On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 3:41:11 AM UTC+10, Brent Locher wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 12:31:23 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 30-Jul-21 3:55 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> As a man of science myself, I look at things that people tell me with a great deal of skepticism.

If you are a "man of science" you've published something in a peer-reviewed journal, and somebody has cited it.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/7/11/015/meta

represents my best effort so far - it has been cited by 22 other people, so it was probably worth publishing.
There are others, but they've been cited less often. If you wan to claim the status, show us the evidence.

> So when I read about how the vaccine has directly killed 15,000 people

Where? On some anti-vaccination propaganda site with zero credibility?

>and blown out the hearts in 500 children under the age of 18

Where? On some anti-vaccination propaganda site with zero credibility?

.....yes I am a bit skeptical.

But not skeptical enough to bother citing your evidence.

> But my science is not your science

Your "science" looks remarkably concocted nonsense - it's not as if you cite your sources,

> so keep bowing down those scientists who concocted the vacccine and take them all at their word.

They didn't run the clinical trials that demonstrated that the vaccines were safe enough to use, and you don't seem to realise that every last one of the vaccines in use (at least those used in the west) has been through that process, which would have shown up the dangers you seem to imagine exist.

>They are the "True" scientists and you are a true man of science.

They probably are. You don't seem to have clue what the phrase actually means, and seem to imagine that you can claim to be man of science without any reference to the peer-reviewed literature. This looks rather like a Larkinesque ego trip.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney