I wasn't sure if this came under "Political" or "General", but since it involves debate and multiple theories thought this would be a better fit. I work in the Astro-Engineering field, and I already know the answer to this. Planets are not flat. Only time they were even remotley in that stage was the Big Bang where they were forming, and even then, it would of been thousands and millions of tiny flat peices of molten rock cooled, some of them probably were flat. That is it, the extent of it. Reason I bring this topic up is I live a few doors down from a so-called "flat earther". He is a bit Professor Frink about it all and he knows what I do and how I feel about the topic. He flat out (pun intented) refuses to acknowledge the facts that are staring him in the face. I do not for one second entertain his and other flat earther's theories but I do respect them, and each to their own. It amazes me how long this debate has gone on within this group of people. I even explained, Earth and other planets are "round" because of something tiny known as "GRAVITY". When the planets formed, the gravitational (sp?) force of each central core pulled the rock towards it. This happened from all directions, and over thousands or millions of years, the rock formed a sphere shape around the core. As more and more space rock was added to the layer depth the gravity force on the outer rocks weakened to an extent no more rock could be added. Gas giants like Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus and Saturn obviously formed in a different but way, but still used the basis of gravity to achieve their sphere shape. As a further counter argument, if earth really was flat how could it possibly sustain life? Would there be a cut-off point where people can see space and a white line you should never cross? I say this is jest but it's pretty funny the theories and steadfast belief this bloke and other flat earthers have to defend there stance on it. Like I said, everyone is allowed a view on something and I respect their views. Has anyone else encountered such a person/group? Does the subject fasinate you as much as it does myself?
There is no point trying to rationalise or respect something which is truly irrational. Today’s world wouldn't be able to function if the world was secretly flat, unless huge swathes of scientists and engineers knew about it, as all of our satellite tech wouldn’t work. Aristotle worked out the Earth needed to be spherical due to the movement of the stars, nearly 2.5k years ago. It’s not even difficult to work out logically (one the solution has been given to you. You can see the curvature of the earth from planes. You can fly to America through Asia. The different phases of the moon are curved etc. It just illustrates the power we have as humans to ignore the most obvious and proven things when we want to believe something else is right. I don’t think anyone should be penalised for having such views, but they should probably receive some psychological support and further education so they can understand the importance of the quality of sources.
I know some flat earthers. It's not as uncommon in the US as you might hope. What you have to understand is they are fundamentally irrational. Throw as many facts at them as you like; it won't matter, because they're not using the rational parts of their brains.
If you think of ‘flat-earthing’ as a phenomena where people choose to join a club that rejects science and rationality, then there is every reason to believe that there are more of them now than ever before. Anti-vaxxers, stolen election believers, climate-change sceptics (not simply those disagreeing with measures needed, but who simply deny it’s happening) Qanon, fundamentalisms of all kinds etc. It’s become a default way of dealing with a complex World for certain groups. What are the benefits? For members, it means they can ignore whole swathes of uncomfortable facts and enjoy the membership and support of that group. For leaders, they can control and grift that group.
Somewhat bemused you have spelt 'gravitational' correctly,despite not being sure, whilst in most of your posts you struggle to distinguish between 'have' and 'of'. I think you are being very generous in the respect you are showing his views.
I think it boils down to the fact I know he's wrong and he must know I am right. As @miked2006 correctly stated, the curve of the earth is one of the most obvious reasons for such a theory being incorrect.
The Ancient Greeks knew this because they observed that if an approaching ship was sighted on the horizon, the tip of its mast would appear first. They also had tip top eyesight.
