This thread is permanently archived
Deep dive into stupid: Meet the growing group that rejects germ theory
| As idiotic and abhorrent as all of the above is, it's not an exaggeration of the messages being spread by a growing group of Darwin Award finalists on the Internet—that is, germ theory denialists. Yes, you read that correctly: germ theory denialists—also known as people who don't believe that pathogenic viruses and bacteria can cause disease.
| As an extension of their rejection of basic scientific and clinical data collected over centuries, they deny the existence of the devastating pandemic that has sickened upwards of 200 million people worldwide, killing more than 4 million.
| According to the group members' delusions, there is only one disease in existence: toxemia. This disease is caused by toxic exposures that occur by leading a dirty lifestyle.
"Blaming disease on viruses or bacteria is an easy cop out," one post in the group's "guide" section reads. "It's not good business to tell a client that they have caused their own miseries, so the medical profession has blamed suffering on everything but the individual's own failure in the game of living."
| If you are not convinced by the group's ideas and point to medical experts who say wild things like "viruses can make you sick" and "protein is necessary for a healthy diet," you are embarrassingly mistaken. According to the group, all doctors are simply brainwashed puppets, controlled by a profit-driven pharmaceutical and medical research community determined to convince everyone that they need to buy magic pills to stay healthy.
| "There are people with masters [sic] degrees that fell for this pandemic charade," one group member posted. "And there are high school dropouts that can see through all the deception of the media. That's why being smart isn't measured solely on being educated by colleges."
The group members know better, of course, because, you know, they've read a lot of stuff on the Internet—like a lot!
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/deep-dive-into-stupid-meet-the-growing-group-that-rejects-germ-theory/
| You sound like I woke lunatic trying to mentalize the far right conspiracy theories to mock them.
Its childish and wont change anyones opinion, if you want to show how someone is wrong then dont do it like troll.
| >>776536
The article is about mis-informatio and uneducation. *No one* said anything about the far-right... your mind went there on its own.
...interesting that you felt the need to defend them though.
| >A right-wing nutjob instantly gets defensive and sympathises with a bunch of self-proclaimed "germ theory denialists".
Good show, OP. Good show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kgs8zpS3F0
| >>776540 I did not defend them, I called it a conspiracy theory, your way of presenting the article was the worst way to attempt communication with someone who believes in those misinformation, and if the article wasnt meant to teach and talk with these people then what is the point of posting an article to people who already know what it contains? You are sabotaging your own arguements by being aggressive in your wording.
| If anything I helping you with how to communicate with the people who should be zeeing the article, but everyone here seems to think that you support the far right if you not slander them in every sentece, which only helps fomenting more hate and breaking the possibility of communication, is it that hard to humble yourself to spread a good message without any hate in it?
| You are coming of as ostensibly defensive for someone who claims not to be.
Like, bruh. Stop digging. Look around long enough to figure out what just happened. Stop and look around objectively at the situation. You obviously slipped up. Everyone can see that you got personally offended by OPs article.
| >>776557 I didnt get offended, I got frustrated at how OP essentially broke any possibility of communication with the people he intended to talk at the first paragraph, it has been really getting to my nerves how everyone refuses to communicate with eachother in a healthy way.
| Seriously, put yourself in the place of someone who believes in misformation, does this tread sound apealing ot time worthy? No, it looks like bait and trolling.
| >>4a42ff
>with the people he intended to talk at
I can guarantee you that I never quoted this article to talk with(or at) science-deniers and right-wingers. That's a notion made up entirely in *your* head.
The fact that you got so frustrated at something you made up yourself is fucking hilarious though.
Like the previous poster said: stop digging and look around objectively at what just happened.
| >>776565 ok then I ask it again, what is the point of giving information that the aimed audience already knows? Is it to remind us all of how things work? An attempt to find online validation? Making a thread to find out how many people agree with you? Its not even a controversial topic to debate or question if you agree with the message.
| The fact that me being in a possible disagreement with the article(which Im not) grabbed more attention than any of the posts OP made shows what people really look for in threads like this.
| Wait, so all I have to do to protect myself from Covid-19 is to stop eating unnatural foods like POTATOES, GARLIC and ONIONS?
