a professional and an amateur, you should try going one on one with any professional with experience without hiding behind anonymittee and most non narcissists will look and feel foolish. . . the narcissists, not so much. . . . I have tried in athletics, always get my ass whipped thoroughly and I surely respect the difference between my being an amateur and their being a professional. Huge gap of years of education and experience and abilities. . .

[PennBF]

There is an area at Harvard that contains Phd research papers and it is extensive. These really humble you when you claim to have done research on a particular subject. Unless you devote a significant portion of your time to this kind of research you are probably very opinionated and accept your opinions as reality and therefore you've already started out on a contaminated conclusion basis. Over time I have only seen a couple of responses in the of postings on TOTV that may qualify as valid "Research Studies".:ho:

[Byte1]

Many people of today conflate reading up to educate themselves on a topic, <good> with research, which is a professional term as described in the original post's quote <not the same as posters have referenced here as it won't hold up in a professional setting>. In order to perform professional research, you must have a professional education to properly evaluate the research, either performing or reading. Otherwise its just general education for your own benefit, and it won't qualify you to skip professional course credits without passing an exam. Bachelor's degrees are not professional degrees, just general education to be able to be competent in the non experienced job market.

I laughed at the posters to the medical mandate history post who argued lay legal arguments between their lay education's interpretation of today, with legal precedent and legal history. Without being a legal professional, they are just arguing their hopes and dreams with a conceptual construct which can give the illusion of being informed, but not being a professional.

The distinction is that non professional research doesn't confer professional status, nor does it confer knowledge equal to a professional. At best, it will give one confidence to better understand a professional, make a choice between two professional's for your primary source. . . that's why i argue even with my professional background in finance, to go see a CPA for tax advice, as my ability to fill out and understand taxes is better than a lay person, but its not a professional tax advice.

None of these google conferd professionals would succeed in a professional setting. I was a profession oil tanker ship captain and ship pilot in my 20s, and on a national championship sailing team in college. When i was introduced to boat owners who called themselves captains with my background, generally they stopped talking and changed topics. They realized that they were not professional, but were only trying to impress others with their stories. . .

I am sure doctor golfing raptor would most likely agree. . there is a huge difference between a professional and an amateur, you should try going one on one with any professional with experience without hiding behind anonymittee and most non narcissists will look and feel foolish. . . the narcissists, not so much. . . . I have tried in athletics, always get my ass whipped thoroughly and I surely respect the difference between my being an amateur and their being a professional. Huge gap of years of education and experience and abilities. . .

Not quite sure what you are trying to imply by that diatribe:icon_wink:
Are you suggesting that folks without expertise should not be posting their opinions on this community forum? Or, are you saying that if you are not learned in a subject you should not contribute to the conversation? Almost means the same. I think that I know what you mean by "anonymittee" though. That was a test, right? "anonymity" the right answer?

[Byte1]

There is an area at Harvard that contains Phd research papers and it is extensive. These really humble you when you claim to have done research on a particular subject. Unless you devote a significant portion of your time to this kind of research you are probably very opinionated and accept your opinions as reality and therefore you've already started out on a contaminated conclusion basis. Over time I have only seen a couple of responses in the of postings on TOTV that may qualify as valid "Research Studies".:ho:

I just call it a conversation/discussion and leave the "expert" corrections up to folks/elitists that feel they qualify to CORRECT us commoners. I have been reading the criteria for posting on here and have yet to find the qualifier that one must be an expert on the subject matter. I am very impressed with all the "experts" that post on here though.

[coffeebean]

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) :ohdear: 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

Sends a message but does no good on deaf ears.

[Topspinmo]

Some data to think about:

Japan
Population: 126 million
Coronavirus Cases: 1,454,364
Total Covid Deaths: 15,946
55% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
44% of population are fully vaccinated

Florida
Population: 22.2 million
Coronavirus Cases: 3,182,726
Total Covid Deaths: 43,979
63% of population has at least 1 dose vaccination
52% of population are fully vaccinated

Japan has almost 6 times the number of people as Florida.
Florida has almost 3 times the number of covid deaths as Japan. So the Florida covid death rate per 1000 people is almost 16 times greater than Japan!

But Japan is substantially behind Florida in vaccinations (44% fully vaccinated in Japan vs 52% in Florida).

Having spent more than 20 years in Asia, I was always somewhat perplexed at the Asian propensity to wear masks everywhere. But if you do some investigation you will find that this started with the 1910 pneumonic plague outbreak in China where it was found that masks was the only effective deterrent at that time. And later in the 1918 flu epidemic masks were again found to reduce transmission.

Mask wearing became "normal" and continued long after those pandemics subsided. So when the covid pandemic began Asian countries already had a long history of using and accepting masks. The Japan data for covid is not so different from other Asian countries.

But, Japan limits travel or allow’s no travel at times. Maybe Florida should be like Canada close airports and stop traffic at Georgia line. Florida has 6 time more people and 20 times plus the more travel in and out of Florida. It’s damn if you do and damned if you don’t.

[Topspinmo]

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) :ohdear: 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

I can see that makes some happy. Covid has no party favorites.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Not quite sure what you are trying to imply by that diatribe:icon_wink:
Are you suggesting that folks without expertise should not be posting their opinions on this community forum? Or, are you saying that if you are not learned in a subject you should not contribute to the conversation? Almost means the same. I think that I know what you mean by "anonymittee" though. That was a test, right? "anonymity" the right answer?

i am directly stating that when I read public forums of any kind, i start with the position as :blahblahblah: :blahblahblah: :blahblahblah: :blahblahblah::blahblahblah: everyone on here included. Most professionals will ask that you make an appointment for professional advice or opinion, as part of their code of professional ethics. . . here, maybe an occassional post of 1 in 10,000 . . .

so if I want to get medical information concerning me, I ask my pcp, when I need tax information, I go to a cpa. When I need investment information, I can do that myself, being a professional. When I need dental work i go to the dentist. When I need the water piping done, I hire a plumber. When I have a legal issue, i ask a lawyer. When i need major car work done, I go to an auto shop.

When I need a different viewpoint on non professional items because i am interested in expanding my knowledge, i go on line. . .

that's what it means. . . and i have to weed through the
:blahblahblah: :blahblahblah: :blahblahblah: :blahblahblah:

[jbartle1]

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Political deaths by virus would be a curious statistic.

[jbartle1]

I can see that makes some happy. Covid has no party favorites.

I'd be willing to bet that it does.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

My point is that COVID does not care what political party, philosophy or religion one follows, therefore it was unnecessary for the OP to label those 3 radio host deaths as "conservative". Radio host would have sufficed. His post was just a sideways political "jab"

It's not political anything. A PERSON who was known on the radio - someone who his listeners actually listened to, whose advice they often took, who presented his opinion in a way that convinced people to believe him...

Instructed his listeners not to vaccinate.

And then he died from the disease he refused to vaccinate against.

But he didn't die until after he convinced a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and refuse to vaccinate.

If he was a card-carrying Communist, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the proven leader of Antifa, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the president of the Democratic National Committee, I'd have the same opinion. If he was a die-hard staunch independent (as I am) I'd have the same opinion.

He pushed a MEDICAL (not political) agenda on a lot of gullible people, believed this MEDICAL agenda, obeyed the medical agenda, and died as a result of his medical agenda.

And people STILL think they should reject the vaccine, because people like him convinced them of it.

[golfing eagles]

It's not political anything. A PERSON who was known on the radio - someone who his listeners actually listened to, whose advice they often took, who presented his opinion in a way that convinced people to believe him...

Instructed his listeners not to vaccinate.

And then he died from the disease he refused to vaccinate against.

But he didn't die until after he convinced a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and refuse to vaccinate.

If he was a card-carrying Communist, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the proven leader of Antifa, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the president of the Democratic National Committee, I'd have the same opinion. If he was a die-hard staunch independent (as I am) I'd have the same opinion.

He pushed a MEDICAL (not political) agenda on a lot of gullible people, believed this MEDICAL agenda, obeyed the medical agenda, and died as a result of his medical agenda.

And people STILL think they should reject the vaccine, because people like him convinced them of it.

Absolutely agree! My objection was to the OP labeling him with a political philosophy. It was his rant that was wrong, not his politics

[GrumpyOldMan]

It's not political anything. A PERSON who was known on the radio - someone who his listeners actually listened to, whose advice they often took, who presented his opinion in a way that convinced people to believe him...

Instructed his listeners not to vaccinate.

And then he died from the disease he refused to vaccinate against.

But he didn't die until after he convinced a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and refuse to vaccinate.

If he was a card-carrying Communist, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the proven leader of Antifa, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the president of the Democratic National Committee, I'd have the same opinion. If he was a die-hard staunch independent (as I am) I'd have the same opinion.

He pushed a MEDICAL (not political) agenda on a lot of gullible people, believed this MEDICAL agenda, obeyed the medical agenda, and died as a result of his medical agenda.

