Here
and
Now

opinions

Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them

64 Comments
By Keith Raymond Harris

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The Earth orbiting the Sun was once condemned as a conspiracy theory, as were the effects on health of tobacco and DDT. Censorship is inherently fascistic, no matter how many times people declare free speech to be 'dangerous'. We do live in increasingly Orwellian times. It is difficult to have any hope for the future.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

The Earth orbiting the Sun was once condemned as a conspiracy theory, as were the effects on health of tobacco and DDT. 

The huge difference is that the examples you mention were supported by scientific evidence, while those that the article talks about are not, in fact they are debunked by that evidence, which means calling them false and wrong is valid, repeating information that can be demonstrated false is not beneficial nor lead to progress.

Censorship is inherently fascistic, no matter how many times people declare free speech to be 'dangerous'. We do live in increasingly Orwellian times. It is difficult to have any hope for the future.

No, it is not. It is perfectly valid to censor false information that people try to use to mislead others into acting irrationally or making mistakes, there is nothing fascistic about it. This not only protect people from being deceived, but also is the basis for progress, because it can only be obtained by eliminating false and mistaken information and keeping only what can be proved correct.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them

Intriguing how this article is from Germany.

The huge difference is that the examples you mention were supported by scientific evidence, while those that the article talks about are not, in fact they are debunked by that evidence, which means calling them false and wrong is valid, repeating information that can be demonstrated false is not beneficial nor lead to progress.

You misunderstand the original poster's comment, and you overgeneralize, because not everything in the article is supported by scientific evidence, so your assertion is false.

No, it is not. It is perfectly valid to censor false information that people try to use to mislead others into acting irrationally or making mistakes, there is nothing fascistic about it. 

Do you have any evidence or proof for this assertion? It is full of inherent circular reasoning. One person's rationality is another's irrationality when there is no scientific evidence to support either's view.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

You misunderstand the original poster's comment, and you overgeneralize, because not everything in the article is supported by scientific evidence, so your assertion is false.

No misunderstanding, the scientific evidence argument is completely valid because the examples in the comment DO have scientific validation that allowed them to be recognized as true, while the examples on the article don't. The only misunderstanding here is yours, that could not recognize the argument is the lack of evidence from the examples of conspiracy theories, and though they would be supported by it. The point is the opposite, that these examples are NOT supported by scientific evidence, so they are nothing like the examples listed in the comment.

Do you have any evidence or proof for this assertion? 

Do you really need evidence about false information not bringing anything positive to a discussion? or is this once again an excuse you are using when you have no logical argument to disprove something that you don't want to accept. Against an argument supported by logic you need a counter argument that disproves it also using logic. Do you have such argument? else you are recognizing you can't disprove it when calling for evidence when it is not relevant.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Anti-vaccination content, whether about vaccines in general or specifically about the COVID-19 vaccines, often takes the form of pictures and videos purporting to illustrate disturbing side effects of vaccines.

Who needs social media when you have academic journals?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841122001044?via%3Dihub

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.14945

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.14945

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1346-8138.16539

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dth.15769

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.18484

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dth.15775

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1346-8138.16554

How many more do you want? 'Conspiracy theory' researchers are often the most arrogant and ignorant people around yet somehow think they are Judges of Reason...

0 ( +10 / -10 )

No misunderstanding, the scientific evidence argument is completely valid because the examples in the comment DO have scientific validation that allowed them to be recognized as true, while the examples on the article don't. The only misunderstanding here is yours, that could not recognize the argument is the lack of evidence from the examples of conspiracy theories, and though they would be supported by it. The point is the opposite, that these examples are NOT supported by scientific evidence, so they are nothing like the examples listed in the comment.

You still misunderstand because not all the examples have scientific validation. Maybe it is just one of your reading comprehension issues, but if you read the article closely you will see the section about philosophers.

Do you really need evidence about false information not bringing anything positive to a discussion? or is this once again an excuse you are using when you have no logical argument to disprove something that you don't want to accept. 