I'm at a loss for words... lol
| >>776584
>implying Big Potato doesn't have you by the balls
Resistance is futile. Once you pop you can't stop.
| >This entire thread
Pretty pretty pretty pretty funny
| I truly thought that flat-earth believers and Covid-negationists were the pinnacle of human misinformation, but now these germ theory denialists have surpassed them.
I'm impressed.
And disappointed.
| There exist only one disease and it's caused by eating potatoes?
I have to admit this cracked me up a little.
| >>776606
It's a tragedy but like all tragedies it's being turned into humour to make pain bearable. Laughter is the best medicine after all. It draws people together in ways that trigger healthy physical and emotional changes in the body.
| the actual fuck?
| I'm only superficially aware of the Germ Theory, but my main issue is those like OP with no scientific background that think they can just discredit things at will because they "trust the experts". I am a STEM student and I can tell you "science" is NOT about blind belief and trusting "experts" that are financed by multinational corporations. Real science is about challenging everything and being open minded to any idea. Please stop throwing around "science" like it's a religion.
| >>776859 science is an ever changing thing but changes require gathering of evidence and that requires a lot of finances, and sure, these corps tried and even have skewed results but its mostly by changing context in articles or nitpicking quotes while the real data is all stored in scientific data banks that most people proably dont even know how to access, the truth eventually comes slaming the door open
| But I get it, usualy those articles do try to lean to a certain bias but if you have a critical eye you can spot the gaps, its usually stuff like not giving out the study method, not going in depth with statistics, using just a quote from an expert etc, just be smart on how you read things.
| >>776860
There's a lot more that goes on than some simple data manipulation, to say the least. The media, the corporations, and the governments do not have your best interests at heart, and it is not productive and mature to sneer at people with different ideas. Scepticism must be applied to everything, especially those that claim to be working for the "greater good".
| fucking worthless thread, OP why did you wake up to make this crap?
| >>776859 The point is that without scientific background, one *should* trust the consensus. People who think they can outsmart scientists are the ones agreeing with conspiracy theories, thinking they can see the truth where science cannot, and the lies where others cannot.
And no offense, but you can say you're a STEM student, it doesn't mean you are right and in the end you're just saying "trust me" as an argument.
Don't believe in science, but trust in science.
| >>776884
>The point is that without scientific background, one *should* trust the consensus.
No, absolutely not. Every person must educate themselves as much as possible and try to discern as much of the truth as they can, within context. I have little reason to doubt a nutritionist that tells me adequate Vitamin C intake is healthy for me, but things become extremely dubious when fear mongering, corporate greed, and totalitarian control come into play.
| >>776884
>People who think they can outsmart scientists are the ones agreeing with conspiracy theories,
It's not about "outsmarting" scientists. It's about understanding that "science" is a tool of the State and the Corporations. You do not get the full picture because you are not being given the entire spectrum of information. You are being fed propaganda to coerce you into giving up your autonomy and subject yourself to experimental substances.
| >>776884
>but you can say you're a STEM student, it doesn't mean you are right and in the end you're just saying "trust me" as an argument.
No, I'm definitely not, and that is what I am against. I am saying to become discriminatory and hostile to perspectives outside the status quo is inherently anti-scientific. "Science" does not stand by itself. It is just a tool of the human mind. It is only as honest as those that wield it. Only as solid as the mind it originates from.
| >>776884
>Don't believe in science, but trust in science.
Science is neither about trust nor belief. It is information put to use. It is just a tool, and one that embodies all the imperfections of Man.
| >>bf27d8 Science isn't a tool or a thing coming from "a mind", but a process. Science is an auto-correcting self-criticizing process and that's what makes it trustworthy. The scientific reasoning is a tool, and an useful one that anyone can use with or without knownledge, and people should use it to know what information comes from science, and what comes from "propaganda". You can trust in science, without trusting information sources.
| >>776893
>Science isn't a tool or a thing coming from "a mind"
It IS a tool. It's very evolutionary purpose is to facilitate human survival. Just as our opposable thumbs are tools, our ability to think abstractly is. Science indeed comes from the mind. It is a product of consciousness. It does not exist independently of the mind.
>but a process
That does not exclude it from being a tool. Art is a process and is a tool because it is used to help us communicate with one another.
| >>776893
>Science is an auto-correcting self-criticizing process and that's what makes it trustworthy.
No, it's not. It is only as good as the hands it's in. Science is a skill and there are levels of skill at it. As I said, to call science infallible is to call Man infallible; neither of these things are true.
| >>776893
>You can trust in science, without trusting information sources.
No, you can't. Haven't you ever heard the joke "97% of scientists agree with the people that give them funding"? Science is married to humanity; it is not inseparable, objective, or incorruptible. You have put "science" on a pedestal and made it an unquestionable religion.
| >>bf27d8 I'm talking about science, you're talking about "that article this scientist made". Science is incorruptible because scientists have opposed interests. In the end, bad results are filtered out and that's how science works.
You say I made science a religion, but you have done the same with your mind, thinking that your reasoning is the only way to reach the truth, making you so easily fooled.
| >>777011
>"that article this scientist made"
It could be anyone, especially moreso the media.
>Science is incorruptible because scientists have opposed interests
That's ridiculous, haven't you heard of confirmation bias? Opposing interests does not imply infallibility.
>In the end, bad results are filtered out and that's how science works.
In the best case scenario, yes, but not all scientists are created equal, nor are all agendas innocent.
| >You say I made science a religion, but you have done the same with your mind, thinking that your reasoning is the only way to reach the truth, making you so easily fooled.
You've just resorted to "no u". I want you to answer me these questions: Are humans perfect? Are they infallible? Who performs "science"?
| >>777143
BTW, there is no such thing as "bad results". Every piece of information is valuable because it ultimately moves you closer to the understanding of your subject. You can't ever forget your "bad results" because they will always be relevant.
| >>777144 The point of science is exactly to get results that are valid desite humans being fallible. Errors are filtered out and conflicts of interest are visible and rejected.
People seem to fail at understanding that science is a slow process. One study isn't science, and no scientific result can be trusted before years of peer reviewing and experiment reproductions. But this is how it is strong with or without fallible scientists.
| >>777237
>Errors are filtered out and conflicts of interest are visible and rejected.
Tell that to String Theorists, they are the laughing stock of the Physics world, yet continue to march on with their lost cause.
>scientific result can be trusted before years of peer reviewing
Peer review is subject to favoritism and discrimination. The Bogdanoff paper is a good example of this (a celebrity published a retarded paper in a science journal because of his status).
| >>777237
>But this is how it is strong with or without fallible scientists.
It's only as strong an honest the hands its in, once again. The scientific method is supposed to be followed, just as traffic laws are, but we both know reality is different from intention. We've also gotten off track: information can be withheld, manipulated, and outright fabricated. There are doctors that have spoken against the vaccines, but they are not given a public platform or are ridiculed.
| >>777244
You are not educated enough to disprove string theory.
Regarding the The Bogdanoff case you're confusing peer review with citations. At least be aware of the basics if you want to shit in something.
The fact that you think you know more than the worlds leading physicists on topics like Quantum gravity when you can't even tell the basics from one another is absolutely laughable. You truly have turned your mind into a religion, believing it's the only way to reach truth.
| Test
| >>777327
>You are not educated enough to disprove string theory.
You're right, my education is in Engineering, but I do know that String Theory has repeatedly disproven itself.
