Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

You are almost there - There's a reason I use a superficially arbitrary standard:

1: The Editor never states which or what articles he thinks is BS - this Ambiguity is being abused by people who wish to use it as a reason to dismiss any published articles that are in direct conflict with their PoV.

2: In the stated opinion, to bolster it, they are using a published article (which has been subjected to the same scrutiny as the articles that are being dismissed) to bolster their PoV.

You can't pick and choose - currently It's one standard for the evidence that supports the viewpoint and a different standard for evidence that rebuts it.

So perhaps instead of automatically dismissing any article or study that questions vaccine safety and/or efficacy as simply being written by crackpots with an agenda, you could try considering the possibility that it might just fall into the category of valid research.

[mashman]

Ohyeah, teh whole pharmaceutical industry depends on lies. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...3.figures-only

You still don't geddit, do you? Money is a unit of value. Money is a measure of work done, services supplied, products made. No money: no medical science.

But next time you go see the doc just explain that your need is more important that his and I'm sure he'll waive what little you already pay for his services.

Oi, big boy. Eye of the prize and off my ass. You're a weak individual aincha. Hygiene and sanitation. Vaccines indeed.

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... I did say stop projecting.

They'd certainly owe me after the repeated misdiagnosis that landed me in hospital a couple of year ago. I'm sure the doctor chose to be a doctor because of the money they could earn . Geddit yet? Of course you don't

[TheDemonLord]

So perhaps instead of automatically dismissing any article or study that questions vaccine safety and/or efficacy as simply being written by crackpots with an agenda, you could try considering the possibility that it might just fall into the category of valid research.

Sure.

I've given you the standard of proof required.

It's not particularly high.

Problem is, that nothing you've ever posted comes even remotely close to meeting it.

Then - suppose for a minute, there was a study that did meet the criteria - you would have to weigh it against the MASSIVE amount of literature and data we have on the subject.

The fact that most of what you post as "research" is exceptionally poorly done, by verifiable Crackpots (and in some cases, convicted criminals) with a Financial agenda and you, as you are fond of reminding us, are always telling us - that financial incentives causes corruption.

[Katman]

The fact that most of what you post as "research" is exceptionally poorly done, by verifiable Crackpots (and in some cases, convicted criminals) with a Financial agenda and you, as you are fond of reminding us, are always telling us - that financial incentives causes corruption.

Are you suggesting that anyone who questions vaccine safety or efficacy has a greater financial agenda in doing so than the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines?

[Katman]

I've given you the standard of proof required.

Take a read of the post quoted below.

And It's hilarious - because the burden of proof that we are asking is exceptionally low - show us a study, published in a respectable journal, by respectable researchers, with a sufficiently large sample size, showing a causal link.

Did you notice the number of 'outs' you gave yourself?

So you're wanting to have the call on which journal is 'respectable', which researchers are 'respectable', and what a 'sufficiently large sample size' is.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you suggesting that anyone who questions vaccine safety or efficacy has a greater financial agenda in doing so than the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines?

Depends on how you calculate it:

a company that earns $2,000,000,000, that risks loosing $500,000,000 - that's a 25% loss in revenue.
an individual that earns $100,000, that could potentially gain $100,000,000 - that's a 100,000% increase in revenue.

a 25% loss vs a 100,000% increase - who has the greater financial agenda?

Did you notice the number of 'outs' you gave yourself?

So you're wanting to have the call on which journal is 'respectable', which researchers are 'respectable', and what a 'sufficiently large sample size' is.

Oh Gosh! You mean I'm actually enforcing some form of Standards?!? Heaven Forbid!

You know that these are the same standards I apply equally right?

[Katman]

Depends on how you calculate it:

a company that earns $2,000,000,000, that risks loosing $500,000,000 - that's a 25% loss in revenue.
an individual that earns $100,000, that could potentially gain $100,000,000 - that's a 100,000% increase in revenue.

a 25% loss vs a 100,000% increase - who has the greater financial agenda?

Seriously?

You pluck bullshit figures out of thin air and you expect me to take you seriously?

Fuck off shitforbrains.

[Katman]

Oh Gosh! You mean I'm actually enforcing some form of Standards?!? Heaven Forbid!

You know that these are the same standards I apply equally right?

The articles and studies that I've presented have come from peer-reviewed journals.

That they are accepted for publication suggests that the editorial staff of the journal considers the researchers to be acceptable.

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously?

You pluck bullshit figures out of thin air and you expect me to take you seriously?

Fuck off shitforbrains.

Awwww.

What's the matter? Don't like the fact that an individual who wins a case against ol' Big Pharma has FAR more to gain than Big Pharma has to loose?

Plus, those figures weren't entirely picked out of thin air....

[Katman]

Awwww.

What's the matter? Don't like the fact that an individual who wins a case against ol' Big Pharma has FAR more to gain than Big Pharma has to loose?

Plus, those figures weren't entirely picked out of thin air....

The authors who write these articles aren't taking "a case against ol' Big Pharma". (In a lawsuit sense).

And the figures you used are entirely plucked out of thin air.

[TheDemonLord]

The articles and studies that I've presented have come from peer-reviewed journals.

That they are accepted for publication suggests that the editorial staff of the journal considers the researchers to be acceptable.

And I've read almost all of the ones you've posted.

There are opinion based articles - which are devoid of actual experimental data.
There are articles with a woefully low sample size (was it 5 or was it 10?)
Most of which are published in journals that are considered "Predatory"
And the researchers - well, you've got convicted Fraudsters and Doctors who have been stripped of their license.

[TheDemonLord]

The authors who write these articles aren't taking "a case against ol' Big Pharma". (In a lawsuit sense).

And the figures you used are entirely plucked out of thin air.

Keep telling yourself that.

Awfully inconvenient for your favourite line of questioning - Qui Bono....

[Katman]

Keep telling yourself that.

Awfully inconvenient for your favourite line of questioning - Qui Bono....

Dude, they've written an article. They're not sitting across from a pharmaceutical company in a Court of Law.

[TheDemonLord]

Then you should fuck off back and read the ones you dismissed without bothering to read the first time around.

Why?

Let's play this at a pure numbers games - assume that you've got a study, amongst the pile of rubbish that you post, that meets all the relevant criteria (which you don't - FYI) - Now, we have to weigh that single paper, that has not had it's findings replicated against hundreds of papers that have had their findings replicated disproving any causal links between Vaccines and Autism.

Even if I grant you, that what you claim is true, you still have an overwhelming amount of Evidence you have to refute - which is why you resort to the hand waive of "almost 50% may not be true" - so you can dismiss it out of hand.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, they've written an article. They're not sitting across from a pharmaceutical company in a Court of Law.

And why did they write the article? Out of the goodness of their heart? Or so they can then level a class action lawsuit (which they've tried before, but been thrown out due to lack of evidence) and win lots and lots of $$$.

Wakefield, Grier etc. all tried this and are all nothing more than trumped up common Conmen.