So, you don't have evidence. Not surprised.

And as usual, whenever an error in your thinking is clearly and easily pointed out, you start throwing out irrational assertions trying to support your initial "claims". Just accept your errors, and move on.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Who needs social media when you have academic journals?

None of your examples supports the antivaxxer conspiracy theories about the covid vaccines. Not only because the causal relationship to the vaccination is absent (just a comparison with the incidence rate on unvaccinated people makes it clear the reports do not consist on an excess of the expected number of cases).

How many more do you want? 

How about at least a number above what is expected from happening without the vaccine? at a rate of up to 3 cases per 100,000 people you would expect 50,000 cases happening just by chance alone. Do you have as many examples?

How about then an epidemiological study (a much more reasonable standard of evidence) that says the vaccine increase the risk, how much this increase is and how it compares with the decrease of risk that is granted?

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

You still misunderstand because not all the examples have scientific validation. 

That is still your misunderstanding, because the point is that NONE of the example have scientific validation, that is what makes them conspiracy theories and completely different from what the comment tried to compare them to.

This reason have been explained already to you, but you make absolutely no effort on adressing it, which would indicate that the problem comprehending arguments would be on your side.

So, you don't have evidence. Not surprised.

To discuss logically when it is not required? obviously, because this is a logical argument that do not depend on evidence it still requires that you provide a contrary argument that demonstrates the logic is invalid, you have provided no such argument and instead are just making a baseless appeal to some supposed evidence that would disprove the logic of the argument without even arguing what this supposed scientific evidence would have any impact or not, so once again the "error" is just failing to provide an argument to defend what you thought was correct.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Have had to deal with a number of good mates falling down into these rabbit holes, especially with the anti-vaxer scene. Educated people too! A kernal of truth is usually at the base of their all-encompassing theories, but they spin-off in so many disjointed directions, joining dots where there are none, conjuring tales that sound like a b-rate pulp fiction novel. Sign of the complex times. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty too and the internet certainly hasn't helped. They've all done their RESEARCH to back up the crazy tales. Perhaps we need to have more sense-making classes in school.

The 'Wizard of Oz' narrative I like to call it is the silliest. People who believe that there are nefarious entities that wake up in the morning with the mission of deliberately wreaking havoc, misery and destruction unto the world. Poisoning the masses in some sort of Luciferian blood fest. It's dark and debilitating for those that buy into it. Even things like overselling the threat of racism, sexism, capitalism ( or any other us vs themism ) also fall into this category. Who do you really think wakes up in the morning and says to themselves, "Right, today I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that this group/skin color/ gender/nationality/ fill in the gap gets held back and disempowered."

It's a complete fallacy and a sad one, especially in this day and age.

People are awesome. and everyone is doing their best. The end!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

yeah and nothing about "supposed" conspiracy theories now being proven true in weeks and months, not years and decades or never?

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

It's a complete fallacy and a sad one, especially in this day and age.

These people are no different than priests blaming the evils of the world on the devil. Scared people of low intelligence who grasp a feeling of security by trying to find some nefarious secret force to be behind their stresses.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

"In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus detailed his radical theory of the Universe in which the Earth, along with the other planets, rotated around the Sun. His theory took more than a century to become widely accepted."

So he was a "conspiracy theorist" for over 100 years, yet was actually right, huh?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

We are often left wondering what, is the real "Truth", these days especially when what we see or hear can be easily be manipulated using Modern technology.

However it's not just a modern day thing, the subject of "Truth" has been discussed for many Centuries as a Philosophical topic. You can easily lookup Aristotle or Plato, and find quotes such as:

"To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”

However,

I've never seen either a God nor Aliens, though that does not mean that either exists.

I've tested positive for COVID, yet suffered not, even though I haven't had a vaccination. That doesn't mean to say, that for other people, there is no benefit from having a vaccination - statistics purportedly suggests that it stops you ending up in Hospital and / or dying. Though, we were told that you wouldn't infect others if you were vaccinated.... ho hum...