The whole thing is an exercise in testing credulity. I do not believe for a moment that any flat earthers (at least none of main protagonists) believes the earth is flat, and proving it is flat is not the point of what they are doing. The intention is to demonstrate people’s ability to be drawn into arguments when they know full well there is no genuine argument to address. It is simply an anarchistic exercise to draw people into futile argument on a subject that has no consequential value. If someone engages in a pro-flat Earth discussion with you, the thing to do is not engage with that element of their argument, but to simply say that you do not accept that they believe the earth is flat, and do so with good humour. That way you avoid being drawn into their desired objective, to engage you in a serious discussion about a subject that you (both) know is not serious. I have some respect for them in that it is an exercise that CAN get people to think about their own credulity. They know exactly what they are doing and, except for a few incredulous sheep, not one of them believes the world is flat. They just know that they can get people to argue that it is round, even though everyone knows it is round. As for anti-vaxxers, etc., the situation, in my opinion, is completely the opposite. The vaccine has some serious issues that full clinical trials would have identified. That is now undeniable. Those who proscribed vaccines and lockdowns were the flat earthers, because they are the ones who relied on people’s credulity to make an argument we all knew to be futile, and yet we all engaged in it. To claim there is no risk when the evidence of history has led to a universal understanding, even for posters on here, of the need for clinical trials, is to do exactly the same as the flat earthers do. That is why it is pointless to argue with anyone who says the vaccine is safe, and entirely efficacious. There is even research emerging, that needs to be seriously scrutinised (as it may be rubbish), indicating that the chance of catching COVID is, now, increased by having received multiple vaccines. No one can deny it is a not very effective vaccine, even if it is a relatively effective prophylactic treatment. But those who argued there must be risks, because we all know there MUST be risks, were demonised as granny killers and ant-vaxxers. At least the flat earthers don’t do that sort of thing.
I often wonder what would happen if a flat earther was taken up into space and shown the Earth from orbit.
Just another crazy conspiracy theory that has gone mainstream to muddy the waters of the real conspiracies which usuallly revolve around money.
During the pandemic I encountered what I believed to be hidden under the surface. That unfortunate as it is, that most people are dumb and also selfish. We have probably quantum computation in the mos complex thing ever found in the universe. Just a shame most do not use it. There's no point debating with these people. 99.9% will not change their minds even when offered all the evidence you can provide. It's pretty sad and a little bit depressing too. Rationality and logic are in short supply everywhere. And in the corridors of power. One only has to witness that clown Andrew Bridgen spouting his garbage and he is an MP. Is science moving too fast for the layman to comprehend ? Is it poor science education ? Is it people's perennial obsession with the banal, mediocre and trivial like this waste of space and paper Spare ? Is it the explosion of social media which allows the bizarre, unfounded nonsense a platform to millions to spout tripe unchallenged ? Whatever it is it's concerning. Idiocracy seems a step closer. And as for planet formation @SkylaRose it may occur even earlier in the known Universe than we expected despite the paucity of heavier elements then with a preponderance of gas planets v solid core types.
What ? Every medical professional will tell you any sort of medical procedure or intervention has a risk. All vaccines have a risk but after the clinical trialling process they only use those deemed safe for mass use. Of course some of those vaccinated will have a reaction or in a very small number of cases a fatality. An incredibly small percentage. But the benefits outweigh the risks. These anti-vaxxer loons are telling people especially parents that if their child is vaccinated it's a one way ticket to the morgue. These people are loons. Dangerous for those around them. The sort on the same level as religionists who refuse their children medical treatment because some sky fairy who'd never seen a scalpel told them so.
They'd either refuse to go or say you pretended to go into space and showed them a fake image. After all we still have millions of fools who believe the lunar landings were faked.
You are aware that full clinical trials on the vaccine were not carried out aren't you? Which would appear to immediately 'flatten' your argument before you even fully make it. The only thing that makes your argument, at the shallowest level of perusal, appear to be in any way compelling, is the fact that you describe the people you disagree with as 'anti-vaxxers' and 'loons', and assert something (about morgues) that no one, anywhere, is saying. You are literally having to make up BS to support your faith in vaccines. And worse, reflecting on your zealot claims, you demonise them despite the fact they are saying exactly the same thing you do in the opening three sentences of your post. They would agree with you, and you are clearly agreeing with exactly what I said in my posts, but you then, in light of the fact full clinical trials did not take place, attempt to dismiss the caution you recognise as being the accepted standard. If you simply described these people as 'concerned members of the scientific community and people in the street', then their beliefs and concerns would actually reflect the normal level of caution we apply to any new medication. This is a very interesting case of your faith based belief (pseudo religious) posing as the science, whilst accusing the more scientific approach, that cautions (clinical trials) and the removal of efficatious standards, should be fully considered with regard to incomplete testing of the COVID vaccine. It is your equivalent of the self exposing phrase quoted by Sydney above, "The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe." So I really ought to take my own advice here. I don't believe that you think the vaccine was risk free, because you say yourself that it isn't risk free. The fact you do not seem to be aware that full clinical trials, that you identify as being an important element of testing new drugs, were not carried out (but do not feel any caution should be applied because of that) is your business and you can let that reflect on your comments in whatver way you wish. Personally I would say that only a loon would dismiss such a well established convention when it comes to medical matters. N.B. The increased risk due to a lack of clinical trials was indicated most strongly by the fact that the CDC had not approved the original vaccine at the time it was orgianlly mandated, the pharma companies refused to produce if they could be held responsible for the side effects, and governments were made to contractually underwrite any compensation claims. If that wasn't at least an indicator that anyone taking the vaccine should exercise caution, I do not know what is. All of that information was freely being discussed at the time, and is not 'only now' coming to light. So people cannot claim ignorance on it, unless they simply wish to make themselves appear ill informed. But flat earthers know better.
The vaccines underwent all the clinical testing that any other vaccine would go through. Many had also already been tested/ developed against other coronaviruses. The main difference was that the stages overlapped, so the vaccines could be produced much more quickly, but the same number of people and subgroups were tested. Normally pharma companies demand seeing the results of phase 2 and or 3 trials before moving on to future trial stages/ producing vaccines, so they have proof the jabs work before investing more money. Jabs/ R&D are expensive and risky financially. Governments therefore underwrote the cost to ensure pharma companies could make the jabs earlier and were covered in case the jabs had low efficacy, but did not vaccinate the general public until all trials were completed as usual. Another key difference was the lack of long term data. However every other comparable jab had next to no side effects beyond a couple of days after injection. There was no indication whatsoever that there would be any long term impacts of the vaccines. So again, absolutely fine. The results of the jabs clearly indicate that the average person was significantly more likely to be seriously harmed by covid than the vaccine. I get the instinct for why people are worried. People are also more scared about being on the plane than in the car on the way to the airport. But they are absolutely and empirically wrong to be so, and jabs have and will continue to save/ better millions of lives.
This is what makes me laugh/roll my eyes whenever someone dies of a cardiac arrest now and everyone jumps to the vaccine having caused it. Yes we know that the vaccine can cause a weakening of the heart, but it was also proven very early on in the pandemic (pre vaccine) that catching covid itself significantly weakens the heart, many many more times than the vaccine.
