In all fairness, I can agree with this depending on where you live(d). I’ve met idiots whom I wouldn’t hire to be waitresses too lol. But in countries where doctors are highly paid and/or admission into medical faculties is extremely competitive, they aren’t like this. I’ve lived in 2 different countries and spent lots of time in another one and the standards of medicine are pretty different in each of them.
However, if there is almost universal scientific/medical consensus on a certain topic, I’d go with that. I’m not going to go with the opinions of outliers although I do think they are useful to question the current consensus if only to invoke discussion and maybe point out flaws in some aspects of such a consensus that may need more research.
Science is always evolving. The outliers may also be the same idiots I wouldn’t hire to be waitresses.
I was going to suggest this too lol. I’ve also worked with pharma companies. Only with their marketing departments. They don’t know balls but have lots of wild theories which they love to share with you as some kind of “inside” knowledge when you get to know them better.
Fucking hell. I was engaged by one fucktard that didn’t even know balls about marketing. I was so tempted to just go to her higher ups and try to persuade them to drop their inhouse staff and hire us on retainer as their main advertising/marketing firm but that would have been really bad behavior in this industry and I couldn’t afford to get a bad rep lol. A large firm probably did it several years later, though, if what my sources told me are accurate.
Dad Hs head of marketing for his medical devices company. He and his staff have very little idea what the engineers are doing, but they’re damn good at promoting it
There’s a reason for that… my dads co- founder (head of engineering) is absolutely brilliant. Worst speaker I’ve ever seen
It’s so great that you can corroborate what I wrote and the second part is exactly what I’ve experienced too lol.
EDITED:
Sorry I misread your post. I thought your dad had an engineering background. The following would be related to his co-founder:
With regards to public speaking, it’s not the worst thing. I’d be given drafts of speeches and told to edit them to make them more presentable to their audience. The worst is some of them are even camera shy when there’s no audience and they bloody freeze or fuck up half their lines even though they wrote them themselves.
You know how many takes I had to do when I encountered someone like that who wanted to step in front of the camera and talk? You know what I do with these guys now? I leave the camera rolling and tell them to just repeat what they said whenever they botch a sentence or term and then finish the entire script without stopping and I’ll put it together during editing. A 30sec segment which included short inserts of other kinds of related footage so the edits and cuts flowed seamlessly for one guy ended up with the camera running for 30mins.
Then the part of my post I edited out still stands. He’s probably pretty badass if he chose to head the marketing department. I can’t imagine the headaches he gets everyday lol. I never studied marketing myself and sometimes I almost go nuts dealing with some people.
ohh yeah, he’s made for sales and public relations. (my little bro is too)
He managed to charm his way into a director level job after a year in the company despite sub par English
This is true for some companies, but not for all. A lot of you seem to have Hollywood perspective of how things are in pharma and research. I have talked to a scientist and CEO who was driving a tractor to pick crops and cursing someone from his staff while on the phone. So there is that as well as an example for another extreme. Some people like to have hands on approach. As I said these are people making their living.
Since most of us are in sports. I can speak about soccer best as example. What is the difference between a top athlete and an amateur or a hobist. It starts with mostly genes and luck when you are born. Most boys are born before June on the top. Because even at the age of 16 a boy born in January is better developed than a boy born in December. Most coaches pick the boys based on their physical traits such as height, weight, speed. You can teach technique and tactics. Then it is bad lifestyle decisions and giving up on the sport. Some of the boys have families that support them and discipline them. Others start even smoking. There is also a huge corruption problem with parents donating money and their kids are given more chances. Then there is talent and hard work. Then there are good academies and bad academies. Then there is some luck and career decisions for which club you chose to play and teams and coaches you meet.
Anyway the top is made by consistent, physically gifted boys, who are born before June. But even as professionals are they the experts in soccer? Nope. Most coaches in contrast are players that did not make it to the top, were injured or played in poor teams. Most players are not even interested in coaching or being experts.
Top coaches make mistakes although being the experts on the field. Journalists price them or question their decisions, tactics or training method after every game. Nobody is saying in this world, oh shut up he is the expert, you are just a dumb journalist. There are a lot of briliant soccer journalists. Some are even hired as analists by coaches for their briliant work.
Oh come on. I’ve taken such CEOs to places to entertain them where if I were to describe the acts of debauchery that went down, this thread would be rated X.
I think you’re the one who’s picked up on the “cowboy” vibes from Hollywood movies that your YouTube “experts” are probably unknowingly displaying.
Ivermectin was already being researched in my region by a government in MAY 2020. They found a similar efficacy to supplementation with zinc and vitamin C. Your doctor was probably right.
My main problem with the study conducted was the dosing of ivermectin, which is why I’m still keeping an open mind.
So you find that there might be a problem in any research and you keep on open mind. We are getting some consensus at least. Same for me when it comes to climate change.
Lets keep the topic on climate change. I gave COVID as an example of how experts, were no really acting like experts during this crisis and they were regular human beings making mistakes and then updating their information and research. That was brought as an argument that there is no point to be anxious or alarmed about climate change.
The difference here is that climate change is too complex of a science encompassing such a wide range of stuff I do not have the required knowledge to make a call when reading studies, nor can I read one study on one thing and judge how it applies to everything else as a whole.
Regardless, if there’s a 97% consensus within the scientific community about ivermectin being effective for prevention of infection, I’d go with them. I’m not going to follow the 3%.
I think this is one reason for the sensationalizing by activists. Intuitively they know that you far off, distant villain is no particular motivating threat. The problem is that the more you sensationalize the more skeptical a certain amount of the population becomes, which then creates more division. It’s the same thing as feeding your base red meat instead of working across the aisle. You motivate a chunk of people, but you also push a large portion people away.
For the record I think that news media just doesn’t know balls about balls. They like clicks so everything they do is sensationalized. I actually saw a headline from a major newspaper (maybe a month ago?) that read “human mind can travel through time, study finds”.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that’s obvious bullshit.
You brought up actions by governments and politicians. The scientists were generally in consensus as more information became available. Things like lockdowns would have worked IF they were applied immediately when governments were advised to do so.
While I’m not in agreement from a social and ideological perspective, I don’t deny they would have been effective if they were done in time AND enforced accordingly. And they happened anyway in my region AFTER the governments stalled for too long. The hard lockdowns, not the pussy ones. It was almost like locking the barn after the horse has been stolen. (Finally managed to quote something from The Stand wrt to covid without being insensitive lol).
I don’t care what the mainstream media says either. Yesterday I watched a video from vox about how poor countries couldn’t get the vaccines because the rich ones funded and got in line first and they brought up INDIA as an example. FUCK. Don’t click on everything YouTube recommends you lol.
India has the BIGGEST manufacturer of vaccines in the FUCKING WORLD for the love of all things holy. OMFG LMAO!!! They were the FIRST to obtain the manufacturing and distribution license for the AstraZeneca one IIRC. The government even owns the patent for one vaccine which they’re distributing overseas and just lost a contract with Brazil because of bribery. It’s their own internal politics that are screwing them. Go look up the lawsuits being filed against the government for not allowing other local manufacturers to produce the vaccines although they hold the patent.
With regard to climate change, I can’t go any further since I have a severe lack of education when it comes to the actual science. If you want to discuss stupid acts of governments, then we can have a conversation.
Scientists want funding and, prob just as importantly, an overall environment that is receptive/supportive of their efforts
Politicians want votes because of the MONEY that showers their position of influence, power
And, since human nature (ie. greed) remains as predictable as ever, here’s what often ensues:
Ah yes, good ole ‘small government’ and the “fruits” of deregulation in action; and while many (most?) agree that these are worthwhile goals in theory, here’s a reminder of what it’s really about in praxis: unabashed cronyism
DD, where are you going with this? The established consensus on this relies on NASA and the DOD’s two bits, not just those pesky LibTard universities.
(I do agree with you – that we’re likely overestimating our ability to effectively influence outcomes here – but the stakes are too high to allow human nature/greed to (continue to) wield outsized influence)
So, what might this “adapting” look like? Might it entail a (growing) transition from traditional energy sources to, gasp, more sustainable ones?
Or is this maybe similar to the ACA, and we’ll hear about all these new, original ideas in “two weeks” from now? (ok, that last bit was unnecessary but my question remains)
No chance these two belong in the same sentence (as a reasonable comparison), even though your overall point re: scepticism is as vital as ever
On the one hand, we’ve got centuries-old industries that dominate the global economy (and whose ‘self-preservation’ agenda is both completely rational and straightfwd) versus nascent technologies that generate a relative pittance in money AND influence. Forgive some of us for being FAR more sceptical of the former
IMO they really do. Big Oil is Big Oil because oil is an unbelievably useful resource. The industry has well over a century of focused development behind it. That doesn’t mean the oil industry is above reproach. It goes without saying that oil money has likely influenced government policy.
You can hold this idea while also recognizing that Big Green is another union of politicians and private companies driving policy with little regard to achieving good overall outcomes.
The big difference is that people aren’t always choosing big green voluntarily, like we do with big oil.
I can see your point regarding cronyism here. The thing that gives me trouble though is that big green is simply not as big as big oil. From a choice perspective they’re dwarfed in size, even though big oil has been shrinking pretty regularly in the last few years.
I know you are opposed to most subsidies in most forms, but my personal opinion is that this has a lot more in common with subsidies than pure cronyism. It’s entirely possible we would not have the current technology we do without the government incentive through subsidy.
Are we not presently in the process of directing billions upon billions of rax dollars toward varying Big Green companies?
Im not saying that’s better or worse than the Oil Industry across all of history. I’m just saying it is a union of government and private sector that’s presently exerting a great deal of influence.
I’m mostly getting at subsidies for green energy that can’t compete on its own. My electric bill is higher than it needs to be to pay for windmills that electric customers didn’t ask for.
Cue the Ralph Wiggum “I’m helping” meme.
Even with gasoline taxed astronomically and electric car tax credits, people still overwhelmingly choose combustion to propel them over other means.
The Tesla truck concept might make me a big green consumer in a decade or so.
my dads co- founder (head of engineering) is absolutely brilliant. Worst speaker I’ve ever seen