• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Coronavirus Resources - and other things to not worry about

I wonder if we can stop writing people off because we disagree with them on a particular point? Every single person who disagrees with you is deemed "an idiot" or "a grifter" and put on the ignore list. It's embarrassing at this point.

Peter Attia is legit. He can be quite wordy, but read the article. It's not like we don't do anything to prevent deaths from automobile accidents or drowning (eg. lifeguards), we do what we can for every cause of death obviously including A LOT for covid (vaccines, masks, etc.)

This is a guy who, when asked about the math used to determine a statistic he discussed and its implications, reached out "to 5 epidemiologists, 2 virologists, and 3 biostatisticians" and ended up modifying his opinion.
 
I listened to a whole podcast with Attia after you recommended him! He's fine if you accept that he's a pseudoscientist and take his opinions with a grain of salt. He is just not respected in the medical field as much as you really want him to be. He's a grifter that has had a lot of success gaining an audience so I give him full credit for that, but there are literally thousands of more qualified people than him in virology. He's a critical thinker type that does his own research and at times goes aggressively against the consensus medical opinion and teeters on antivaxxer territory. There's a big audience for that so credit to him!
 
axlsalinger said:
I wonder if we can stop writing people off because we disagree with them on a particular point? Every single person who disagrees with you is deemed "an idiot" or "a grifter" and put on the ignore list. It's embarrassing at this point.

Peter Attia is legit. He can be quite wordy, but read the article. It's not like we don't do anything to prevent deaths from automobile accidents or drowning (eg. lifeguards), we do what we can for every cause of death obviously including A LOT for covid (vaccines, masks, etc.)

This is a guy who, when asked about the math used to determine a statistic he discussed and its implications, reached out "to 5 epidemiologists, 2 virologists, and 3 biostatisticians" and ended up modifying his opinion.
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: when you see an obvious grifter leading idiots about by the nose, call it what it is.
 
No one said to cancel him. He's done a great job gaining an audience with zero qualifications. Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz have done similar and there's something to be said for that. Charisma is an important life skill and he has it.

But he's not an expert so let's not act like he is.
 
I'm not saying he's an expert on viruses, absolutely take his arguments with a grain of salt. But to group him in with those charlatans suggests that you are either an idiot yourself (which I don't believe), or your bias has affected your ability to listen to counter-arguments, and to write off anyone who disagrees with you which is (imo) a very dangerous game to play in the long run.
 
axlsalinger said:
I'm not saying he's an expert on viruses, absolutely take his arguments with a grain of salt. But to group him in with those charlatans suggests that you are either an idiot yourself (which I don't believe), or your bias has affected your ability to listen to counter-arguments, and to write off anyone who disagrees with you which is (imo) a very dangerous game to play in the long run.
Click to expand...
He's a grifter because he's a wellness guru with an MD. He's not a real doctor but he plays one for his audience. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not. I don't have opinions because I'm not qualified to have them. I simply get information from people who know better than him. That's it.
 
Preston said:
I mean that tweet was hilarious and really shows a lack of understanding about the magnitude of the situation for the reasons already discussed. And then there's this:

Click to expand...

The tweet was specifically posted to discuss, if I may quote from the first sentence, "people <35". Who is being deceitful again?
 
axlsalinger said:
The tweet was specifically posted to discuss, if I may quote from the first sentence, "people <35". Who is being deceitful again?
Click to expand...
The guy who is being intentionally misleading to minimize a virus killing hundreds of thousands of people per year. And guess what? One day those under 35 year olds will get older and be more succeptable to death.. well after the neurological, lung and immune system issues that they may accrue through frequent infection of course.
 
I call dingaling a grifter too! He's a nutritionist who gets off on scaring people. The minimizers and the fear mongers are equally grifty! They're not serious doctors though.
 
Last edited:
Preston said:
He's a grifter because he's a wellness guru with an MD. He's not a real doctor but he plays one for his audience. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not. I don't have opinions because I'm not qualified to have them. I simply get information from people who know better than him. That's it.
Click to expand...
Solid argument, if you just ignore the fact that he is currently a doctor with patients, and also worked as a doctor at some shitty hospital called Johns Hopkins for 5 years, followed by 2 years at the highly-questionable National Cancer Institute at the NIH.
 
1. No completed residency.
2. Not board certified
3. Doesn't practice in an actual existing field of medicine with actual translational research


Grifter. Sorry. I know it's tough to hear but you got duped.
 
Whatever man, I almost didn't post the article because I don't feel like getting into circular arguments like this one.

Eric Topol isn't a virologist either; he's still a top source on covid because he provides great information. There are also lots of doctors (all the way up to Scott Atlas) providing shit information out there. I'm just saying that you don't get to work at Johns Hopkins and the NIH if you're not competent and qualified.

And I'm telling you again that even if he turns out to be wrong on covid (although I'm sure virtually everyone has been wrong on a covid argument at one point or another) he's still a legit source of information and you're wrong on this one. But if it makes you happier to go through the life history of anybody you disagree with to find one piece of incorrect info that allows you to cancel them out of the discussion, feel free I guess?
 
Preston said:
The guy who is being intentionally misleading to minimize a virus killing hundreds of thousands of people per year. And guess what? One day those under 35 year olds will get older and be more succeptable to death.. well after the neurological, lung and immune system issues that they may accrue through frequent infection of course.
Click to expand...
Yeah leaving out ~55% of the population to minimize the effects of Covid to the least vulnerable population seems slimy to me.
 
axlsalinger said:
Whatever man, I almost didn't post the article because I don't feel like getting into circular arguments like this one.

Eric Topol isn't a virologist either; he's still a top source on covid because he provides great information. There are also lots of doctors (all the way up to Scott Atlas) providing shit information out there. I'm just saying that you don't get to work at Johns Hopkins and the NIH if you're not competent and qualified.

And I'm telling you again that even if he turns out to be wrong on covid (although I'm sure virtually everyone has been wrong on a covid argument at one point or another) he's still a legit source of information and you're wrong on this one. But if it makes you happier to go through the life history of anybody you disagree with to find one piece of incorrect info that allows you to cancel them out of the discussion, feel free I guess?
Click to expand...
I haven't disagreed with anything other than the people calling him a real doctor. He just posted a dumb, intentionally misleading tweet. And he's a grifter because he's a fake doctor who is playing doctor for millions of listeners/readers. This is not unlike Ding, who is at the other end of the spectrum.

They're all allowed to comment and say whatever they want. I'm allowed to call them what they are though. Stop trying to censor me, geez.
 
Deckie007 said:
Yeah leaving out ~55% of the population to minimize the effects of Covid to the least vulnerable population seems slimy to me.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of vaccines and mandates on young people, which is what he's responding to with that graph. If you are going to talk about a group of young people, you determine the cutoff age (in this case 35) and proceed. Why would you include numbers of old people in a graph about young people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top