Vaccine

espola said:
The Lancet, like any respectable journal, recognizes its errors and publishes retractions and corrections where necessary.

What do you have against Bill Gates besides his behavior at Microsoft?
Click to expand...
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.

Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.

Don't always succumb to dogma...you would be amazed at what is and isn't true, especially in the world of medicine.
 
Happened again said:
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.

Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.

Don't always succumb to dogma...you would be amazed at what is and isn't true, especially in the world of medicine.
Click to expand...
There are numerous articles that discuss the issues caused by this study that was based upon bogus data. The incident (among many others) highlights one of the biggest issues during Covid, which is the scientific community sacrificed accuracy for speed. The media was quick to publish and/or promote "studies", or opinions, that were without merit, and unfortunately in some cases health policy was based on these unsubstantiated theories. Like I said before, lab rats rushed to have their 15 minutes of fame and the media was quick to indulge them. (Unfortunately, Fauci wasn't stopped at 15) Some of this was political, and some was just ego. One of the dangerous results of this bogus study was that it caused research into HCQ to be halted, which could have potentially prevented a valuable treatment. Fortunately, it appears that HCQ's efficacy is questionable.

What we've seen time and time again, is Espola and Dad4 falling victim to the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.
 
Happened again said:
Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.
Click to expand...
So you don't like Gates because you are "sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals"? That's it?
 
Last edited:
Happened again said:
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.
Click to expand...

The Lancet did their duty with the retraction and the publicity about it. The credibility that was damaged was that of the authors. Getting an article published in a major journal such as Lancet is a big deal for an author. Having to issue a retraction is infinitely worse.
 
espola said:
The Lancet did their duty with the retraction and the publicity about it. The credibility that was damaged was that of the authors. Getting an article published in a major journal such as Lancet is a big deal for an author. Having to issue a retraction is infinitely worse.
Click to expand...
Probably irrelevant to you, but the Lancet didn't retract the article on their own accord, based upon their own research or because of the many scientists that questioned the data. It was only retracted at the request of the study's author. Even after the retraction, other scientific papers continued to cite the retracted article.
 
watfly said:
Probably irrelevant to you, but the Lancet didn't retract the article on their own accord, based upon their own research or because of the many scientists that questioned the data. It was only retracted at the request of the study's author. Even after the retraction, other scientific papers continued to cite the retracted article.
Click to expand...
I bow to your superior knowledge of medical publishing.
 
Oh Joy!!! (Reuters) -The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday the new BA.2.86 lineage of coronavirus may be more capable than older variants in causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received vaccines.

1692838251414.png
 
I dedicate this song to all the dads out there working their asses off to provide for their families. To the ones who have to travel to make a buck, it can be extra hard, so stay strong and hang in there. I did the biz travel thing for two years and I hated it.

 
watfly said:
Probably irrelevant to you, but the Lancet didn't retract the article on their own accord, based upon their own research or because of the many scientists that questioned the data. It was only retracted at the request of the study's author. Even after the retraction, other scientific papers continued to cite the retracted article.
Click to expand...
He doesnt t get it...dogma rules the day.
 
espola said:
So you don't like Gates because you are "sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals"? That's it?
Click to expand...
are you really that intellectually lazy? You can go ahead and like Gates...i don't..his foundation has a very linear view of world health issues. Money an tech are great until they aren't. anyway, you again are out of your league...do some reasearch on health care systems in lesser developed countries, do your own analysis, talk to some people, gain a better understanding of what all of this means, then get back to me....or not. Bill Gates sucks at helping poor countries improve their healthcare systems....but he's good at vaccine deployment.
 
Happened again said:
but never mind the downstream effect of crappy journalism in medical journals. It's just not the words that matter....but anyway..
Click to expand...
It's tough to unring the bell. Retractions apparently don't do much to prevent others in the scientific community from relying on fraudulent evidence.


COVID-19 "is such a hot topic that publishers are willing to publish without proper vetting," even in the face of retractions that made global headlines, says Elizabeth Suelzer, a reference librarian at the Medical College of Wisconsin who has written about problematic citations to a retracted 1998 study in The Lancet falsely linking vaccination to autism.

Questions soon arose about the validity, and even existence, of the Surgisphere database, however, and the retractions followed on 4 June. But of the 200 papers examined by Science—all published after the retractions—105 inappropriately cited one of the disgraced studies.

Ivan Oransky, co-founder of the website Retraction Watch, says such blunders occur because "people are either willfully or negligently not checking references." Many authors copy and paste lists of apparently relevant citations from similar papers without actually reading them, he says. "It's frightening. It's terrible, but common."
 
Happened again said:
are you really that intellectually lazy? You can go ahead and like Gates...i don't..his foundation has a very linear view of world health issues. Money an tech are great until they aren't. anyway, you again are out of your league...do some reasearch on health care systems in lesser developed countries, do your own analysis, talk to some people, gain a better understanding of what all of this means, then get back to me....or not. Bill Gates sucks at helping poor countries improve their healthcare systems....but he's good at vaccine deployment.
Click to expand...
Yes.. he is that intellectually lazy. He's also retired and has a lot of time on his hands so what does thst tell you about him..
 
Happened again said:
are you really that intellectually lazy? You can go ahead and like Gates...i don't..his foundation has a very linear view of world health issues. Money an tech are great until they aren't. anyway, you again are out of your league...do some reasearch on health care systems in lesser developed countries, do your own analysis, talk to some people, gain a better understanding of what all of this means, then get back to me....or not. Bill Gates sucks at helping poor countries improve their healthcare systems....but he's good at vaccine deployment.
Click to expand...
I guess if you are an anti-vaxxer, then Gates is the devil.
 
espola said:
I guess if you are an anti-vaxxer, then Gates is the devil.
Click to expand...
you would guess wrong silly goose. Why would you assume that? I'm certainly anti unneccessary vax. Are you one of those who believes/believed vaccinating healthy people was the right thing to do? It was cool to vaccinate healthy children? Big difference between a media painted "anti-vaxxer" and those who question shady medical practice supported by for profit organizations.

Gates is a neccessary evil for the WHO and other organizations - he's positioned himself that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top