I've entered lotteries, but never won - though from time to time, someone wins - does that mean the lottery is rigged or I'm just unlucky ?

The list could go on.

Keep an open mind, be wary of what others want to force upon you to believe, have faith in yourself and make your own decisions, since then, you will have only yourself to blame.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

So he was a "conspiracy theorist" for over 100 years, yet was actually right, huh?

Which part of his research are you claiming was a conspiracy theory?

0 ( +8 / -8 )

that it was called a conspiracy theory for over 100 years when he factually stated the correct scientific position.

Galileo was called a heretic almost a century later for having the same factual belief.

and he was a physicist and an astronomer.

You would probably be screaming he has no credibility because of his beliefs.

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Sure, every couple decades you get one that was actually truth

every couple of months now, where have you been?

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Theodore Roosevelt knew this back in 1912.

"...Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

was he a scared person of low intelligence?

Scared people of low intelligence who grasp a feeling of security by trying to find some nefarious secret force to be behind their stresses.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Galileo was a genius who had a scientific basis for his theory.

He is one of the greatest intellects in human history.

People gibbering about stolen elections and scamdemics are the opposite of Galileo.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

The costs of acting as if the 2020 election were rigged are no doubt greater than those for acting as if the floor is lava. The costs of acting as if the 2020 election were rigged led to millions of dollars worth of damage to the Capitol building, led to hundreds of arrests for Capitol rioters, led to multiple deaths and imperiled American democracy.

BINGO! And we know who is responsible...

And what do we see at Trump's most recent rallies? QAnon music, one finger salutes, "Q" banners and T shirts...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-qanon-followers-social-media/

It's clear that when they lose in free and fair elections, the Repub party refuses to gracefully concede, and instead spreads deceitful lies and hatches beyond kooky conspiracy theories...a clear attempt to destroy our democracy...

Hugo Chavez, dead for nine years, stole 2020 votes?

On Thursday, Powell declared that she had found the real villains behind Trump’s election defeat: billionaire Soros and deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. In Powell’s telling, Chavez had been pulling the strings on American voting software this whole time.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-how-hugo-chavez-dead-since-2013-became-responsible-for-trumps-election-loss

Welcome to MAGA-world...

2 ( +8 / -6 )

yeah and nothing about "supposed" conspiracy theories now being proven true in weeks and months, not years and decades or never?

That is the point, insisting that something must be true without having the evidence to support it, or even worse when the evidence clearly demonstrates it is completely false.

So he was a "conspiracy theorist" for over 100 years, yet was actually right, huh?

Which actually supports what the article is talking about, because Copernicus had the evidence to prove his point, while the people that opposed him just tried to impose their views without having any evidence for it. The solution for both is simple, conclusions supported by evidence (specially scientific evidence) are to be promoted, conclusions disproved by the available evidence discarded.

You would probably be screaming he has no credibility because of his beliefs.

What have beliefs have to do with anything, the examples without credibility are so because the beliefs are not supported by evidence, which is the important point.

every couple of months now, where have you been?

Modifying what was told so you can "demonstrate" what nobody said as false is not proving a conspiracy theory.

was he a scared person of low intelligence?

Did he claimed something clearly disproved by evidence as the examples in the article? saying corruption is present in both business and goverment is not the same as saying every single instance (or one specific example) is corruption even if the evidence says the contrary. Saying one specific example must be true because of a generalization is not valid.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

So he was a "conspiracy theorist"

Copernicus was a ‘conspiracy theorist’?

This is fascinating.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

because Copernicus had the evidence to prove his point, while the people that opposed him just tried to impose their views without having any evidence for it.

sounds like today. Even with the evidence it took Copernicus 100 years to be believed and Gallileo was being tried as a heretic 90 years after it. There has been evidence of UFOS for decades, when did it cease to be "conspiracy theory"?