And people STILL think they should reject the vaccine, because people like him convinced them of it.

Hard to be much clearer than that, but I am betting people will still spin this somehow as a personal or political attack. It seems to be hopeless to try to discuss anything, since everything said is spun and assumed to be a personal attack.

[MDLNB]

Hard to be much clearer than that, but I am betting people will still spin this somehow as a personal or political attack. It seems to be hopeless to try to discuss anything, since everything said is spun and assumed to be a personal attack.


So, if she said that a LIBERAL radio broadcaster had died of covid, that would not be construed as a political slur? OK, works for me.

[rustyp]

Thank you President Trump for Fast Tracking the approval for use of the Covid vaccines and saving hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions of lives throughout the world. If not for the approval here, there still would not be a vaccine to fight covid. And I can definitely say that because the vaccine still hasn't been approved by the FDA yet. What has been approved by the FDA can not be distributed yet. President Trump should get some form of Nobel prize for his part in this.

I seem to recall it this way:
On 2 December 2020, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) gave temporary regulatory approval for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, becoming the first country to approve this vaccine and the first country in the Western world to approve the use of any COVID‑19 vaccine.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So, if she said that a LIBERAL radio broadcaster had died of covid, that would not be construed as a political slur? OK, works for me.

Only if it was implied that the death was the result of them being liberal. Then, it'd be a slur.

In this case, the broadcaster claimed to be a conservative. He didn't conserve very efficiently however, since he's now dead.

If he was a liberal. I would've said - he was liberal with pretense, but now he can't pretend the vaccine is dangerous anymore, because he's dead.

If he was independent, I would've said, it's a shame he was too independent to consider the thoughts of actual scientists, but now he'll be truly independent - since he's dead.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I seem to recall it this way:
On 2 December 2020, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) gave temporary regulatory approval for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, becoming the first country to approve this vaccine and the first country in the Western world to approve the use of any COVID‑19 vaccine.

That vaccine has been fully approved for use in the USA since August 23, and is currently available for anyone 16 or over nationwide.

[rustyp]

I seem to recall it this way:
On 2 December 2020, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) gave temporary regulatory approval for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, becoming the first country to approve this vaccine and the first country in the Western world to approve the use of any COVID‑19 vaccine.

That vaccine has been fully approved for use in the USA since August 23, and is currently available for anyone 16 or over nationwide.

You are correct FDA approval August 2021. I also believe I am correct with UK MHRA approval in 2020. What am I missing in your message ?

[John41]

I think that was me. The reason I don't necessarily listen to those entities is because they are too often political.

I don't doubt Fauci is a very smart man but I also don't doubt he has hidden agendas. When he flip flops several times on the advice he gives, he loses me. When he claims no one should question him because he is science, he loses me. When he tries to change the definition of gain of function research, he loses me.

The CDC loses me when it claims gun violence is a disease. The WHO loses me when it covers up for China. The NIH loses me when it won't admit it funded gain of function research. Those organizations all have agendas.

I'm not really a sheeple type of guy. Go ahead and accept everything hook, line and sinker that comes out these governmental agencies. Me, I'll continue to take everything they say with a healthy grain of salt and look for other reliable sources to validate or refute.

And the CDC now requires reports to be written in wokespeak. And any medical body that denies there are just two sexes, like the AMA, is a science fraud. However the vaccines were developed under OWS when there was some integrity. So I advise all to get vaccinated and if high risk like us to wear an N95 mask when social distancing is not possible indoors. Forget the virtue signaling dust masks.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

That vaccine has been fully approved for use in the USA since August 23, and is currently available for anyone 16 or over nationwide.

You are correct FDA approval August 2021. I also believe I am correct with UK MHRA approval in 2020. What am I missing in your message ?

You were responding to this:
Originally Posted by MDLNB View Post
Thank you President Trump for Fast Tracking the approval for use of the Covid vaccines and saving hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions of lives throughout the world. If not for the approval here, there still would not be a vaccine to fight covid. And I can definitely say that because the vaccine still hasn't been approved by the FDA yet. What has been approved by the FDA can not be distributed yet. President Trump should get some form of Nobel prize for his part in this.

and my comment was a tag on the back of that.

[jswirs]

I think that was me. The reason I don't necessarily listen to those entities is because they are too often political.

I don't doubt Fauci is a very smart man but I also don't doubt he has hidden agendas. When he flip flops several times on the advice he gives, he loses me. When he claims no one should question him because he is science, he loses me. When he tries to change the definition of gain of function research, he loses me.

