Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Graystone]

Good luck with that..................

Well I figured he brought it up, so we shall see how far it goes...

[Katman]

Do you want a rational discussion or not?

Like I said, I'm not one of the study's authors.

[Graystone]

Like I said, I'm not one of the study's authors.

And you think that is a rational response? You are one of the study's readers, and if they had done their job correctly that should be enough to allow for a rational discussion, that is the whole idea behind journal articles; this isn't the youtube amateur hour, this is (or should be) actual science.

[Katman]

And you think that is a rational response? You are one of the study's readers, and if they had done their job correctly that should be enough to allow for a rational discussion, that is the whole idea behind journal articles; this isn't the youtube amateur hour, this is (or should be) actual science.

Dude, if you've got questions that I'm unable to answer and that should be better directed to the authors of the study, I fail to see how you consider that irrational.

[Graystone]

Dude, if you've got questions that I'm unable to answer and that should be better directed to the authors of the study, I fail to see how you consider that irrational.

You should have the same question is the point I'm making. Or should I rephrase the question, do you consider that they sufficiently substantiated their ranges of aluminium toxicity in brains?

[Katman]

Or should I rephrase the question, do you consider that they sufficiently substantiated their ranges of aluminium toxicity in brains?

Possibly not.

Do you have any better reference data?

[Graystone]

Possibly not.

Do you have any better reference data?

Correct. So how does this affect how you interpret the studies findings?

Better? Do they have any data to be better than?

[Katman]

Better? Do they have any data to be better than?

Then you should find it easy to better their data.

[Graystone]

Then you should find it easy to better their data.

The onus is not on me to do so, it is on the author of the article to provide it in the first place.

So how does their lack of such data affect how you interpret the studies findings?

[Katman]

So how does their lack of such data affect how you interpret the studies findings?

It makes me even more keen to see further studies done on the matter.

How about you?

[Katman]

http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scienti...fficacy-fraud/

[Katman]

I'd suggest looking through the other references, it is possible it was an honest mistake and they just cocked up the reference numbering.

You're right.

The correct reference should have been [13].

[TheDemonLord]

You're right.

The correct reference should have been [13].

That speaks oh so highly of the Thoroughness of Peer Review that is undertaken by that Journal....

[Katman]

That speaks oh so highly of the Thoroughness of Peer Review that is undertaken by that Journal....

The article makes it perfectly clear that it hasn't been through the editing process yet.

(But your desperation to try discrediting anything that doesn't conform to your narrative is duly noted).

[TheDemonLord]

The article makes it perfectly clear that it hasn't been through the editing process yet.

(But your desperation to try discrediting anything that doesn't conform to your narrative is duly noted).

There's no desperation - These are things that are relevant.

If - as you say - it hasn't been properly peer-reviewed yet, then why are we even discussing it? Such a discussion is premature.

If it has been, then whoever did the review wasn't particularly thorough - which calls into question the validity of said review.

Add that to the hilariously small sample size used, and the vested interests of both the group that commissioned the Study and the parties involved in the study - it all starts to smell...


Plus I see you couldn't help yourself with the Red Rep and the "Retarded Cunt" Comments - So much for "engaging in a rational discussion about the content"

Although, I am somewhat pleased - Afterall, I posted an observation that you couldn't help yourself and were incapable of "engaging in a rational discussion about the content" - and there you are - 2 pages later...

If you were a Geothermal feature - I'd be calling you Old Faithful