Copernicus was a ‘conspiracy theorist’?

context is helpful.

during the 100 years his scientific fact was not believed, he would have been identified and seen as such by the "establishment".

That Copernicus guy, he says the earth revolves around the sun!!?? how ridiculous!

Imagine the liberal media "fact checks" he would have endured in our time.

Until one day they just would say "no one ever said that the sun revolves around the earth!" and pretend it all never happened.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

sounds like today. Even with the evidence it took Copernicus 100 years to be believed

Which is a sad prediction of how much time is going to take for conspiracy believers to accept they have been wrong, even with the evidence this is the case.

There has been evidence of UFOS for decades, when did it cease to be "conspiracy theory"?

Evidence that something flying was not identified? that is not a conspiracy theory ever, what is a conspiracy is to say there is evidence they are extraterrestrial cultures making them and that X Y or Z is hiding this evidence or is in collution with the aliens.

during the 100 years his scientific fact was not believed, he would have been identified and seen as such by the "establishment".

Fortunately now the people that like to believe things in spite of the contrary evidence are a minority and those that can prove their conclusions with evidence now have to be recognized, it is one proof of the advancement of science and evidence based practices, the current conspiracy theorist are not like Copernicus, they are as the people that refused to accept they were wrong even when confronted with valid, objective evidence.

Imagine the liberal media "fact checks" he would have endured in our time.

His evidence was clear, his methods valid, so in our time that is what would be reported. His detractors on the other hand would have a much harder time when confronted with the evidence they could not refute.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Yes, conspiracy theories are dangerous... for the powers that be, especially when they are true.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Yes, conspiracy theories are dangerous... for the powers that be, especially when they are true.

They are dangerous for everybody in general specially when they are not true but people keep pushing them even when they can be categorically disproved. The whole article is about this point, how people repeating proven falsehoods still can manage to change people minds into invalid beliefs and conclusions, nobody actually interested in progress and benefit of the public would argue that people have a right to promote things that can be proved false.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Which is a sad prediction of how much time is going to take for conspiracy believers to accept they have been wrong,

the initially disbelieved conspiracy theorist in the case took 100 years to be proven RIGHT, not wrong.

Thankfully most conspiracies are proven true much faster now.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

the initially disbelieved conspiracy theorist in the case took 100 years to be proven RIGHT, not wrong

Yes, it took that long to the people with the evidence to prove their point. In current times that is the opposite of those believing conspiracy theories, they are the ones without the evidence so it is sad to think it will take 100 years for those groups to be convinced (or reduced to non importance) by the actual evidence that proves them wrong.

Thankfully most conspiracies are proven true much faster now.

Only those that are true, which are a minority by definition (since many are mutually impossible to prove true) for the rest the people believing against the evidence are the same as Copernicus detractors, just saying they must be right no matter what science proves.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Fact is that many of yesterday's "conspiracy theories" are now shown to have some basis in fact.

Which is why, rather than trying to silence or suppress them, they should be allowed to be espoused and then debated and debunked.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Yes, conspiracy theories are dangerous... for the powers that be, especially when they are true.

They are dangerous for everybody in general specially when they are not true but people keep pushing them even when they can be categorically disproved.

Yes, I agree. But I am referring to the many "conspiracy theories" that are increasingly being shown to be true, but which continue being attacked and censored.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Conspiracy theories are dangerous even if very few people believe them

A day without a conspiracy theory is a day without sunshine.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Fact is that many of yesterday's "conspiracy theories" are now shown to have some basis in fact.

If something has basis on fact then it can't be disproved by objective evidence, which are the examples being used in the article, and "some basis" can mean "completely disproved" except for some irrelevant detail, so it is not really an argument to stop discarding things well disproved.

You want people to keep considering something? then provide evidence it is true, or at least that there is a significant posibility for it to be true, but pushing into consideration things well disproved has no merit.