The CDC loses me when it claims gun violence is a disease. The WHO loses me when it covers up for China. The NIH loses me when it won't admit it funded gain of function research. Those organizations all have agendas.

I'm not really a sheeple type of guy. Go ahead and accept everything hook, line and sinker that comes out these governmental agencies. Me, I'll continue to take everything they say with a healthy grain of salt and look for other reliable sources to validate or refute.
You echo my sentiment EXACTLY! And, if I may add, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior". Or, if you prefer, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me", because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. I'll trust my own critical, pragmatic thinking before I trust any of these so called "Experts", and the agencies they represent. They all have their own hidden agendas. IMHO!

[golfing eagles]

You echo my sentiment EXACTLY! And, if I may add, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior". Or, if you prefer, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me", because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. I'll trust my own critical, pragmatic thinking before I trust any of these so called "Experts", and the agencies they represent. They all have their own hidden agendas. IMHO!

Res ipsa loquitur

[blueash]

I think that was me.

The CDC loses me when it claims gun violence is a disease.


I extracted this from a longer post because it reflects a lack of understanding, which is correctable by information, if the person is interested in learning. You fail to know the mission of the CDC. Yes, the D stands for disease. But their mission is not limited to infectious disease. The Navy is not just boats.

The CDC's role is:

Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment

If Covid is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If suicide is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If drug overdose ....
If falls in the home by the elderly is causing ....
If domestic violence is causing deaths or disability...

Are you getting the picture?
The CDC is not just a germ agency, it is charged with collecting data to keep people healthy. What can be a cause of death on a death certificate?

Pretty sure gun violence makes that list.

The CDC collects data on Child Sexual Abuse (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childsexualabuse/fastfact.html). Are you angry about that? It's not a disease in the traditional sense.

Your knowledge of what the CDC does is limited. Your choice to not trust it because they include gun violence as a problem in America worth trying to reduce shows you do not understand what the CDC does that is not just germs.

Firearm injuries are in the top five causes of death for people under 65 in the US.

So now that you've learned why the CDC is involved in gun violence research, do you now trust it on other issues?

[golfing eagles]

I extracted this from a longer post because it reflects a lack of understanding, which is correctable by information, if the person is interested in learning. You fail to know the mission of the CDC. Yes, the D stands for disease. But their mission is not limited to infectious disease. The Navy is not just boats.

The CDC's role is:



If Covid is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If suicide is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If drug overdose ....
If falls in the home by the elderly is causing ....
If domestic violence is causing deaths or disability...

Are you getting the picture?
The CDC is not just a germ agency, it is charged with collecting data to keep people healthy. What can be a cause of death on a death certificate?

Pretty sure gun violence makes that list.

The CDC collects data on Child Sexual Abuse (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childsexualabuse/fastfact.html). Are you angry about that? It's not a disease in the traditional sense.

Your knowledge of what the CDC does is limited. Your choice to not trust it because they include gun violence as a problem in America worth trying to reduce shows you do not understand what the CDC does that is not just germs.

Firearm injuries are in the top five causes of death for people under 65 in the US.

So now that you've learned why the CDC is involved in gun violence research, do you now trust it on other issues?

Great post.

But something tells me it will not convince anyone who ignores experts and "does their own research and makes their own decision"

[stanley]

Firearm injuries are in the top five causes of death for people under 65 in the US.


Where is that statistic?

[blueash]

Where is that statistic?

Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html) half way down the page

[unialimon]

FaceBook, Yeah gotta be true.

[Byte1]

:pray:

[stanley]

Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html) half way down the page

What to believe? Scroll to page 11

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-09-508.pdf

[blueash]

What to believe? Scroll to page 11

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-09-508.pdf

Ok, I did look at that page per your suggestion. I don't see that there is anything in those charts that is in any way contrary to the statement that gun violence is a top five cause of death between ages 1 and 64.

This is an opportunity for you to explain how those pie charts would lead you to believe there is an inconsistency in the CDC's statement and provide an excellent example of what the OP said at the very beginning about how "doing research" on the internet requires some level of knowledge to interpret what you see.

[stanley]

Ok, I did look at that page per your suggestion. I don't see that there is anything in those charts that is in any way contrary to the statement that gun violence is a top five cause of death between ages 1 and 64.

This is an opportunity for you to explain how those pie charts would lead you to believe there is an inconsistency in the CDC's statement and provide an excellent example of what the OP said at the very beginning about how "doing research" on the internet requires some level of knowledge to interpret what you see.