You even clarify that long term data was not available on the jab. So not all the data, and some very big assumptions, but don't worry, its very similar to other vaccines? These MBNA vaccines were brand new drugs with no research on a wide spread population over a long time scale, so what data are you talking about? What you say above is simply not true. Have a look at this video containing a clip from the EU parliament... It is clipped at the start of an analysis of the what was said. A Pfizer official admits that no research had even been done into whether it would prevent viral infection (clearly, it does not, and no one would now claim that it ever did) and that they were doing 'everything at risk' moving at the speed of science (and not the speed of caution). Effectively, the vaccine did not prevent viral infection and never did, yet people expressing the need for a normal level of caution were, and still are, called 'anti-vaxxer loons, despite their concerns being 100% justified, and their beliefs being proved correct, with this regard. So, given this was discussed on here at the time, it is fair to say that what you say above is long known, to those who are concerned about such things, to be erroneous. A vaccine that doesn't do what a vaccine is understood to do, and was never tested to see if it did. Yet you will still post claims, that are reduced to pseudo religious dogma by Prizer's own admission, expressing complete faith in something not even the reasearchers and manufacturers consider to be true. That is showing zeal the early Christian Fundametalists would have struggled to muster. You may place your faith wherever you will, but I will take it from the horses mouth, and I will also trust the opinion of John Campbell, who was absolutely behind the virus because of early reported data and promises of government and big pharma, but has since become a little more concerned about things, having analysed many reports with much data that now contradicts, in significant parts, what was orginally said. The vaccine has some efficatious effects. It will have benefitted many. But it also has many negative effects (myocarditis, clotting), and NEVER did what it was originally promised to do, which proper clinical trials would have identified. Biden's not an expert, but he relies on people to tell him what is what. Here he is saying you are not going to get COVID if you get a vaccination... What could possibly have given him that impression? And how many people who did not agree with him were called anti-vaxxer loons because they were able to think independently about the information they saw? But flat earthers know better.
You like stats, have a read of these... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ An Israeli paper, a 'very large' study, that finds "We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection." It is important to say that it is not referring to instances during accute infection, but in the follow up period (average 4.1 months). But, with regard to your claim above, this paper very much indicates that there is no evidence for your claim above, and, in fact, indicates that slightly more people who had not had COVID went on to have heart issues. So you may, if you do not decide to ignore me, want to clarify the data from which you are obtaining your opinion, because this research contradicts your claim that it was "proven very early on in the pandemic (pre vaccine) that catching covid itself significantly weakens the heart, many many more times than the vaccine." Perhaps you could confirm your source or let us know if you were merely expressing an opinion? Then there is this... https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1 A Thai study. But it seems no one else is doing prospective studies, not in the UK, the EU or the US, yet prospective studies are considered to be a most effective for this kind of data. There is virtually 0% risk from COVID for the young, but in this study, 2.6% of the 300 people studied suffered physically measurable complications that could have led to heart failure. In the young, this manifests as heart failure during heavy exercise caused by inflamation of the pericardium. The 2.6% figure is a significant risk chance for young people undertaking strenuous exercise and is well above the typical number of occurances that would be expected in such a young group over a similar time period. So, despite your laughter, we can conclude from the research that on occasions when a young sports person collapses with heart failure on a sports field (still very rare, thankfully) there is virtually no chance of it being related to COVID, but a hugely increased risk, to the point that it may be considred the most likely cause, that it was vaccine related. Don't worry. It's only other people's kids. I am not saying this makes me right, only that the evidence available seems to support what I say. Is there anyone out there who is ever tempted to consider changing their minds after seeing evidence that their opinion may not be as well informed as they originally thought? It would, I hope, at the very least give me something to think about, and maybe encourage me to do a little more reading.
I particularly liked the people who tried to make something out of footballers who collapsed on the pitch from heart issues. You know, despite it being a thing that happened years before Covid and almost all of the those who collapsed post-vaccine availability turning out to have not been vaccinated at the time they collapsed. "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
Not just my opinion, but also from a paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full) that found that the risk of Myocarditis was 7 times more likely in the unvaccinated group.
Ignoring the hyperbole Focus on the lack of long term Covid data is pointless: 1. It completely ignores the counterfactual. Running can increase the risk of injury, but is advised if you're being chased by a lion. 2. Medical experts acknowledged that the risk of a long term effect of a jab, which is only noticed/ developed months after administration, is so unlikely it is inconsequential. Vaccines might elicit an immune response in different ways, but the dominant view is that no side effects would lie dormant for so long and there is no hypothesis as to why this might happen. The evidence collected has only strengthened this view. 3, MRNA (MBNA is a US bank) jabs had undergone phase 1 and 2 trials for HIV, Rabies and Zika, and had no identified long term health consequences. 4. I actually have quite a lot of understanding for the view that lockdowns probably caused significantly more damage than is being reported. But I really don't understand the point around the jabs not doing what they were designed to do. They were designed to save lives. And they have clearly done that. I doubt there has been more data collected on any other drug in human history, and the data is absolutely clear that those who have taken any of the vaccines have been less sick, less likely to be hospitalised and less likely to die than those who haven't.
