We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and …
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
No apology required. I’m not a doctor but agree with Jon regarding viruses… were we disagree is on the best way to inform the public.