>confusing peer review with citations. At least be aware of the basics if you want to shit in something.
You should take your own advice. The issue isn't with citations, it's that absolute nonsense got published in a "peer reviewed" journal by your supposedly infallible and incorruptible scientists.
| >>777327
>The fact that you think you know more than the worlds leading physicists on topics like Quantum gravity when you can't even tell the basics from one another is absolutely laughable
I said String Theory, which had repeatedly fallen on its face. Once more, you throw out nothing but empty ad hominems.
>You truly have turned your mind into a religion, believing it's the only way to reach truth.
And what way is this? What is this "religion"?
| REDDIT IPA PURE AND PALE
| >>020e45 Nobody said scientists are incorruptible and infaillible. You keep on mixing up science and scientists.
| >>778050 Science isn't scientists. If a mathematician comes and says "1+1=42", it won't mean that it's a mathematical truth.
| >>778002
String theory is a theory of quantum gravity.
The fact that you think you know more than the worlds leading physicists on topics like Quantum gravity when you can't even tell the basics from one another is absolutely laughable.
| >>020e45
The best way to turn people off and have them think you are an idiot is to say things as though they are the truth.
If you don’t allow for any grey area in your black and white life, then you are going to find out the hard way that you look stupid to other people.
Give yourself – and everyone around you – the benefit of the doubt and consider that you might be wrong once in a while and listen to what others have to say.
| >>352d2d
Thanks. Not that I ever expect him to realize that about himself though. A conversation with him isn’t a two-way street. It’s just you listening to what he is saying. If it’s a phone call you could almost put the phone down and walk away then come back and he's probably still talking.
Narcissists love people who listen because all they really want to talk about is their own shit. They don’t ask about your points, they always circle it back to making their BS the center of attention.
| >>778396 >calling someone a narcissist to stroke your own ego after doing one good comment
Way to go gurl.
| >>778160
>Science isn't scientists
OK, so does science exist independently of the mind? Before science was "science", it was natural philosophy. Science is a creation of the human mind. It is an abstract concept. Yes or no?
>If a mathematician comes and says "1+1=42", it won't mean that it's a mathematical truth.
Obviously not, and that is a false equivalence. Math is not science, so now you're comparing apples and oranges.
| >>778171
>The best way to turn people off and have them think you are an idiot is to say things as though they are the truth.
Such as?
>If you don’t allow for any grey area in your black and white life, then you are going to find out the hard way that you look stupid to other people.
My entire position is based in the grey area. Reread my posts and tell me where it's not.
>you might be wrong once in a while and listen to what others have to say.
Been doing that the whole time.
| >>778169
>String theory is a theory of quantum gravity.
I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that String Theory continues to soak up funding, despite making little contributions to Physics. The point being that you asserted "bad results are filtered out" (they're not, they're used as a data), but String Theory contradicts your assertion in that it is continually pursued. This is what I am trying to tell you: Science IS scientists. You CANNOT separate the human dimension of it.
| >>778396
>Narcissist
I'm not the one banning people over a difference of opinion. Just because we are debating does not mean I am not listening to you, or not considering your points. I am defending my position, and you are getting frustrated about it. Your position is that "science" exists outside of the human mind, and is perfect and infallible by nature (remind you of anything?). Prove to me this is the case.
| >>778420
>My entire position is based in the grey area. Reread my posts and tell me where it's not.
Nope. You are unironically claiming that all the worlds leading physicists are wrong and that you are right, and you've never given yourself the benefit of the doubt and considered that you might be the wrong one.
^This is a very black and white stance.
| >>778423
If the mods banned you it was probably because of your never-ending shitposting, and that's a good thing.
>does not mean I am not listening to you, or not considering your points
You are obviously not listening or considering anything at all.