Yes, I agree. But I am referring to the many "conspiracy theories" that are increasingly being shown to be true, but which continue being attacked and censored.

Like what? which of the examples in the article has been shown to be true and still censored? What kind of things that have been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt ended up being true later? People invested in their beliefs of conspiracies always argument this is the case, but then end up giving examples of things that have never been proved correct or that were widely known to be true since the beginning.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Does anyone think Alex Jones will one day be viewed on a level with Galileo?

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Another river of drivel from The Conversation.

The official narrative falling apart so badly they have to resort to publishing this F-grade wet lettuce leaf of a hit piece, yet still embraced by a select few right here on JT.

By the way, how about that Democrat conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election? Complete bunkum.

But the Hunter Biden story that Democrats bloviated about being a conspiracy theory? Well, by golly, it turned out to be true!

As for conspiracy theories about the covid vaccines, these are being proved true with alarming frequency. Not the wacky 5G nonsense, just the provable denial of nasty adverse effects (played down as SADS, etc), bullying of doctors and nurses by medical boards, cover-ups of unfavourable trial results, suppression of cheap, safe and effective off-label treatments, pushing of dangerous drugs (hey, Remdesivir!), and so much more.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

As for conspiracy theories about the covid vaccines, these are being proved true with alarming frequency.

And yet you have never provided any evidence that would prove anything of those conspiracy theories, including SADS, since covid is a much more frequent cause of cardiac problems than any of the vaccines the current scientific evidence is that vaccines reduce the risk of those problems, which is exactly the opposite of what you say was proved.

bullying of doctors and nurses by medical boards

If doctors and nurses act against the available evidence then they are being unprofessional and even unethical, that is a perfectly valid reason for penalties.

cover-ups of unfavourable trial results

Writing about all the problems of those studies that you have wanted to push that completely disqualify the conclusions made (or showing how the own authors contradict how you present those articles) do not constitute "cover-ups" it is just how post-publication peer review works, the real problem is trying to ignore huge, well designed and conducted studies when they contradict what you want to believe and instead having to reduce yourself to only believe things of much lower quality only because they share your bias.

suppression of cheap, safe and effective off-label treatments

No such things, cheap safe and effective things like dexamethasone are being used without any problem, what is being suppressed (and validly) are things that bring no benefit, only extra risks to the patients as proved scientifically.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Does anyone think Alex Jones will one day be viewed on a level with Galileo?

AJ is a gatekeeper, his job is to make "conspiracy theorists" look silly.

As for conspiracy theories about the covid vaccines, these are being proved true with alarming frequency.

And yet you have never provided any evidence that would prove anything of those conspiracy theories,

We've provided lots of evidence (including peer-reviewed papers) showing that the "safe and effective" narrative is not valid; same with the zoonotic origin of Covid and the ineffectiveness or repurposed drugs.

The fact that the official narrative regarding Covid has been so wrong and yet so aggressively pushed and promoted in a highly coordinated manner, while equally aggressively silencing and attacking opposite views strongly suggests that a conspiracy was behind it.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Virusrex is kicking your butts all over the place. This place sorely needs a cold bucket of logic in the face, and today he is providing that nicely. I wish he would show up here more often.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Conspiracy theories exist because those that lack maturity or of lower education are unable to reason, assess, and judge using science or other empirical methods...

They have to make sense of their world, so they latch on to crazy, far-out fairy tales; for example...

Horse dewormer cures COVID...

Windmills cause cancer...

JFK Jr is alive and helping rid the country of pedophiles stealing the blood of children in the back of pizza parlors...

Hugo Chavez, dead nine years, stole the 2020 election...

It's their escape from reality...an alternate reality increasing being called MAGA-world...

And it goes without saying that the propagators of these kooky theories are mere con-artists bilking and fleecing their believers out of their money...

PT Barnum's word's are more relevant today than when he uttered them 100 years ago; "There's a sucker born every minute"....