Where on those pie charts does it mention "gun injuries resulting in death"?

[GrumpyOldMan]

I extracted this from a longer post because it reflects a lack of understanding, which is correctable by information, if the person is interested in learning. You fail to know the mission of the CDC. Yes, the D stands for disease. But their mission is not limited to infectious disease. The Navy is not just boats.

The CDC's role is:



If Covid is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If suicide is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If drug overdose ....
If falls in the home by the elderly is causing ....
If domestic violence is causing deaths or disability...

Are you getting the picture?
The CDC is not just a germ agency, it is charged with collecting data to keep people healthy. What can be a cause of death on a death certificate?

Pretty sure gun violence makes that list.

The CDC collects data on Child Sexual Abuse (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childsexualabuse/fastfact.html). Are you angry about that? It's not a disease in the traditional sense.

Your knowledge of what the CDC does is limited. Your choice to not trust it because they include gun violence as a problem in America worth trying to reduce shows you do not understand what the CDC does that is not just germs.

Firearm injuries are in the top five causes of death for people under 65 in the US.

So now that you've learned why the CDC is involved in gun violence research, do you now trust it on other issues?

You miss the point. THEY don't care. The CDC did not march in step with a certain person, therefore the CDC is yet another failed government agency.

[John41]

I extracted this from a longer post because it reflects a lack of understanding, which is correctable by information, if the person is interested in learning. You fail to know the mission of the CDC. Yes, the D stands for disease. But their mission is not limited to infectious disease. The Navy is not just boats.

The CDC's role is:



If Covid is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If suicide is causing deaths or disability.. it is in the CDC's role to investigate.
If drug overdose ....
If falls in the home by the elderly is causing ....
If domestic violence is causing deaths or disability...

Are you getting the picture?
The CDC is not just a germ agency, it is charged with collecting data to keep people healthy. What can be a cause of death on a death certificate?

Pretty sure gun violence makes that list.

The CDC collects data on Child Sexual Abuse (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childsexualabuse/fastfact.html). Are you angry about that? It's not a disease in the traditional sense.

Your knowledge of what the CDC does is limited. Your choice to not trust it because they include gun violence as a problem in America worth trying to reduce shows you do not understand what the CDC does that is not just germs.

Firearm injuries are in the top five causes of death for people under 65 in the US.

So now that you've learned why the CDC is involved in gun violence research, do you now trust it on other issues?

How about illegal immigrants flooding the border, refusing vaccination and filling Texas hospitals?
Or how about the epidemic of black men killing other black men?
Or how about violence being higher with areas with strict gun control?
Or how about someone who violated the law and funded gain of function research which is killing millions.
Or how about someone with the nuclear codes refusing a cognitive ability test?

[blueash]

Where on those pie charts does it mention "gun injuries resulting in death"?

It doesn't. It also doesn't mention car accidents. It doesn't mention heart attacks. It doesn't mention melanoma. It doesn't mention drowning. What do you conclude from that?
If you read the entire pdf it will tell you how each diagnosis is categorized. ICD-10 is a huge collection of diagnoses that get into tiny detail.

Looking at the pie chart you will see, if the image is legible, that there are in the top five for almost all the age groups such things as suicide, homicide, accidental deaths. Some of those are gun, some are not. The pie chart does not tell you. But within each of those slices of the pie are some gun deaths.

The CDC has the fine detail on the deaths. The numbers are available using their Wonder system (https://wonder.cdc.gov/)if you want to do the work. The summary I cited tells you that when they looked at the fine detail they found that gun violence is in the top five causes for ages 1 to 64. I accept that statement and find nothing in the pie chart to make me question the conclusion.

[stanley]

I accept that statement and find nothing in the pie chart to make me question the conclusion.


And I do. Like I said............what, who to believe.

[blueash]

And I do. Like I said............what, who to believe.

Let's summarize. A person says he doesn't trust the CDC because it is investigating gun violence as a disease.
I pointed out that the CDC investigates lots of things that are not diseases, listing several, then added that gun violence is in the top five causes of death under age 65.
You challenged me to give a citation for that statement.
I linked the exact page from the CDC with that statement.
You returned saying that page 11, a set of pie charts, did not apparently support the CDC's own statement.
I then posted the pie charts and explained that they have nothing in them to refute or question their summary conclusion
You returned to say BUT it doesn't say gun on the chart
I patiently explained that it doesn't say lots of things, the pie chart lumps many discrete causes into larger group for the chart but that you can find the micro data using Wonder, and I gave you a link to that data. The CDC knows how to add and make a list.
You replied, I still don't know who to believe.
Who is saying anything otherwise? Is there some person or organization that is saying gun violence is not in the top five? Why are you questioning this simple collection and presentation of data? See my signature line.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink seems to apply.

