Next time a clever dick on a forum or a clever journalist argues that there is no evidence for x or y answer as follows: There is no Class I evidence from randomized controlled studies that using a parachute saves lives, nevertheless most people accept that and use them anyway.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
And to shut them up permanently quote the following from a highly respected medical journal...
Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Why did they need evidence as journalists? Surely the onus was on them investigating and then refuting your claims. Because as journalists their duty was to the story.
It is these mediums connecting me to bugaboo. Bugaboo. Where the local tribes of mindless savages from the lost tribes of robots need proof. Proof they can't investigate for themselves. Bugaboo. I mean social media has been programmed full of these natives. I meant robots. They have no idea how to investigate the story. Instead they blindly refute your claims with they cannot find it in their programming.
The shills tried the 'no evidence' here. Didn't fly.
They are shills. They aren't journalists. They are bugaboo savages, agents of the narrative. As dumb as apes. Robots who search and destroy opposing narratives because it is their only function. CNN and MSM programs them. If ain't on MSM and CNN it needs bugaboo putting you into the stew and eating your brains. Because you cannot think for yourself without the voodoo.
Ban them. They are monkeys.
Sadly you can turn this around and use it for masks :(
No think about it. They claim there is evidence that masks work. Your claim is that they don't (or that goes for anything else you may claim that has a medical /scientific context). They counter saying there is no evidence for your argument. You KO with said argument and reference linked below.
Cot DAMN you're right !!
It's mental gymnastics of the highest sort. Learn the reference by heart if argument is done IRL