Flu jab and viral illness

[Obelix]

It links to the studies and has extracts from them. Presumably you'll be posting a link to the relevant discreditation? Otherwise we'd only have your word that it exists.

 

No it doesn't. The link is broken and it doesn't give a reference to the paper.

 

Edit:

 

OK I've found a working link to the paper. Firstly it says nothing of the sort and certainly makes no reference to intellectual dishonesty.

 

I'll say the following.

 

1. Greg Laden is a known fraud. I can't be bothered refuting him and showing why when someone else beat me to it. http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Laden:_Man_of_Mystery

 

2. If you are going to play in the garden with the big boys, learn what you are talking about. The report makes no reference whatsoever about pharmaceuticals being intellectually dishonest. Your bias is clear throughout your postings from the guff you post about diet through to all scientists being dishonest, Big Pharma etc etc. Don't let your personal prejudices lead you to the conclusion you want. Have a critical open mind.

 

3. Just remember that if you are ill informed and have a mediocre understanding of a subject you are like a lemming - you will jump to an unfortunate conclusion.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Obelix

[onewheeldave]

No it doesn't. The link is broken and it doesn't give a reference to the paper.

 

Edit:

 

OK I've found a working link to the paper. Firstly it says nothing of the sort and certainly makes no reference to intellectual dishonesty.

 

I'll say the following.

 

1. Greg Laden is a known fraud. I can't be bothered refuting him and showing why when someone else beat me to it. http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Laden:_Man_of_Mystery

 

2. If you are going to play in the garden with the big boys, learn what you are talking about. The report makes no reference whatsoever about pharmaceuticals being intellectually dishonest. Your bias is clear throughout your postings from the guff you post about diet through to all scientists being dishonest, Big Pharma etc etc. Don't let your personal prejudices lead you to the conclusion you want. Have a critical open mind.

 

3. Just remember that if you are ill informed and have a mediocre understanding of a subject you are like a lemming - you will jump to an unfortunate conclusion.

 

Getting irrate and chucking about personal insults isn't going to help you make your case.

 

You wanted evidence of pharmaceutical company dishonesty, I linked to a page pointing out that there's a clear honesty issue when studies are not being published because they contain truths that go against company interests.

 

You don't accept it as evidence- fair enough: that's the norm in these discussions, and, pretty much all debate, anytime, anywhere.

 

Over the past 2 years, I've done extensive amounts of research into diet/nutrition, covering anecdotal evidence, personal experience/experimentation, youtube vids by both cranks and qualified medical experts, and, of course, scientific papers/studies.

 

When it comes to the scientific paper/studies end of things, I've not seen a single of the significant ones that haven't been shown to contain flaws by the opposition. And then that discreditation is itself shown to contain flaws. And so on, and back and forth.

 

It's the inherent weakness of that form of debate.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2015 at 12:31 ----------

 

 

1. Greg Laden is a known fraud. I can't be bothered refuting him and showing why when someone else beat me to it. http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Laden:_Man_of_Mystery

 

Oh- you're not providing evidence of your claim, as, 'you can't be bothered'. Well played

 

But you'll post some anecdotal by some dude with a chip on his/her shoulder:

 

Greg Laden claims to have a degree in, presumably, anthropology (obviously not a rigorous discipline). He also claims to be a "science communicator" (Carl Sagan would roll in his grave were he to read such vacuous tripe) who "can never decide which is more important: nuance or context", which is interesting because Laden is quite incapable of understanding or observing nuance, and rarely, if ever, includes context as being relevant to anything.

 

Nonetheless, and in the face of his grand claims, it is more than clear that Laden is intellectually weak, and is probably an intellectual fraud. Laden's writing is, generally, quite atrocious. His prose is more like that of a grade school drop out than a university or college graduate. Laden's spelling is hit and miss; his sentence structure weak, and often seriously flawed; his grammar horrid; his diction juvenile at best; his typographical errors endless; his logic often non-existent and usually totally skew-whiffy.

 

He is a complete idiot and does not understand anything. He's also a massively sexist douche, suffering from delusions of grandiosity

(Why are these skeptic types so full of venom- rational thinking is never facilitated by anger and arrogance)

 

Thing is, even if he is a fraud (I've no idea), that's not relevant to the truth status (or otherwise) of his words.

Edited November 17, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

OWD: You've provided no evidence whatsoever. At all. I'm sorry to break it to you but that's the way it goes.

 

If you have some - come back. If you think that article provides it - please explain where it does.

[mattleonard]

Thing is, even if he is a fraud (I've no idea), that's not relevant to the truth status (or otherwise) of his words.