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

The Earth orbiting the Sun was once condemned as a conspiracy theory

You sparked off a lot of comments with that one. But I'm not sure it was condemned as a "conspiracy theory" so much as just being wrong or hard to believe for those who had learned differently. Was it not more of a scientific paradigm shift? Much has been written about such shifts in scientific thought. (Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions comes to mind.)

I tend to think that the basis of conspiracy theories is the idea that "they're out to get us", whether alien lizards, rich bankers, or politicians from the other side.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You couldn’t have chosen a worse example for yourself if you tried.

“There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid-19th century, although there is no evidence that he actually said it.”

here is a good article for you:

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/03/nyregion/debunking-the-myth-of-pt-barnum.html

Debunking the myth. Ouch.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

AJ is a gatekeeper, his job is to make "conspiracy theorists" look silly.

Is that something known? of course this would not be just some supposed conspiracy without proof, right?

We've provided lots of evidence (including peer-reviewed papers) showing that the "safe and effective" narrative is not valid; same with the zoonotic origin of Covid and the ineffectiveness or repurposed drugs.

That is false, you have provided references to retracted, debunked or heavily criticized reports where the authors have proven unethical manipulations in order to force a conclusion that is contradicted with proper scientific methods, references where those problems have been clearly explained have been given against neither you nor the authors of the discredited reports have mounted any defense.

Linking to discarded evidence is worse than not giving any reference, because it proves that there is no actual valid evidence that has not been declared invalid by the scientific community using objective parameters of what constitutes a valid conclusion.

The fact that the official narrative regarding Covid has been so wrong and yet so aggressively pushed and promoted in a highly coordinated manner, while equally aggressively silencing and attacking opposite views strongly suggests that a conspiracy was behind it.

No, that is not a fact, that is only the terribly forced explanation you give against the very clear consensus of medicine and science that says something you don't want to accept, when something you bring has been proved wrong you have been unable to defend it, when people that you agree with are found guilty of scientific malpractice (or even unethical human experimentation) you have not successfully argued how the accusations can be proved wrong. This means you are implicitly accepting their disqualification are correct and their conclusions discardable.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

A circus competitor to Barnum, Adam Forepaugh, attributed the quote to Barnum in a newspaper interview in an attempt to discredit him.

I mean look at that. Telling things that you know arent true to try to discredit someone. Wow, where have we seen that?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

You're aware of how compromised the peer-review system is, right? 

Still much better than imaginary things not reviewed by anybody, specially the explicitly mentioned "post-publication" version of peer review, that is simply having all experts interested in a paper see it and express their opinions about it openly.

 You're also aware of the successful lawsuit that forced Pfizer, backed by their friends at the FDA, to release the trial data promptly instead of the 75 years Pfizer and the FDA wanted. 

See, this is very clear misrepresentation of what actually happened, the FDA could not be happier with the veredict, because the only reason it would take so much time to release the documents is because it had only a few people paid to do this job (prepare documents to be releases to the public) while literally thousands of other documents were still waiting to be prepared, the veredict gave the FDA grounds to demand funds to make possible this release, and gained a very positive capacity thanks to it.

Clearly, they were conspiring to keep the data from public view. That's another theory that was revealed as fact.

Not only this is not true, it is not even necessary, the data available from literally billions of people vaccinated is enough to prove vaccines are safe and effective, nothing found on just a few tens of thousands of people could ever contradict the hugely bigger and better data available to health professionals all over the world, the supposed conspiracy is meaningless, except for antivaxxers that tried very hard to represent the problem as if it had any importance at all.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

That is false, you have provided references to retracted, debunked or heavily criticized reports

Why do I feel this same method was used by your ancestors to “disprove” Copernicus and Galileo when they were right?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

“There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid-19th century, although there is no evidence that he actually said it.”

Yea, associated with PT Barnum....I guess you think Rudy Giuliani said it? LOL...

Debunking the myth. Ouch.

Debunk Hugo Chavez stole votes in 2020 - ouch...