[golfing eagles]

Let's summarize. A person says he doesn't trust the CDC because it is investigating gun violence as a disease.
I pointed out that the CDC investigates lots of things that are not diseases, listing several, then added that gun violence is in the top five causes of death under age 65.
You challenged me to give a citation for that statement.
I linked the exact page from the CDC with that statement.
You returned saying that page 11, a set of pie charts, did not apparently support the CDC's own statement.
I then posted the pie charts and explained that they have nothing in them to refute or question their summary conclusion
You returned to say BUT it doesn't say gun on the chart
I patiently explained that it doesn't say lots of things, the pie chart lumps many discrete causes into larger group for the chart but that you can find the micro data using Wonder, and I gave you a link to that data. The CDC knows how to add and make a list.
You replied, I still don't know who to believe.
Who is saying anything otherwise? Is there some person or organization that is saying gun violence is not in the top five? Why are you questioning this simple collection and presentation of data? See my signature line.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink seems to apply.

To repeat what I said in post #51-----

Something tells me it will not convince anyone who ignores experts and "does their own research and makes their own decision"

[lkagele]

I extracted this from a longer post because it reflects a lack of understanding, which is correctable by information, if the person is interested in learning.

Are you getting the picture?

Are you angry about that?

So now that you've learned why the CDC is involved in gun violence research, do you now trust it on other issues?

You seem to think I'm angry but your post makes it clear, at least to me, that you're the one that is angry. And condescending. Investigating gun violence was just one example. I didn't think anyone would think it was the sole reason I don't always accept government sources.

The answer to your last question is a resounding, 'no'. You left out an important part of the post. I'll research other sites to refute or validate.

I'll bet you a friendly beer that when the CDC provides its findings it will include remedies such as gun control, gun confiscation, ammo bans and the like. I think it has pre-drawn conclusions and is agenda driven. If this administration was really concerned with gun violence, it would start with law and order initiatives/directives in our inner cities where the vast majority of gun violence occurs. I don't need a CDC study to know that.

[lkagele]

Great post.

But something tells me it will not convince anyone who ignores experts and "does their own research and makes their own decision"

LOL. Another post directed at me. Another 'my way or the highway' type of guy. Geez.

Apparently, you must do the type of research the OP defines on each and every subject. Right!

Science is filled with disputes and conflicting views. That's the nature of it. I'm glad, however, that I've finally found someone that is the definitive source for knowing which experts are correct and which are not.

[John41]

Where is that statistic?

Blueash is incorrect about gun violence being in the top five causes of death. Here are the facts from the CDC.

1. Heart disease: 659,041
2. Cancer: 599,601
3. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005

Leading causes of #3. Accidents
1. Choking
2. Fires
3. Falls
4. Poisoning
5. Car accidents

[golfing eagles]

LOL. Another post directed at me. Another 'my way or the highway' type of guy. Geez.

Apparently, you must do the type of research the OP defines on each and every subject. Right!

Science is filled with disputes and conflicting views. That's the nature of it. I'm glad, however, that I've finally found someone that is the definitive source for knowing which experts are correct and which are not.

Try not to be paranoid. Nothing was directed at you.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Blueash is incorrect about gun violence being in the top five causes of death. Here are the facts from the CDC.

1. Heart disease: 659,041
2. Cancer: 599,601
3. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005

Leading causes of #3. Accidents
1. Choking
2. Fires
3. Falls
4. Poisoning
5. Car accidents

Many of these can INCLUDE and INVOLVE gun violence. Here's how:

Heart disease: person was shot, might have survived but because of heart disease, suffered a heart attack and died.

Accidents:
Choking - person was shot, might have survived, but choked to death in the process.
Fires - victim of arson - was shot, but it was the fire that killed them because being shot meant they were incapacitated and couldn't escape.
Falls - shot, and fell. Broken neck is what killed them.
Car accidents - shot while driving or while passenger in a car that veered off the road and killed them.

Lower respiratory disease - shot in an already diseased lung; the other lung wasn't strong enough to keep them alive. Death by disease.

Stroke - being shot triggered a stroke, and they died from the stroke.

