Thus, the data is worthless for use making any statistical inferences now, or in addition with further data.
2 Likes
Canāt we all just agree to, at the very least, pretend to have a room temperature IQ and obey this sign?
No!
And you canāt make me either!
1 Like
As to science is real: From the 1979 Physicians Desk Reference concerning Dianabol made by CIBA
Read under āWarningsā
2 Likes
Angry Homer Simpson: āin this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!!ā
Even if the data is noisy, it is important to glean what one can. Covid cost the global economy something like fifteen trillion US dollars. It would be foolish not to invest some money to reduce the chance or severity of relapse.
It is pretty hard to govern during a pandemic where everyone is running scared and good information is not yet known. I can think of a hundred things Canada did wrong. Overall, though, we did pretty well. I understand making good decisions in a crisis is hard to do.
There are different approaches one can take when people are trying hard but their policies turn out to be imperfect. The most important thing is to try and understand what policies are good so they can be used in the future. The next important thing is to be adequately prepared for the next time, since appropriate monitoring and equipment caches more than pay for themselves given the enormous costs of shutdown.
There may be a place for kicking ass and taking names, but it is not always the fairest or most productive approach. Certainly it should be considered for profiteers and serious lawbreakers. But not always for doing stupid stuff like closing gyms when people thought it would help. Experts make mistakes, but people who profess to know much but actually know little make bigger mistakes and make people use fancy words like Dunning-Kruger.
1 Like
To be fair, it seems about half of steroid users claim to agree.
Edit: The validity of āThe Science is realā claim seems to depend upon one noticing that thereās a difference between āThe Scienceā and āscience.ā āThe Scienceā is not subject to the scientific method, or questions of any sort.
Hmmā¦ maybe weāve learned something in the last forty-five years.
Thatās always been a fairly sh*tty reference book in my opinion. Canāt say Iām too surprised.
Like what? You canāt make blatant lies to people. Anabolic steroids were made to build muscle tissue.
Or maybe they learned that increasing muscular strength can actually enhance athletic ability.
Nobody that I knew that used AAS believed any of that nonsense in the warning. I cannot speak for why anyone would allow that warning to make it past a final edit, other than science of the drug was not the objective
Is this also what is written in the more recent editions?
The PDR was the sole piece of āscientificā information concerning anabolic steroids in the 1970ās and ā80ās. Everything else was word of mouth.
Specifically, Dianabol has been dropped many years ago. So, there is no warning concerning Dianabol.
Where do you get AAS information if you are interested? I have no interest in the information at this stage of my life. I spent 3 decades in competitive bodybuilding, but those decades are decades behind me.
Indulge my curiosity. Given your listed credentials, why did you lead with an opinion article from the BBC?
@JackMorris I have zero talent when it comes to science. But my BS radar is up there, in the at least 2 STD range, if I do say so myself. I linked an article from a relatively reputable site, whereās your supportive whatever? -you just gave me a random opinion from a random dude.
1 Like
I actually know very little about these. The little I know I have read on T-Nation, and I do not have any comparative experience to judge this. It is a sort of deliberate ignorance. I donāt judge it, but I donāt want to know more about it either for a number of reasons.
I guess I could have looked for a journal article instead. But that article was the first one to come up in search, and journo articles are often more to the point and easier to understand than journals. I understand how people feel about media, but I often quote The Economist, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail or similar sources. None are perfect, but they are better than most. Feel free to disagree.
You tried to validate your theory(ies) about 'da Covid with BBC -a source I consider biased MSM. That was the reason for my response; and all I did was a quick google, looking for anything that sounded āscientificā.
For the record, my only opinion is that the only thing anyone knows for sure about Covid is that Big Pharma made a shit ton of money, and governments over-reacted because they salivated at the thought of more power, more control.
In my humble opinion, most of the sources you like to quote are biased. Personally, I would laugh my ass off at WaPo and NYT as a āsourceā. Come on, man, you have a stem backgroundā¦?
Actually, on topic, read the NYT trying to disprove RFKās take on Froot Loops being much unhealthier as a US product than anywhere else.
I disagree, but I understand how and why some people feel that way. All media has some bias, intentional or not. I find the sources I mentioned more balanced and informed than many. But not all the time. I quoted a WaPo article yesterday, but still disagreed with about 25% of it though it made some solid points.
I definitely agree about Big Pharma. There was a lot of government intervention over a long period at many levels, and some of it was without doubt an overreaction or simply stupid policy. We probably disagree on which parts were though, which is okay. I am a libertarian, and generally prefer smaller government. But I think good health policy is important too.
Claims one makes before demanding tyranny, for $1,000, Alex.
Many posts in this thread do not pass the scientific method.
1 Like
True enough, NickVlar. Maybe I am more sympathetic to traditional libertarianism than what it currently seems to mean in practice in the US. FWIW, I am Canadian. The size of our federal government has increased by 40% since 2016.
Totally unrelated, but whatās your take on Trudeau?
Is he Castroās bastard?
An awful lot of coincidences line up to point in that direction. Especially the looks!
Iām not seeing much resemblance to old Pierre.
Pierre looks like a lizard with high blood pressure and anger management issues.
But that Castro boy looks just like his dad.