ROFL...

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Can watch the progression in real time as these get proven.

no one. Never. Well, a few. Some. Less than half. No enough to affect anything!

Who really cares anyway? It doesn’t matter! No one ever said it wasn’t true in the first place!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Why do I feel this same method was used by your ancestors to “disprove” Copernicus and Galileo when they were right?

What objective and verifiable scientific arguments were used to "disprove" Copernicus and Galileo? because that is the current standard of science.

Once again their situation is the opposite of what you want to use them, they had the scientific method on their side, and the people that disqualified them are using the same arguments the conspiracy fans are using right now, mainly "you must be wrong no matter your arguments and evidence because I want to believe in something different, even if I can't prove it in any way"

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Conspiracy theorists are desperate to appear more intelligent than they actually are.

Functional, useful people grow out of this.

Going to a good university and working with clever people can help.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The people here defending whack-job crazy conspiracy theories bring to mind Freddo from GFII "I'm not like these other Bozos. I'm SMART!"

Um, no...... No they are not.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yea, associated with PT Barnum

Except you didn’t say “associated with”

you said this:

PT Barnum's word's are more relevant today than when he uttered them 100 years ago; "There's a sucker born every minute"....

you even put quotations around words he never “uttered”. Classic disinformation.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What objective and verifiable scientific arguments were used to "disprove" Copernicus and Galileo? 

None. I think people like you of their day just went in their equivalent of this message board and said “no it’s not” for 100 years while playing word games like people still do.

and for 100 years people were convinced and tricked I o belie in something as true that was NEVER true, ever.

i put quotation marks but that doesn’t mean I was saying someone said that. And such type of people.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yea, associated with PT Barnum

Except you didn’t say “associated with”

you said this:

PT Barnum's word's are more relevant today than when he uttered them 100 years ago; "There's a sucker born every minute"....

What is it about "associated with" you fail to understand?

The words are associated with PT Barnum...it's not like I said Lindsey Graham wasn't mentioned in an article when he was directly quoted in it....ROFL....

Classic disinformation.

Refreshing self-reflection on your posts...

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So you basically misinformed us that someone said something.

but it’s ok cause you just repeating debunked conspiracy from other people that he said it when he didn’t.

what a sad response in an article about proving things that supposedly aren’t true.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

People believing the 2010 election was stolen bringing up Galileo.

This is as bad as I’ve read on JT.

Beyond parody.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So you basically misinformed us that someone said something.

Misinformed? That's your specialty...I assume your next post will reference Hunter?

but it’s ok cause you just repeating debunked conspiracy from other people that he said it when he didn’t.

?????????

what a sad response in an article about proving things that supposedly aren’t true.

Are these true?

Horse dewormer cures COVID...

Windmills cause cancer...

JFK Jr is alive and helping rid the country of pedophiles stealing the blood of children in the back of pizza parlors...

Hugo Chavez, dead nine years, stole the 2020 election...

Today you posted Lindsey Graham wasn't mentioned in an article when he clearly was...

True or conspiracy theories?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Not the wacky 5G nonsense

Reminds me of the old joke:

“I once saw a man smoking in church. Smoking! I was so disgusted that I nearly dropped my beer”

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Are these true?

Not to my knowledge.

What is also not true is that PT Barnum uttered the words you falsely quoted him saying.

when confronted your only excuse is that other people also falsely associate him with those words. When you didn’t say “associated with” but rather direct quoted him falsely.

thats why no one (except liberals) believe liberal fact checks.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

So you're denying the lawsuit ever took place? 

What part of your quote even say that? is misrepresenting what other people write the only resource you can use? clear example of a strawman, you have nothing that refutes the actual arguments so you have to pull out of thin air something nobody ever said to refute, leaving the actual real argument completely untouched.

What part of what was actually written you can disprove, nothing? well that is exactly the point.