[John41]

Many of these can INCLUDE and INVOLVE gun violence. Here's how:

Heart disease: person was shot, might have survived but because of heart disease, suffered a heart attack and died.

Accidents:
Choking - person was shot, might have survived, but choked to death in the process.
Fires - victim of arson - was shot, but it was the fire that killed them because being shot meant they were incapacitated and couldn't escape.
Falls - shot, and fell. Broken neck is what killed them.
Car accidents - shot while driving or while passenger in a car that veered off the road and killed them.

Lower respiratory disease - shot in an already diseased lung; the other lung wasn't strong enough to keep them alive. Death by disease.

Stroke - being shot triggered a stroke, and they died from the stroke.

LOL that’s funny. I died laughing as I was being shot.

[stanley]

Many of these can INCLUDE and INVOLVE gun violence. Here's how:

Heart disease: person was shot, might have survived but because of heart disease, suffered a heart attack and died.

Accidents:
Choking - person was shot, might have survived, but choked to death in the process.
Fires - victim of arson - was shot, but it was the fire that killed them because being shot meant they were incapacitated and couldn't escape.
Falls - shot, and fell. Broken neck is what killed them.
Car accidents - shot while driving or while passenger in a car that veered off the road and killed them.

Lower respiratory disease - shot in an already diseased lung; the other lung wasn't strong enough to keep them alive. Death by disease.

Stroke - being shot triggered a stroke, and they died from the stroke.

Yeah......kinda like dying with Covid not from Covid and counting it as a Covid death :ohdear:

[SkBlogW]

Let's summarize. A person says he doesn't trust the CDC because it is investigating gun violence as a disease.
I pointed out that the CDC investigates lots of things that are not diseases, listing several, then added that gun violence is in the top five causes of death under age 65.
You challenged me to give a citation for that statement.
I linked the exact page from the CDC with that statement.
You returned saying that page 11, a set of pie charts, did not apparently support the CDC's own statement.
I then posted the pie charts and explained that they have nothing in them to refute or question their summary conclusion
You returned to say BUT it doesn't say gun on the chart
I patiently explained that it doesn't say lots of things, the pie chart lumps many discrete causes into larger group for the chart but that you can find the micro data using Wonder, and I gave you a link to that data. The CDC knows how to add and make a list.
You replied, I still don't know who to believe.
Who is saying anything otherwise? Is there some person or organization that is saying gun violence is not in the top five? Why are you questioning this simple collection and presentation of data? See my signature line.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink seems to apply.

Perhaps the CDC can investigate why the US gave billions in guns, military vehicles, helicopters and planes to a terrorist army? This is going to contribute to the disease of gun violence I tell ya!

90649

[unialimon]

I can hardly wait to read these posts in 5 years.

[blueash]

Blueash is incorrect about gun violence being in the top five causes of death. Here are the facts from the CDC.

1. Heart disease: 659,041
2. Cancer: 599,601
3. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005

Leading causes of #3. Accidents
1. Choking
2. Fires
3. Falls
4. Poisoning
5. Car accidents

Reading comprehension, please. I'll once again repeat the statement which I quoted from the CDC...
Gun violence is in the top five causes of death for people from ages 1 to 64.

Now tell me again how I got it wrong. What you listed as the top five, correctly by the way, are deaths for ALL AGES and that means as most Americans die after age 64 that those diseases are what cause deaths in the elderly.

See post 50, 57 and 61 for what I actually wrote as opposed to what you claim I wrote.

Thanks for not correcting me.

[lkagele]

Reading comprehension, please. I'll once again repeat the statement which I quoted from the CDC...
Gun violence is in the top five causes of death for people from ages 1 to 64.

Now tell me again how I got it wrong. What you listed as the top five, correctly by the way, are deaths for ALL AGES and that means as most Americans die after age 64 that those diseases are what cause deaths in the elderly.

See post 50, 57 and 61 for what I actually wrote as opposed to what you claim I wrote.

Thanks for not correcting me.

After much thought, I think I can articulate clearly why I don't believe everything the CDC advises and go to trusted sources I've developed to verify or refute its advice. I don't need to be top notch, professional researcher as the OP defines and I understand confirmation bias completely. But if I have reliable sources that actually do that level of research then it becomes easier to refute or verify.

Now to the CDC and firearm violence. Rationalize it any way you want but if you don't believe the CDC has an agenda when it advises on many issues then you're extremely naïve. You have to remember, this is the agency that just days ago ILLEGALLY extended the eviction moratorium in direct violation of the recent Supreme Court decision. Are you really going to try and convince me that's a public health issue and in the CDC's realm of authority? It's not and neither is firearm violence. Provide statistics, fine. But anything other than that, I suspect a hidden agenda.

And here it is. There is no doubt in my mind this is an end run for gun control. The CDC is going to label firearm violence as a 'public health crisis' giving the government perceived authority to implement by executive order a partial or complete gun control order. Mark those words.

[John41]

Reading comprehension, please. I'll once again repeat the statement which I quoted from the CDC...
Gun violence is in the top five causes of death for people from ages 1 to 64.

Now tell me again how I got it wrong. What you listed as the top five, correctly by the way, are deaths for ALL AGES and that means as most Americans die after age 64 that those diseases are what cause deaths in the elderly.

See post 50, 57 and 61 for what I actually wrote as opposed to what you claim I wrote.

Thanks for not correcting me.

This is the CDC mission statement according to them.

—CDC works to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. —

Notice it does not say just for those under 65. The age range under 65 is used to compute YPLL which is years productive life lost. Totally different animal. Any sub group could be chosen to make any point for a political narrative. For example should the CDC investigate why blacks are only 12% of the population but commit 36% of the violent crimes, rape robbery mainly against each other. Are they just the “super predators” as a former VP once stated.

So you chose the incorrect age range to make your point. In other words you stated an hypotheses then chose data that made it work (maybe).That’s a no-no in statistics. So like it or not gun violence is not within the top five causes of death unless, of course, you live in Chicago where there are strict gun control laws. LOL

[John41]

This year the woke CDC is pressing liberal gun control for the first time in decades. The first move by every dictatorship is to disarm the public. Ironic that they just provided our enemy the Taliban with about 500,000 US firearms.
———————

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be restarting its dormant "gun violence" research program to address the "epidemic" of firearm deaths and injuries, reported the Daily Wire.

"Something has to be done about this," said CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. "Now is the time — it's pedal to the metal time."

She said the health services agency would branch from issuing COVID-19 recommendations to the issue of gun control for the first time in "decades."

[Ben Franklin]

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aWjyn6d_700bwp.webp

[MorTech]

What "studies" do you "believe"...And why? Do you still watch the idiot box? Read idiot "newspapers"? What's you're CV?

There was never a time when wait staff in TV weren't complaining about rude retirees. Now it is just intolerable.

Israel had forced vaccination...Israeli studies are a good place to start.

I like this...Warning for virgin ears: Foul Language.

Jack McBrayer & Triumph Visit Chicago's Weiner's Circle | CONAN on TBS - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zPlnhymCU)

[lkagele]

What "studies" do you "believe"...And why? Do you still watch the idiot box? Read idiot "newspapers"? What's you're CV?

There was never a time when wait staff in TV weren't complaining about rude retirees. Now it is just intolerable.

Israel had forced vaccination...Israeli studies are a good place to start.

I like this...Warning for virgin ears: Foul Language.

Jack McBrayer & Triumph Visit Chicago's Weiner's Circle | CONAN on TBS - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zPlnhymCU)

Now that's funny. Very good.

[MDLNB]

I can hardly wait to read these posts in 5 years.


Didn't you hear? The world will end due to Global Warming by then.............:1rotfl: We won't be around to read these posts.

[coffeebean]

It's not political anything. A PERSON who was known on the radio - someone who his listeners actually listened to, whose advice they often took, who presented his opinion in a way that convinced people to believe him...

Instructed his listeners not to vaccinate.

And then he died from the disease he refused to vaccinate against.

But he didn't die until after he convinced a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and refuse to vaccinate.

If he was a card-carrying Communist, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the proven leader of Antifa, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the president of the Democratic National Committee, I'd have the same opinion. If he was a die-hard staunch independent (as I am) I'd have the same opinion.

He pushed a MEDICAL (not political) agenda on a lot of gullible people, believed this MEDICAL agenda, obeyed the medical agenda, and died as a result of his medical agenda.

And people STILL think they should reject the vaccine, because people like him convinced them of it.

Well......this guy is sending his message from the grave now but his message surely has changed. Only people who have any kind of smarts should realize now that they should, just maybe, reconsider the message this guy had put out there. Maybe, just maybe, he was wrong..........DEAD WRONG!

[coffeebean]

Where is that statistic?

Does this work?

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_violence_related_injury_deaths_2010-a.pdf

[John41]

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

Ironic that a FB post is used as the definitive word on the meaning of research. I’ll remain skeptical until I see a complete bibliography, etc. LOL