Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[Obelix]

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.

 

WHAT whistleblowing?

 

It's a bunch of people yapping about nothing. There is an awful lot of hot air and when you get down to it there are a load of people saying this think that there is a problem because this guy said that that guy said he heard that someone had a problem.

 

But there's stuff all evidence of it. There's not one shred. Just happenstance and hearsay and anecdote.

 

There's nothing. Not even any smoke.

[onewheeldave]

And their evidence for such an assertion is...?

 

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??

[Obelix]

Do you have a paper to show? I mean weve only been asking for evidence for a long time and you - as ever - never provide any.

 

So I wont hold my breath. But if one does appear I will look at it.

[onewheeldave]

Oh so reliable and standardised IQ tests yeah.

 

You performed well on an IQ test, and have translated that to 'I am the logic champion' and everyone who disagrees with me on the internet is '"logically challenged" and "of low intellect".

 

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 ----------

 

Do you have a paper to show? I mean weve only been asking for evidence for a long time and you - as ever - never provide any.

 

So I wont hold my breath. But if one does appear I will look at it.

 

'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False'

John P. A. Ioannidis

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

[unbeliever]

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/

 

This is a paper calling for improvement in the statistical analysis of studies and more rigorous consideration of biases.

It advocates larger studies and repetition of studies by independent groups.

All of which has been done for the MMR vaccine.

 

In no way does this publication support your ill-founded and irrational conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine or vaccines in general. If anything, quite the reverse. The improperly analysed, anecdotal, original publication suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism is a perfect example as described by this paper of a published research finding which was later shown to be false.

 

I suspect that you were hoping nobody would read it.

Either that or you didn't read or understand it yourself.

[flamingjimmy]

Either that or you didn't read or understand it yourself.

 

Surely not! If he couldn't understand it that means that 999 out of 1000 people couldn't either!

[Obelix]

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/

 

Ah PLOS that thing where anyone can pay their money and publich whatever they like, regardless of the wackiness...

 

Any chance of a reputable source?

 

Also...

 

http://biostats.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/

 

I take it you've not actually read the article? Because it doesn't make the claim you think it does...

[unbeliever]

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.

 

Did any of these tests cover statistics or probability in general?

[onewheeldave]

 

In no way does this publication support...

I know, never said it did. Strawman.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 19:47 ----------

 

Ah PLOS that thing where anyone can pay their money and publich whatever they like, regardless of the wackiness...

 

Any chance of a reputable source?

 

Also...

 

http://biostats.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/

 

I take it you've not actually read the article? Because it doesn't make the claim you think it does...

 

You wanted a paper critical of the status quo where medical testing is concerned. If you're not happy with it fair enough.

[unbeliever]

I know, never said it did. Strawman.

 

Strawman my foot.

Your reference does not support the idea of corruption in the study system. Such studies are clearly the best information available.

All it does is suggest that one should not draw firm conclusions from individual studies, and that more rigorous and larger studies are preferable.

It supports nothing at all that you have said. Why did you reference it?

 

I'm the first to say that peer review is not validation. In fact I did say so earlier in this thread.

That's a world away from saying that anecdotes are superior.

The solution would be for journals to raise standards for accepting publications. Not to declare the entire system worthless and resort to radically inferior means of finding the truth.

Edited February 23, 2016 by unbeliever