Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

I think we all have a natural ability to sense bullshit built into our dna. As we gain experience in life, hopefully, we keep on working on making the bullshit testing skill better.

I'm 100% in support of the scientific method and even spirited devotion to an idea or ideology even if it is wrong. Sometimes to find out the limits of an idea you need a kind of zombie devotion to the idea.

But, when watching someone like this scientists push an idea where you neither have expertice nor ever even a hope of understanding or testing anything that they say, we end up in a situation where you have to lean on this natural bullshit sensor to smell out when something might be wrong.

Here is what my bullshit sensor is telling me:

1) TOO MOTIVATED TO BE RIGHT - He seems to be highly motivated in the idea that vaccines work, regardless of vaccine technology and measurements of success.

2) HE TALKS ABOUT MEASUREMENT IN VERY BLACK AND WHITE WAYS - We all know everything in the universe is measure on a spectrum of probability, nothing is black and white. He is way way way too energetic about how sure he is over the efficacy of vaccines and mrna vaccines in particular given that this is the first time they have been deployed.

I trust engineers to be precise in measurement because that is repeatable, but, in complex systems measurement is far far more fuzzy.

3) HE IS LEAVING A LOT OF INFORMATION - Obviously, when communicating verbally it isn't possible to communicated everything. Also, this is a clip, so who knows if he is truly honest.

But, from what I am seeing here is that he is deliberately leaving out a whole set of concerns and potential issues because he has either classified them as "woo" (I do this as well) or doesn't want to bring them into the conversation to give them credence.

Now, it is true that if you put all ideas on the table at once, you cannot have a conversation because the human mind cannot comprehend everythign simultaneously.

But, I don't trust anyone that leaves stuff out of the conversation by default. Someone introduced me to the ratchet effect in another thread and this would be an example of the ratchet effect: if someone like this can convince enough people that he is right by leaving information out, his idea wins and gets to go on to the next round and perhaps win again. Ratcheting up the whole system in favour of his bias versus someone elses.

4) DELIBERATE MISLABELING - mrna vaccines are not vaccines. THEY ARE GENTIC THERAPY. While it is true that semantically you can fuzzy logic your way into re-labeling everything, we do it all the time, the inverse is true as well: if you delibrately use semantics TO NOT FIX mislabeling you are deliberately participating in a misinformation campaign.

I don't trust these mother fuckers. I support vaccines, I am extremely concerned about mrna vaccines because no one knows the long terms effects of this. We are only now starting to find out out the effects of plastics based chemicals on human reproductive systems, who knows what happens when you start fucking aroudn with editing of any part of the human genome structures.

I think we all have a natural ability to sense bullshit built into our dna. As we gain experience in life, hopefully, we keep on working on making the bullshit testing skill better. I'm 100% in support of the scientific method and even spirited devotion to an idea or ideology even if it is wrong. Sometimes to find out the limits of an idea you need a kind of zombie devotion to the idea. But, when watching someone like this scientists push an idea where you neither have expertice nor ever even a hope of understanding or testing anything that they say, we end up in a situation where you have to lean on this natural bullshit sensor to smell out when something might be wrong. Here is what my bullshit sensor is telling me: 1) TOO MOTIVATED TO BE RIGHT - He seems to be highly motivated in the idea that vaccines work, regardless of vaccine technology and measurements of success. 2) HE TALKS ABOUT MEASUREMENT IN VERY BLACK AND WHITE WAYS - We all know everything in the universe is measure on a spectrum of probability, nothing is black and white. He is way way way too energetic about how sure he is over the efficacy of vaccines and mrna vaccines in particular given that this is the first time they have been deployed. I trust engineers to be precise in measurement because that is repeatable, but, in complex systems measurement is far far more fuzzy. 3) HE IS LEAVING A LOT OF INFORMATION - Obviously, when communicating verbally it isn't possible to communicated everything. Also, this is a clip, so who knows if he is truly honest. But, from what I am seeing here is that he is deliberately leaving out a whole set of concerns and potential issues because he has either classified them as "woo" (I do this as well) or doesn't want to bring them into the conversation to give them credence. Now, it is true that if you put all ideas on the table at once, you cannot have a conversation because the human mind cannot comprehend everythign simultaneously. But, I don't trust anyone that leaves stuff out of the conversation by default. Someone introduced me to the ratchet effect in another thread and this would be an example of the ratchet effect: if someone like this can convince enough people that he is right by leaving information out, his idea wins and gets to go on to the next round and perhaps win again. Ratcheting up the whole system in favour of his bias versus someone elses. 4) DELIBERATE MISLABELING - mrna vaccines are not vaccines. THEY ARE GENTIC THERAPY. While it is true that semantically you can fuzzy logic your way into re-labeling everything, we do it all the time, the inverse is true as well: if you delibrately use semantics TO NOT FIX mislabeling you are deliberately participating in a misinformation campaign. I don't trust these mother fuckers. I support vaccines, I am extremely concerned about mrna vaccines because no one knows the long terms effects of this. We are only now starting to find out out the effects of plastics based chemicals on human reproductive systems, who knows what happens when you start fucking aroudn with editing of any part of the human genome structures.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (27).
[–] • 0 pt

I watched it fully before I read your post and didn't see any problem. He seemed enthusiastic but was just laying out the information about these things. I think he did a good job summarizing things.

He described how vaccines work, and the various approaches to "tip off" the immune system without giving it a huge viral load. He was a little disingenuous about the 99% survival rate mainly being shaped by old and sick people, whereas young people have a much higher rate (something like 99.95%). He should have clarified this because it would have made the case for old/sick people getting the vaccine, but not young people.

He properly clarified how the vaccine's effect wasn't instead of the body's defenses, but improved it. He also explained how it might not even lower death rate, as that's another issue compared to symptom rate.

The only question I had was whether these mRNA vaccines keep making your body produce these spike proteins, or just for a little while. If it keeps making this happen, that's freaky as hell. Even with what he described I still wouldn't touch a vaccine. Even if the narrative is true and there's no sinister plan, there are still too many unknowns, lack of quality control, rushed production, lots of untested things, etc. I don't trust even the most virtuous humans to produce something like this safely.

4) DELIBERATE MISLABELING - mrna vaccines are not vaccines. THEY ARE GENTIC THERAPY.

Are you saying his description is wrong? From what he said, viruses themselves inject RNA into the cell to produce its parts. This mRNA vaccine does the same to produce parts the same as SARS-CoV-2 does. Assuming this is correct, then it's no different than what viruses do, throw RNA into your cells and let their genetic machinery produce proteins based on it, then spit them out. Where is it modifying your genes?

[–] • 1 pt

He said for the old its 80% survival which is total bullshit.

[–] • 0 pt

The median age of death from all sources of men is 79 and women 80. If it wasn't the boomer plague it would be something else.

[–] • 0 pt

Video was from last year. Was there ever a group that had a 20% fatality rate, even one with co-morbidities?