AND that's where they get you. Let's agree that governmental laws and policies that increase human pain & suffering are bad? Those that reduce human pain & suffering - without preventing the emergence of wisdom - not so bad?
Understand. But current definition of anti-vax is anyone opposed to vaccine mandates. He recommended that his son not get the booster. So technically, anti-vax!
Gorski is the worst kind of critic, casting aspersions carelessly and frequently. He is all about denigrating people he doesn’t agree with. His positions are nearly always poorly informed. I’d love to see a debate between him and Dr. Blaylock or yourself. He would embarrass himself.
It's sad cuz people like him are in their own ways very smart, hard-working, and well-meaning. (I've learned a good bit from his articles over the years.) And yet their actions just drive more polarity instead of "saving" anyone. For a science-promoter, he ought to be better at assessing the effects of his actions. Definitely needs to work on his compassion and ability to hold a dialogue with people he disagrees with.
Wondering if he is running for any kind of office..... gaslighting at its finest....he acts like a seasoned politician......quick...someone give him a job.....
And my statement is quite accurate since it only pertains to scientific discussion where there is controversy. I'm making no statements about his skill in his specialty.
Furthermore, Gorski stakes strong positions based on decisions made with an emotional basis. Lots of rhetoric but a paucity of data. Decisions made based on critical thinking rely on data and reason. People basically make decisions two ways--using critical thinking or using strong emotion (fear, anger, grief, jealousy, compassion, love).
Since Gorski provides little data, we can safely assume that emotion guides his thinking--even in scientific controversies.
Dr. Walter Block makes an interesting case against the idea of defamation as a criminal offense; in brief: it may cause lowering people's opinion of you, but you don't own their minds, or their opinions of you. Therefore defamation is never an offense against your physical person or your legitimately owned property. [I heard Walter Block likes to take baths with rubber duckies!]
The Gorski who tweeted to Dr. Didier Raoult that he was "full of sh*t", saying he couldn't refute the Lancet study (about hydroxychloroquine) so lied and insinuated the data was fraudulent...and then the Lancet retracted it, because it was fraudulent? THAT Gorski? LOL
AND that's where they get you. Let's agree that governmental laws and policies that increase human pain & suffering are bad? Those that reduce human pain & suffering - without preventing the emergence of wisdom - not so bad?
So close.
Now, you and I both know this isn't right.
I do not claim rightness.
When Offit has turned anti-vax, why bother with an irrelevant minion like Gorski?
lmao
Offit has not turned anti-vax, he's just sensibly hedging his bets to save his skin.
Understand. But current definition of anti-vax is anyone opposed to vaccine mandates. He recommended that his son not get the booster. So technically, anti-vax!
Agreed.
Gorski is the worst kind of critic, casting aspersions carelessly and frequently. He is all about denigrating people he doesn’t agree with. His positions are nearly always poorly informed. I’d love to see a debate between him and Dr. Blaylock or yourself. He would embarrass himself.
That’s why he blocks
Précis!
What an ironic tee-shirt he has, since he believes science must conform to his opinion
Guido, do you mean "TheScience™"? LOL!
Yes, that’s what “he” means not?
It's sad cuz people like him are in their own ways very smart, hard-working, and well-meaning. (I've learned a good bit from his articles over the years.) And yet their actions just drive more polarity instead of "saving" anyone. For a science-promoter, he ought to be better at assessing the effects of his actions. Definitely needs to work on his compassion and ability to hold a dialogue with people he disagrees with.
He had blocked me on twitter back in 2019 although I NEVER had any sort of interaction with him EVER. It was really weird.
Just to be safe....lol!!
Wondering if he is running for any kind of office..... gaslighting at its finest....he acts like a seasoned politician......quick...someone give him a job.....
"Monitoring antivax mailing lists can be useful."
What does that mean? Is he getting ready to report us to the Vaxx Gestapo for our re-education in work camps?
I truly hope he can get as many boosters as he desires.
Let's not call this graphene injection a "vaccine" - and this guy still has a chance to be trialed for participation in a genocide
Gorski always does defamation first whatever scientific point he may try to introduce, it is always defamation first.
Quite true.
That pissed me off so much I just made a donation.
LOVE this!! Thank you!
Gorski blocked one of my aliases on his site.
When it comes to science Gorski swims with the ducks.
Now, now, Tom. Let's now let him bring us down to his level.
lol, we need some light mockery
And my statement is quite accurate since it only pertains to scientific discussion where there is controversy. I'm making no statements about his skill in his specialty.
Furthermore, Gorski stakes strong positions based on decisions made with an emotional basis. Lots of rhetoric but a paucity of data. Decisions made based on critical thinking rely on data and reason. People basically make decisions two ways--using critical thinking or using strong emotion (fear, anger, grief, jealousy, compassion, love).
Since Gorski provides little data, we can safely assume that emotion guides his thinking--even in scientific controversies.
He's 'settled science'. He doesn't seem to clue in he'd be an Inquisitor.
He's 'settled science'.
More like 'settled salsa.' He wouldn't know science from salsa.
Of course, when there's controversy, science isn't settled.
Dr. Walter Block makes an interesting case against the idea of defamation as a criminal offense; in brief: it may cause lowering people's opinion of you, but you don't own their minds, or their opinions of you. Therefore defamation is never an offense against your physical person or your legitimately owned property. [I heard Walter Block likes to take baths with rubber duckies!]
The Gorski who tweeted to Dr. Didier Raoult that he was "full of sh*t", saying he couldn't refute the Lancet study (about hydroxychloroquine) so lied and insinuated the data was fraudulent...and then the Lancet retracted it, because it was fraudulent? THAT Gorski? LOL