 

It is potentially relevant, but doesn't logically follow.

 

Even if your assertion here was true, then exactly the same logic would apply to whether dishonesty by pharmaceutical companies was in any way relevant to whether flu vaccines are efficacious or harmful.

[Obelix]

It is potentially relevant, but doesn't logically follow.

 

Even if your assertion here was true, then exactly the same logic would apply to whether dishonesty by pharmaceutical companies was in any way relevant to whether flu vaccines are efficacious or harmful.

 

I'd give it up. You are talking to the guy who argued for 37 pages that I should have illegal lights on a trailer and refused to even read the law when it was provided for him, and then failed to even acknowledge that he was wrong and apologies when he finally realised the error.

[onewheeldave]

It is potentially relevant, but doesn't logically follow.

 

Even if your assertion here was true, then exactly the same logic would apply to whether dishonesty by pharmaceutical companies was in any way relevant to whether flu vaccines are efficacious or harmful.

 

Here's the problem you people have got- you're obsessed with attributing to me things I've never claimed.

 

I've made zero comment on whether flu vaccines are efficacious or harmful, I have made a claim that pharmaceutical companies are dishonest.

 

I understand that most NTs are unable to separate totally different concepts and arguments that, despite being logically unconnected when said concepts/arguments appear in the same sentence.

 

But I'm autistic and easily distinguish between logical structures that are not the same, or are not connected.

 

It's frustrating for me, as a high functioning autistic with exceptional logical abilities, to try and discuss stuff with NTs. So I can safely assume that said NTs equally find it frustrating to discuss with me.

 

All I can do is repeatedly inform people when they've misunderstood me, or, are attributing to me claims I've not made.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2015 at 16:18 ----------

 

I'd give it up. You are talking to the guy who argued for 37 pages that I should have illegal lights on a trailer and refused to even read the law when it was provided for him, and then failed to even acknowledge that he was wrong and apologies when he finally realised the error.

 

You say

I'd give it up.

But you clearly haven't. Why advise other people to give up on something, when you haven't yourself?

 

Secondly, why is that advice in the form of an obvious untruth? why not be honest and say "I'd advise you (the person you're advising) give it up, despite the fact that I (you) clearly haven't done so"?

 

I know NTS have a reputation for slyness and dishonesty, but, couldn't you be less totally obvious about it?

 

(presumably, one of you will now be getting ready to accuse me of playing the 'disability/autism card'. In which case I'll pre-empt it (some of you NTs are soooooo predictable) and point out that I'm attempting to aid in diminishing the rather obvious communication block between us, by explaining a little about how autism effects communication, and how said effects can be mitigated)

Edited November 17, 2015 by onewheeldave

[SnailyBoy]

Here's the problem you people have got- you're obsessed with attributing to me things I've never claimed.

 

I've made zero comment on whether flu vaccines are efficacious or harmful, I have made a claim that pharmaceutical companies are dishonest.

 

I understand that most NTs are unable to separate totally different concepts and arguments that, despite being logically unconnected when said concepts/arguments appear in the same sentence.

 

But I'm autistic and easily distinguish between logical structures that are not the same, or are not connected.

 

It's frustrating for me, as a high functioning autistic with exceptional logical abilities, to try and discuss stuff with NTs. So I can safely assume that said NTs equally find it frustrating to discuss with me.

 

All I can do is repeatedly inform people when they've misunderstood me, or, are attributing to me claims I've not made.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2015 at 16:18 ----------

 

 

You say But you clearly haven't. Why advise other people to give up on something, when you haven't yourself?

 

Secondly, why is that advice in the form of an obvious untruth? why not be honest and say "I'd advise you (the person you're advising) give it up, despite the fact that I (you) clearly haven't done so"?

 

I know NTS have a reputation for slyness and dishonesty, but, couldn't you be less totally obvious about it?

 

What are NTs?

[JFKvsNixon]

What are NTs?

 

Neuro Typical. Basically he's saying that people who aren't on the Autistic Spectrum have a reputation for slyness and dishonesty.

[mattleonard]

You say But you clearly haven't. Why advise other people to give up on something, when you haven't yourself?

 

Well, so far Obelix hasn't posted after the comment you're referring to, so your assertion seems rather dishonest. If he goes on to do so, then he's perfectly entitled to change his mind, plus his statement was advice to me, rather than a resolution to necessarily do so himself.

[SnailyBoy]

Neuro Typical. Basically he's saying that people who aren't on the Autistic Spectrum have a reputation for slyness and dishonesty.

 

Wow, as generalisations go, that's a doozy.