I'll say it again so you can consider it this time: You are not educated enough to disprove string theory. You do not know more about string theory than the worlds leading physisists. Me calling your bluff doesn't make you a victim.
| Since when do mods ban over petty arguements like these?
| >>778444
>You are unironically claiming that all the worlds leading physicists are wrong and that you are right
You're unironically lying. I said String Theory continues to produce little tangible advances in Physics. I didn't say it's wrong, I was contending that you said "bad results are thrown out". If that were the case, we wouldn't even have String Theory, let alone the majority of "science".
| >>778444
>and you've never given yourself the benefit of the doubt and considered that you might be the wrong one.
Wrong on WHAT? I didn't say String Theory is wrong, I said it's marred by non-productivity. Look at the context.
>>778448
>If the mods banned you it was probably because of your never-ending shitposting, and that's a good thing
No, I'm not shitposting, you're avoiding all my points, moving the goal posts and throwing multiple tantrums.
| >>778448
>You are not educated enough to disprove string theory.
That's right, and I never said I was. String Theory is called "THEORY" because it has not proven itself.
>Me calling your bluff doesn't make you a victim.
The only 1 being dishonest is you. I never said it's wrong, but that it it's existence directly contradicts your understanding of the scientific process ("bad results are filtered out"). You are using this as a vehicle to avoid all my other points.
| >>778450
I got banned in random for being "anti-vaxx trash", and the same in this thread when OP lost their cool, again.
>>778451
Nope, I've been banned twice for having a difference of opinion. Pretty common occurrence.
| I think you 2 should pay more attention to what the other is saying, there is clearly lacking communication here.
| >>ebf65f
Instead of derailing more, why don't you answer my question: Does science exist outside of the human mind? You say "bad results are filtered out", String Theory disproves that. You say peer review process is incorruptible-Bogdanoff paper disproves that. You say science exists outside the human mind in a perfect state, but give nothing to support that.
| >>778461
Here you claim that string theory has been disproven >>778001
Here you are asserting that string theory is a lost cause >>777244
The consensus of the worlds leading physisists don't align with this personal point of view of yours. You are not educated enough to make these claims.
It is in fact YOU who is lying, and you're not very good at it either.
| >>778469
>Here you claim that string theory has been disproven
Yes, that was a poor choice of words. It was erroneous of me to make such a statement.
>Here you are asserting that string theory is a lost cause
Again, a poor choice of words. I was unnecessarily harsh to it's lack of tangible progress.
Now, I've admitted my mistakes, so admit your's. You are wrong about the scientific process and you are wrong about the nature of science being independent of the mind.
| >>778466
He will *never* admit to doing that. He's already altering his reality right here >>778470
Never once have he admitted to being wrong, but it's kinda fun watching him go to such absuuuuurd lengths trying to prove himself.
| >>778472
You: "science filters out bad results"
That is factually wrong.
You: "science is perfect because it exists independently of the human mind"
That is factually wrong.
I admitted my errors, now admit your's.
| >>778471
Come one, dude. That wasn't just a "poor choice of words". You flat out said that you knew better than the worlds leading physicists and that they were wrong.
Stop moving the goalpost and admit that you do not know anything about quantum gravity.
>so admit your's.
You and I never spoke about the semantics of science. That was a completely different poster, but I can already tell that you're in the wrong here too.
| >>778476
No, I didn't. I even said I don't have the education to do that. I'm not moving goal posts, I used String Theory's repeated non-productivity to contend the point that "bad results are filtered out".
>That was a completely different poster, but I can already tell that you're in the wrong here too.
Nope, bad results are not filtered out, they are used as data. Science does not exist outside the mind, it is a product of it.
| >>778472 >>778470 honestly, I dont see the effort in you 2 to underdtand eachother, its just name calling and "you will never get it" talk with repeated questions that both dont want to answer
| >>778478
HOW?!?! I answered ALL of their questions and admitted my mistakes. When have I "name called"? I haven't.
| >>778479
They actively avoid admitting their wrongs, but hold everyone else to the same standard, it's ridiculous.
| >>778480
And when they don't like the resistance they're getting, they avoid your points and move on to something else. What do you expect from someone that bans you over disagreement? So fucking hypocritical.
| >>778475
Again, that's someone else you've been talking to. If you actually paid attention to what we said you would've known that.
I didn't follow your discussion with him(I barely read your lying anti-intellectualist shitposts in the first place) but it's obvious that you've been spouting the same logical fallacies to him that you have to me.
| >>778479
You really fucking didn't, and the fact that you can delude yourself to such absurd lenghts that you think you did is kind of fascinating in how wrong it is.
>>778478
You have to know that this interaction isn't something new. When we first started talking I treated him with the same respect as I did any other person, but eventually I stopped taking him seriously and nowadays I(well, we) just wind him up for fun.
| >>778492
We used to be nice to him and gave him *plenty* of chances but he spat in our faces every. single. time. Before he started playing the victim he used to be significantly more toxic and confrontional. I just got tired of his BS and started giving him the same energy back.
I'm not apologizing for calling his bluff when he claims he know's better than the worlds leading physicists on topics like quantum gravity. If that makes me a fuckface then I'm fine with it.
| >>778537 you are mistaking them for somebody and projecting irrational emotions instead of taking properly and then getting frustrated at how the person you have been slandering for 6 hrs refuses to listen to you. At this point you should just leave if it makes you this angry and supposedly doesnt give any results
| >>778492
I'd say that the guy who's gotten multiple bans for spreading covid-denialism and anti-vaccination propaganda is the real fuckface. I have zero sympathy for people like him.
| >>778541
♥ Dude, I know you're samefagging. You're painfully transparent in everything you do, from projecting, to lying, to samefagging etc. You're the only one who's angry here, midia-kun. ♥
In fact, in every single one of these threads you end up upset yet you keep coming back for more, and I'll never stop amusing myself on your behalf.
| >>778410 I stopped reading after "math is not science".
I see the problem, that guy is a special case.
| >>778544
Not him specifically, no. I just quoted the most anti-intellectual article I could find to draw these people out to parade themselves a la emperors new clothes. Just plant the bait and they'll do the rest.
Yeah, it's douchy but it's just too fucking funny.
| >>778543 yeah no, you talk like this to multiple different people, you are just too blind to notice how its not the same person being inconsistent but actually multiple people with their own opinions, you project feelings and generalizes those who disagree with you.
| >>778558
"Yeah, sure". As soon as one guy gets talked into a corner a complete stranger instantly shows up and continues the conversation with the same unique behavior, same personal drive and same grammatical errors?
SOUNDS LEGIT
| Besides, midia-kun proudly breaks his anonymity. I know he's a compulsive liar but I believe him when he outs himself.
As long as he keeps spreading anti-intellectualism and extremist propaganda I will keep baiting him because he takes the bait 100% of the time. 100% of the time.
| >>778558
So tell me, why would you, a complete stranger, show up and defend midia-kun the minute after he got upset and "supposedly left"?
As I said, you're painfully transparent in your behavior, personal drive and grammatical errors. See you in the next week's installment of "I'm going to make midia-kun cry"! ♥
| "I'm not wrong, it was a bait lol" - every genius ever
| >>778560 its not as soon, because there are no time stamps in this site, so you dont actually know if it was sent 5 seconds or 4 hours after your last reply, and if you look closer you will see that its not the same personal dive and just criticizm towards you arguemens that you take too personaly.
This thread is permanently archived
| Listen up, sheeple: COVID-19 doesn't exist. Viruses don't cause disease, and they aren't contagious. Those doctors and health experts who say otherwise don't know what they're talking about; the real experts are on Facebook. And they're saying it loud and clear: the pandemic is caused by your own deplorable life choices, like eating pasta. Any "COVID" symptoms you might experience are actually the result of toxic lifestyle exposures—and you have only yourself to blame.