 It's difficult to put an accurate number to them because they are woefully underreported in VAERS, Yellow Card and the like due to the complexity and active discouragement of doing so. 

Completely disproved argument, if someone can easily report becoming hulk as a side effect it is clear that anybody can report anything they want without problem, if that is not enough to raise the incidence above what unvaccinated people present that only helps disproving the false relationship antivaxxers want to force into vaccines, as if the vaccines magically caused side effects in the same rates in unvaccinated people.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

None. I think people like you of their day just went in their equivalent of this message board and said “no it’s not” for 100 years while playing word games like people still do.

If no scientific arguments were used against him that means he is in the opposite side from conspiracy believers, that use the same kind of unscientific arguments to try and force what they think on the people that actually use science to guide their actions. It is fortunate the world is now full of Copernicus and Galileos and the antiscientific people are reduced to push baseless conspiracies.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

In the peer-reviewed paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/) that I mentioned a few times over the past two weeks, they clearly showed that for each covid hospitalization prevented

That is the same paper that has been completely disqualified with a dozen counterarguments that prove the authors methods do not allow for the conclusions they made, your source do not demonstrate what you (or the authors) wanted to prove, and this has been demonstrated with objective and valid scientific arguments you have not refuted.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/

You have never refuted any of the arguments listed in this source, but you keep posting the same reference as if it was not already demonstrated as false? what does that indicate? using something that have been already demonstrated to you as false so clearly that you could not refute the arguments evidence a desire to do something very different from informing people, because that would require to use only things you know to be true, not the opposite.

Considering the FDA awarded an EUA to the mRNA products based on this same clinical trial data, which they tried very hard (but failed) to keep secret for 75 years, how can anyone think there wasn't a conspiracy.

The data still proves the vaccines as safe and effective according to the consensus of science (as in every institution in the world related to the topic) and the results are congruent with what has been observed with the literally billions of people vaccinated in the world, are ALL the countries in the world, ALL institutions of science and medicine in this supposed conspiracy?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Are these true?

Not to my knowledge.

Good. Trump believes all of them - glad you disagree with him. Got one wrong though - the last one is obviously true....

What is also not true is that PT Barnum uttered the words you falsely quoted him saying.

They were associated with him - I never said "quoted" - stop with the misinformation...

when confronted your only excuse is that other people also falsely associate him with those words. When you didn’t say “associated with” but rather direct quoted him falsely.

Wrong.

thats why no one (except liberals) believe liberal fact checks.

Off-topic - "liberal" isn't mentioned in the article anywhere...unlike Lindsey Graham in the other article....ROFL...

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

never said "quoted" - stop with the misinformation...

What do quotation marks around words preceded by the words that someone “uttered” something mean then?

they are called quotation marks got a reason and have a very specific purpose. Hint: to quote someone, indicating exactly what they said.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

never said "quoted" - stop with the misinformation...

What do quotation marks around words preceded by the words that someone “uttered” something mean then?

It means they were said or directly associated with that person - again, I never said "quoted" - those were your words and they were wrong....

they are called quotation marks got a reason and have a very specific purpose. Hint: to quote someone, indicating exactly what they said.

Or were said to have said....

Open a grammar book - and get educated...

So, you don't believe in QAnon? Trump played their music and gave their one finger hand sign at his last rally...glad to see you believe he's spreading goofy conspiracy theories...

Disgusting, isn't it?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Are these true?

Horse dewormer cures COVID...

Depends. The drug, which was administered billions of times to humans and resulted in a Nobel prize, was later shown to be as effective against Covid as any of the new drugs approved by the FDA.

Yes, it is also used as a horse dewormer, but why was there a sudden switch to referring to IVM as a horse dewormer by the provaxxers, including the MSM, despite billions of doses having been given to humans over several decades? Was there a conspiracy? It appears so, y'all...

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I love the part where the observations of Galileo and Copernicus are equated (perhaps conflated?) with lunatic ideas for which there is no evidence, much less mathematical backing.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites