onewheeldave

That's probably the source of the problem. I've not asked for help. I don't need your help.

No. That is not the claim I wished for the paper to be making (note how substituting your own words for mine, leads to a great difference in meaning. Cut the insults and playground ego banter, if you wish this discussion to continue.

If I can find you a relevant video of him speaking, would that suffice? Would seeing him actually speaking his claims count as evidence for you?

NO. Answer my question, or leave it- I've got way better things to do than p*ss*ng contests. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:58 ---------- Yes, you rather did. I'm busy with Obelix at the moment.

Wow, I never realised U.S. children were getting 46-50 vaccines before they start school! That is not right, it's insane.

No, no. I asked first

Tell me what claims it is you think I wish them to be. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:35 ---------- If I can find you a relevant video of him speaking, would that suffice? Would seeing him actually speaking his claims count as evidence for you?

I didn't post it for any reason other than the one stated. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:07 ---------- It's Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, making that claim. Perhaps you should offer to give him one of your lessons in scientific method?

He seems reliable. What have you done in the field?

I know, never said it did. Strawman. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 19:47 ---------- You wanted a paper critical of the status quo where medical testing is concerned. If you're not happy with it fair enough.

They were the 'Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale' (WAIS) & Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), both industry standard, administered by a psychologist (in the NHS) over several hours. I'm not bragging about the results- if you understand the consequences of such aberrations in IQ results, you'll see why. But, the fact remains, on 'Verbal Fluency' (measures letter fluency, category fluency, and category switching) and 'Design Fluency' measures one’s initiation of problem-solving behavior, fluency in generating visual patterns, creativity in drawing new designs, simultaneous processing in drawing the designs while observing the rules and restrictions of the task, and inhibiting previously drawn responses- I scored in 99.9th percentile (1 in a 1000). Along with several other categories that were at the 99% percentile. My lowest scores were 63% (13% above average) in tests that were either exceptionally boring ('symbol search') or designed to confuse ('colour-word interference'). Objective medical evidence. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 18:02 ---------- 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' John P. A. Ioannidis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

They're making an assertion- anyone interested further can follow it up, either by attempting personal dialogue with them, or their representatives, or, get on youtube and watch videos of them presenting their case. If someone did link to a paper, would you any of you actually check it out and give comment??

That's my experience too Then again, not many of them have the objective medical evidence (i.e. IQ test results) to back up their claim.

Interesting link - I'll be following up some of the stuff on that page. Depressing as the situation with medical research is, it's heartening to see so much whistle-blowing going on, with experts within the system very publicly getting out the facts that the pharmaceutical companies would much prefer to be kept hidden.

My grounds for, dismissing medical trails conclusions are that they are severely compromised by financial and political interests. I haven't quoted the Cochrane foundation/Collaboration, I quoted the co-founder of the Cochrane foundation/Collaboration. There is a big difference, I doubt his views match those of the organisation. No, I've not. Have you read "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare" by Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration? It would give you some insight as to how deeply corrupted the medical study system is by political and financial interests, by someone who knows the system inside and out. That should be 'if'. It's little logical lapses like that that lead to mistaken conclusions in the big, complicated arguments. My advice is, when it comes to logic, get the foundations right. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 16:29 ---------- It does, doesn't it? It's been springing to my mind as well

Rubbish. No-ones said anything of the kind, no-one believes it. This is about saying no to a system which, lacking the will of the Nazis of WWII to execute the weak and vulnerable 'non-productive' members of society, simply cuts off their benefit income so they can't buy food, or pay rent, then waits for them to commit suicide. Money is limited, but there's always enough for buying weapons and funding innane celebrity- so it's a matter of priorities, and, in this culture, we're supposed to look after those who can't fully look after themselves. As for 'checks/assessments'- they cost a lot of money themselves: the money saved by eliminating the benefits system and eliminating the benefits fraud check systems, would go a long way to financing a guaranteed 'basic income' scheme (so food and rent are covered) that would end this problem.

I appreciate what you're asking, and, I appreciate that you're being reasonable (i.e. you're being polite and not flinging out the insults and ad hominem attacks that others on this thread do). However, like I said before, I focus my efforts with research on things that affect me, personally, and directly (such as personal nutrition, the b12 issues etc). Given that I don't really rate the medical trials system, having seen multiple instances of it churning out false results and, knowing just how much corruption is involved, I think that there's no way I could come to a conclusion as to whether vaccines are efficacious. Increasingly, I'm also coming to the conclusion that over emphasis on rationality is perhaps counter productive for me. I've known for some time that personally I really need to limit it. I've had far, far more success with controlling my emotional difficulties (which can be extreme) via spirituality derived sources (meditation etc), whereas trying to 'think myself out of it' is invariably counter productive. Now I've been diagnosed with autism, and, been tested and found to have extremely high abilities with the aspects of IQ that relate to logic/rationality, I've had to face up to the fact that my abilities with logic have caused me great harm, and that those abilities, and, the long-established habits of defaulting to them, need to be seriously self-moderated. That's on a personal level. But, also, when it comes to communication, it's becoming more and more obvious, that IQ scores of 99.9%, do not help, and, very likely, are a major cause of communication issues. It would be very interesting if I could talk with a skeptic, holding the same/similar views of those on this thread, who also had IQ aspects specifically relating to logic/reason at the 99.9% level, and see if communication would be more fruitful. That's unlikely to happen. In the meantime, I'm logic based, and, the others here are medical trials based. The 2 are not easy bedfellows, so genuine productive communication is a bit unlikely ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:51 ---------- Oh, I'm sorry to hear that Eric. Best wishes ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:54 ---------- I'm (newly diagnosed) autistic dude. Traveling the world is somewhat unlikely given my current situation. However, if I were to travel, I'd avoid any areas of the world that require large amounts of compulsory vaccinations to enter.

Yes. (Though, given this is a thread where people are, in part, debating the efficacy/otherwise of vaccines, the word 'protected' is not the one I'd use (it kind of assumes what you're trying to conclude). But, yes, I have likely had most of the vaccinations you list as a child, and, assuming vaccines are efficacious, that would mean I'm protected. The point I actually made was that I won't be having vaccinations- obviously that means from this point onwards, the ones I had as a child are in the past and, even if I wanted to 'take them back', it would not be possible. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:19 ---------- OK. Personally, I get a lot of info from videos- I focus a lot on videos by acknowledged medical experts who are critical of established systems, yet who are part of/experts within those systems. I also know that, 3 years ago, when people posted video links in discussion threads, it annoyed me (as I thought that, if the info was valid, and, they understood it, they should be able to summarise it in words). So I understand that some people don't want video links (also for other reasons, like the ones you point out). Nevertheless- videos work very well for me. One this thread, having pretty much given up on trying to communicate with certain individuals, I tried the approach of introducing some of the established experts who are arguing that the medical trials system is no longer fit for purpose, in the hope that said individuals would take it more seriously if acknowledge experts in the field were saying it. An approach which also seems not to be working. I agree with those experts, that the medical trials system is corrupted and, is producing confusion and untruth.

I'd expect nothing else from sceptic/pseudo-rationalists. In the absence of sufficient research to come to a decision based on rationality, then going with gut-instinct (or intuition) is perfectly valid. I'm not saying it will necessarily give the objectively correct answer, but, given that my sub-conscious mind is processing huge amounts of data that I'm not consciously aware of, it's preferable to tossing a coin. If it mattered to me, I would of course simply do lots of research, but, as the only vaccines I'm likely to take for the rest of my life are either compulsory (for travel) and therefore not my choice, or, the flu vaccine, which I won't be taking, then there's no reason to spend the necessary hundreds of hours doing research. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 09:41 ---------- Yes. Can't say for sure what they were. Pretty sure it would have included measles- also vaguely remember tetanus. As I'm 47 it wouldn't have included MMR as that didn't exist back then. Any reason you're asking?

Not sure why alternative medicine is being brought into this? I'm not having any vaccinations. I'm 47, what vaccinations are even on the horizon? (other than the flu jab, which I have no intention of having).

Alltrials- I'm very much in favour of all trial results being freely perusable by everyone.

Given that the pharmaceutical companies behave in such a way that much of what passes as evidence based medicine study results are either distorted or misleading, then yes, I think some here, are denying that some of the problems exist. Specifically, I think they are denying the problems of financial and political considerations being allowed to influence patients healthcare. For whatever reasons, I can't see sig links in my browser setup, however, if you just post the link, I'll have a look at it.

I agree fully. 100% Personally I favour the total dismantling of our inhumane and disgusting benefits system, in favour of some form of 'universal wage', which would guarantee everyone access to a healthy diet and a home, as well as make benefit fraud impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income But, in the meantime, banning the sanctioning of pregnant women is a good interim step

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference I think you're probably right Eric

Fair enough. I know it does not misrepresent Dr. Peter Gotzsche as I've seen many videos of him talking and giving lectures. I know you guys don't accept video links, so, that's that. My main motivation in introducing him was my, clearly incorrect, assumption that anyone who considered themselves to be a rationalist, would be very interested in following up a person like Dr. Peter Gotzsche when they hear he's giving public lectures expressing his view that the relationship between healthcare systems and the pharmaceuticals are criminally (his words) corrupt) and that many common drugs are doing more harm to patients than good. ---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:56 ---------- He's written a book- "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare" by Peter Gotzsche Here's the cover: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844 I think we tell tell from the title that he has a serious issue with certain drugs and how they're prescribed I can't give you links to papers- I watch videos, I like to see the person talking, it helps me decide whether I can trust them. I don't bother noting which videos I've watched, as I know that you guys don't accept videos as evidence. If you have started accepting videos, let me know, and, in future, I'll note down what I'm watching.