Thinking of getting vaccinated?

**mashman** · 8th June 2016, 15:08

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

Oh look.

An Article that supports your view that doesn't cite sources!

It doesn't

**TheDemonLord** · 8th June 2016, 15:20

Originally Posted by mashman

My beliefs are entirely with evidence.

Then why do you need to use such weak and flimsy evidence to support them? If the Evidence is strong, lets see you present this strong evidence.

Originally Posted by mashman

That you actually think that you know what my beliefs are show that you haven't shifted position 1 iota

I don't need to shift my position to see the Snakeoil in your sales pitch.

Originally Posted by mashman

No, you have the weight of what other people say is valid evidence.

It's called Peer Reviewed - and if we are going to play that game - you are as guilty, if not more so than I - so do you want to play?

Originally Posted by mashman

You simply ignore, with lashings of irony, the evidence that doesn't fit with your diatribe... even when one guy, Thompson, steps up and claims that they ditched valid evidence on purpose. In fact the same guy goes on further to state that he's seen things that make his toes curl.

Cool - Let him present the evidence that what he says is true - thus far, it's just his word - and afterall, you are so often fond of telling us that Scientists lie for ulterior motives

Originally Posted by mashman

Not only that, you've even got: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” - Editor in Chief of the Lancet.

Lets for the sake of argument take that at face value - He's saying that people do bad science, it doesn't prove that MMR causes Autism. It also doesn't invalidate Science itself - what he is saying is that we should do Better science. And the cool thing is, when something is published that may simply be untrue (so not definitely untrue) it's not Playboy Bunnies that discover its untrue - it's other scientists going 'that sounds like BS, I'm going to try it'

And you will note - that he doesn't say we should pack in this science malarky and start again

Originally Posted by mashman

My heart goes out to all of the scientists whose motive is the science, both good and bad. Shame that bad doesn't sell pills/vaccines etc... eh.

So, all Physicists are bad Scientists then? cause they don't sell pills and Vaccines (and according to you, Bad scientists don't sell pills and Vaccines)

(you see, this is how stupid your attempts at 'logic' are)

**Katman** · 8th June 2016, 15:23

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

He's saying that people do bad science, it doesn't prove that MMR causes Autism. It also doesn't invalidate Science itself - what he is saying is that we should do Better science.

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

And fuck whether a pharmaceutical company faces thousands of lawsuits because of it.

**mashman** · 8th June 2016, 15:28

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord;11309761qu20

Then why do you need to use such weak and flimsy evidence to support them? If the Evidence is strong, lets see you present this strong evidence.

I don't need to shift my position to see the Snakeoil in your sales pitch.

And other assorted subjective baseless and illogical assumptions

What position have I taken? "neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one or the only correct one".

EDIT: In regards to good and bad scientists... I was actually referring to the results of the science being good/bad. Fuckin moron.

**Drew** · 8th June 2016, 16:08

Originally Posted by Katman

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

I gotta agree with this really. This wouldn't even be a five post thread if things were as described.

**TheDemonLord** · 8th June 2016, 16:16

Originally Posted by Katman

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

And fuck whether a pharmaceutical company faces thousands of lawsuits because of it.

Fuck.

We agree on something in a Conspiracy thread.

BRB, I think I hear 7 trumpets sounding and a beast rising from the sea.

**Katman** · 8th June 2016, 16:26

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

**Ocean1** · 8th June 2016, 16:33

Originally Posted by Katman

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

The very same logic tells us that anything you have to say about motorbikes is pretty much a crock of shit.

And that's something you supposedly know something about. What does that say about your "insights" into medicine?

**TheDemonLord** · 8th June 2016, 16:35

Originally Posted by Katman

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

Okay then, serious question, I don't fully agree with parts of that statement (but whatevs, that doesn't lead to interesting discussion) - how would you go about fulfilling both the funding requirement for research and creating better science/research?