Good article from John Hopkins that confirms what you have been saying. It's being constantly monitored world wide and the amount of data is huge. Everything points to the effectiveness of the vaccine while acknowledging a small number of recipients, as predicted, have had adverse side effects. It is quite scarry how people are so gullible and are happier having their confirmation bias stroked rather than listen to the actual experts and the evidence: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...eases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe
It is not whether or not they have any effect. Clearly they do. But they do not do everything we were told they would do, and there were risks that could have been identified if they trials had been completed in the manner they would normally be expected to carried out. People then would have had properly informed consent. As it is, we did have to take a lot of it on trust. My point is that it is futile to say there was not risk increase caused by truncated research, and, as Pfizer said themselves in that video, they did not even test the vaccine for it's primary selling point, that it would stop the spread. Let it sink in. They did not even test it for viral transmission. If you are going to say that did not represent a risk, then I believe you would be prepared to say the earth is flat. We took the shot in the belief that it would do certain things that mitigated the risks of not completing clinical trials. But it does not fill me with delight to then find out Pfizer were making promises relying on an educated guess, that can fairly be discribed as a massive punt relying on hope and luck, with risks underwritten by tax payer money. And perhaps, if we had known the truth of it, the enthusiasm for the vaccine would not have been so broadly shared. Certainly, the idea that those exercising caution should be called anti-vaxxer loons is something I do take exception to, and would consider the denial of risks to be the flat earth view, whether it turned out well or not. That it did turn out relatively well, to me, is the equivalent of flat earthers saying "well, we didn't fall off though, did we?"
Thank you. I'll have a read of that and some of its citations. First glance, it is not talking about a group and a control group. It is a a literature review of around 20 articles that are not all specilifally aimed at measuring instances of myocarditis. It has very little information on the studies it is reviewing within its pages, only citing if they mentioned cases of myocarditis, and how many. That appears to be why you have no incidental cases of myocarditis in groups of 3,000 + people, which would be unusual in any selection of people that totals over 50 million subjects. On reviewing a few of the articles, it is clear that they differ in the amount of time they follow up with patients, some describing a "very short period". Myocarditis, in someone who has COVID, is an issues that can often arise as a result of the disease being present, and therefore will be identified more in unvaxxinated groups. Whereas myocarditis in a young person may simply manifest itself as a bit of a flutter or shortness of breath that would not necessarily go reported. So, unless you are looking for these reactions using medical examination, you are relying very much on someone reporting them. If that follows through to other cited articles, there will be a natural bias towards people who are also having treatments for severe COVID, or who are being monitored in the follow up. If they simply had a bit of a flutter, there is no way of including it in the data. And yes, a bit of a flutter may be all that someone experiences, but it may also end up, if they get involved in strenuous activity during and episode, in their heart stopping. Which is the risk from mycarditis.
Dear me. That is not an article. How is that an article? It is an advertising leaflet, using advertising techniques to get you to pay the advertiser, or have them paid, for a shot. And that is the end of it. Final line of the ad... "At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we offer Pfizer and Moderna vaccines throughout our vaccine clinics.
Almost everyone who is anti-vaccine brings along with them the same climate change denial, anti-immigration, pro-Brexit, anti-Ukraine, WEF conspiracy etc baggage. If there was tangible evidence, it would be able to standalone from these other political currents, be pushed by moderates of left and right. But it doesn’t and cannot. It’s just more roaring into the abyss against experts.
