Techno303 said:
Oh good grief ... just read that thread .... SAD, SAD, SAD!!!
Bed Goldacre savaged for his own 'bad science'!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
Oh good grief ... just read that thread .... SAD, SAD, SAD!!!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Given a choice between Ben Goldacre and Melanie Phillips, I know who I'd far rather have dinner with....by the time the cheese came round while having dinner with Melanie Phillips I'd be attempting to gouge her heart out with the Stilton spoon...
It isn't bang "out of order".Jazzz said:
You are either a complete and utter idiot or you are extremely dishonest - witness your last thread about "microchips".
...and making confident claims that are misleading and even downright false when you haven't even read your own "evidence" *is* being dishonest (even if you are an idiot).
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Mrs Magpie said:
I bow down to your patience and restraint.
BwaaahaaahaaaJazzz said:yet you said
You know, when I fuck up, I admit to it?
Not only can you not be bothered to read the articles in question but are also talking doublespeak.
You admit it when you fuck up? My arse you do. You go silent for a bit and make up another shedload of horseshit. Your self image and reality are fucking aeons apart mate. What about that hotel that you said you were going to ring? What about a million and one stupid theories that you have introduced without apology or brain activity?
The quote that you are questioning should really have the phrase "for vaccinations" after the word "correlation" to be accurate, but that is beside the point, the point being that you posted up a quote which clearly revealed your expert to be an utter ignoramus and you smirked at it like a simpleton who will believe anything at all, no matter how stupid, as long as it fits into his delusional world view.
You could spare yourself all this, Jazzz, you know. I wish you would, you'd be doing yourself (and your credibility) a lot of favours.
oh dear....From Mel. Phillips own link said:
Whether you like the guy or not, to take the word of this lying right wing cunt over his tells me volumes about how you hear only what you want to hear Jazzz
I did do a little research on the Source of Mel Phillips research and it does seem as though these cunts have an agenda as well.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons seems to be little more than a conservative publication. Typical.
...and it also does a book review written by none other than Anne Coulter...hehehe
and this....
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Jazz...how on earth can you get sucked in so easily and consistently? ... If it fits your theory then you will believe anything crap written or said by anyone.
No, I confess I haven't. Maybe she is objectionable - all the worse for Ben Goldacre. And even the most objectionable people can still make sound arguments.reallyoldhippy said:Don't know about the Doctor, but in the case of the dear Melanie; a fucking muppet with knobs on.
Have you never come across her biggotted crap before?
Very funny. I may post up things hastily but I won't refuse to read short articles when asked high-mindedly. So not pot over heretechno303 said:
Yes, you do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the point central to this debate.Guardian Letters said:
Dr. Goldacre, in his letter, simply dodges most of the issues to concentrate on a weak point.
Check the masons/chipping thread, which everyone has had a right laugh at me for. I didn't try and wriggle out of it, or go silent - I admitted I'd fucked up straight away.gurrier said:
You've said things which are completely contradictory, and then tried to make out you haven't. And tacking 'with vaccinations' doesn't change it all - trials with control groups - preferably unvaccinated ones, but you could have randomised vaccination patterns - would well settle the question. In fact it's the only way!
Oh and your 'bwahahaha' is a straight copy of editor
Jazzz, I think you should probably accept the fact that there is little need for plagiarism in laughing at you.Jazzz said:You've said things which are completely contradictory, and then tried to make out you haven't. And tacking 'with vaccinations' doesn't change it all - trials with control groups - preferably unvaccinated ones, but you could have randomised vaccination patterns - would well settle the question. In fact it's the only way!
Oh and your 'bwahahaha' is a straight copy of editor
The point about your stupid quote was that it was claiming that there was something wrong with epidemiology on the basis that it couldn't prove cause and effect in individual cases. That is enough to unambiguously identify the author as an ignoramus. The slightly more subtle point about the uselessness of control groups for evaluating the efficacy of vacinations is clearly beyond your feeble powers of imagination, but if you try hard enough you might be able to understand the former.
Many people who fall sick pray to recover. Many of them are treated with medicine, recover and come away with the conviction that their prayers saved them. Others aren't treated but pray and recover and come away with the same conviction. Others don't pray and recover. There is no way of proving that it wasn't the prayer that saved any individual. But when you look at large populations, you find that a lot less of the people who are treated with medicine die compared to those who aren't, irrespective of prayer. Your quoted expert was claiming that that this says nothing about the individual cases in question - rank and utter idiocy. And you smirked about it. You absolute muppet.
What kind of nonsense is this?gurrier said:
Clinical trials with control groups are the gold standard of drug research. Are you saying that they wouldn't work for vaccines when they work for everything else?
If you actually bothered to read her article, her point was that the epidemiology looked at by the Cochrane report did not have the sensitivity to test the hypothesis being mooted by Wakefield and that this was indeed the finding of the report itself.
Let's look at your example. In it, you are indeeed very limited as to what you can conclude about individual cases. You even say so yourself! You might be tempted to conclude that treatment with medicine wasn't killing anyone who would otherwise have lived; yet this would be erroneous. While no amount of such epidemiology is going to help work out that question, you can test for deaths by allergic reactions to treatment, say, in other ways. It is this tendency to extrapolate a general phenomena over the specific that you have to be wary of. Philips didn't say that epidemiology was useless per se, which is what you seem to be implying - just that no amount of the stuff we have seen so far is able to rule out the possibility that the MMR might be causing some, however rare, autism.
In any case, Philips is missing another trick in this poster's opinion. If you do not make the tacit - and in my opinion highly unscientific assumption - that the vaccines used in place of MMR are necessarily safer with regard to causing autism - where are you?
Jazz said:
Ben Goldacre said:
Incidentally I can think of several occasions where you have not admitted you are wrong Jazz, the most notable being when you claimed scarlet fever falling before the introduction of vaccines added weight to your argument, when it was then pointed out that scarlet fever is a bacterial infection.
pidgeonhead
What Do YOU Think It Was?
I can't think of a single example of an occasion when Jazz was actually right, about anything.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
He's mad cos Ben made him drop the Doctor in his name 
pidgeonhead
What Do YOU Think It Was?
Jazzz said:Oh do stop bothering me pk.
Stop bothering the boards with your David Icke nonsense and anti-Semitic lies and I might consider it.
Until then, I quite enjoy baiting you, almost as much as you enjoy squealing in indignance and reporting posts.
Similar threads
