Agreed. We have to be very careful about making decisions based on incomplete science. The proper way to do this is to let every scientist, or person claiming to be a scientist or just anyone with an opinion, weigh in on the issue and then give extra attention to the small percentage of people who have a different opinion than the majority. As long as a small minority of people disagree with the consensus we need to listen to them regardless of who funded their research. That is the only way to avoid conflicts of interest.
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#828,142
@previous (C)
Or we could just let that minority of retards die?
q. joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#828,143
@previous (B)
natural disasters will take care of that soon enuf
Anonymous C replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#828,144
I can't say for sure if that would accomplish anything. I'd suggest we test it, but the science is still out on whether science can provide any useful evidence of anything. If you have any evidence of the efficacy of science, then I might be willing to consider it. I also might ignore it in favor of a few guys who think otherwise.
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#828,145
@previous (C)
Thank you for confirming that you're one of the retards that should die.
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#828,149