If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than your own prejudices. Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with some remarkable quotes. No, you provided me with a number of quotes from Ms. Malkin. Here, we were discussing Ms. Crossen. Different people. To my knowledge, you have dismissed Ms. Crossens' book without having read anything she's written. You put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact. I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should have known... The members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially beholden'. Do you dispute that? Yes - I do. But you don't dispute the fact that those financial relationships exist. That was the undisputed fact I was referring to. The effect of those relationships is certainly debatable. Do you understand the context of the financial relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship. Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition. It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the expert "beholden" to me? To some extent yes. To what extent they are beholden depends on a number of different factors, not least of which is the amount of money you are paying the expert for his/her time. Another factor is how easily the 'client' can be replaced with another versus how easily the 'expert' can be replaced by another. Small sums of money obtained from clients that are easily replaced by other clients are not likely to create much of a problem in the sense of the expert feeling 'beholden' to the client but large sums of money from a client that cannot be easily replaced do. Do you think that blinding as a part of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order to achieve the desired results? Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results. They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not intended to keep policy makers "ethical". Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental studies? Because the data are in? And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come to completely different conclusions if you like. I can pretty much look at a publication and figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to do this. You? Yes. A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any lack of integrity by the participants. You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially beholden" I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me, financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious bias on even those with the highest ethical standards. That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the impact on decisions using real data. Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs myself. Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted. Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds? No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction. I suspect it runs both ways. This is just as true of policy making committee members as it is of research study administators. Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put right out on the table for everyone to see. It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my opinion. I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a financial association between the information source and his evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow any bias to influence his decision. LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable. I think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as fallible. Why do you think that just because bias is known that it doesn't affect the outcome? Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research goes out the window. LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to achieve the results their sponsors want. Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on. Bye. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message om... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than your own prejudices. Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with some remarkable quotes. No, you provided me with a number of quotes from Ms. Malkin. Here, we were discussing Ms. Crossen. Different people. To my knowledge, you have dismissed Ms. Crossens' book without having read anything she's written. "Ma'am, this thread started with an account of a pediatrician who had discharged the patient because the parents objected to a single vaccination - specifically the Hep B vaccination for their newborn - not to any and all vaccinations. Specifically, what the article said was:" The author I was referring to is Malkin - but you are right, your reference was back to Ms Crosson. You are also right - I have not read the book to which you refer. I have read some of her work as a journalist. I am not a big fan of journalistic exposes - be they published in hardcover or soft. There is no accountability, there is no review. I read a few reviews of her work and found some people less than supportive of the quality of the data - quality in terms of the facts used in the anecdotes. I am also left with the impression that the book exposes the media's misuse of data. I hardly believe that this is the case here. However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her bias: ""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open, verifiable and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American medicine, however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating." Regardless, much of her expose revolves around interpretation of study data by the media and politocs, not by scientists. You put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact. I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should have known... The members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially beholden'. Do you dispute that? Yes - I do. But you don't dispute the fact that those financial relationships exist. Not at all - in fact, I'll argue that in the absence of the relationship there wouldn't be a need for this discussion as the number of medical innovations would shrink dramatically. That was the undisputed fact I was referring to. The effect of those relationships is certainly debatable. You used the term BEHOLDEN to characterize the relationship. That is what you called undisputed - that the relationship RESULTS in some sort of obligation - that is what the term beholden means. Do you understand the context of the financial relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship. Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Sufficient for what? It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get. Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is what transparency does. If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the expert "beholden" to me? To some extent yes. To what extent they are beholden depends on a number of different factors, not least of which is the amount of money you are paying the expert for his/her time. Another factor is how easily the 'client' can be replaced with another versus how easily the 'expert' can be replaced by another. Small sums of money obtained from clients that are easily replaced by other clients are not likely to create much of a problem in the sense of the expert feeling 'beholden' to the client but large sums of money from a client that cannot be easily replaced do. The value of a consultant is in objectivity. I have an idea, though - go to any recently published scientific article in JAMA. Take a look at the lead author and the sponsorship statement. Then go back in time with that same author and see what else he has published and look at the sponsorship. I bet you dollars to donuts that he has worked for a range of sponsors - all of whom likely compete with each other. Is this possible under your scenario? Do you think that blinding as a part of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order to achieve the desired results? Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results. They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not intended to keep policy makers "ethical". Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental studies? Because the data are in? And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come to completely different conclusions if you like. OK - do it. I can pretty much look at a publication and figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to do this. You? Yes. OK - how well? A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any lack of integrity by the participants. You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially beholden" I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me, financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious bias on even those with the highest ethical standards. That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the impact on decisions using real data. Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs myself. As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data. Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted. Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds? No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction. I suspect it runs both ways. No, you told me earlier that it is undeniable fact that it runs from scientist to company. Noqw you only suspect it to be so? And you suspect that there is counterveiling beholdeness? This is just as true of policy making committee members as it is of research study administators. Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put right out on the table for everyone to see. It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my opinion. I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a financial association between the information source and his evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow any bias to influence his decision. LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable. I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many, some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long. I think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as fallible. When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial thing. Why do you think that just because bias is known that it doesn't affect the outcome? Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research goes out the window. LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to achieve the results their sponsors want. You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant to be a yes man. Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on. Chicken. Got a bit too close to home? Bye. Which leaves us with what? No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you grinding? js |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message . com... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message om... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... SNIP However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her bias: ""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open, verifiable and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American medicine, however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating." Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true. SNIP Do you understand the context of the financial relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship. Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. Oh, wait. I think I said that before in the very next sentence. It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get. Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is what transparency does. The effects of bias can be reduced or eliminated from experiments through the use of randomization. To reduce or eliminate the effect of bias from policy-making committees, it is necessary to have competing points of view represented at the table. That simply isn't happening in the vaccine-policy committees. Their membership consists entirely of people with financial ties to the vaccine producing industry. And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come to completely different conclusions if you like. OK - do it. http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who arrived at completely different conclusions. Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs myself. As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data. You might try reading the book yourself before dismissing it. You asked a question that I could not answer in a single post, so I provided a site for the type of evidence you requested. If you don't care to bother to read it, that's fine. But dismissing it on the basis of hearsay evidence isn't particularly convincing to me. I've already formed my opinion of it based on its actual contents. SNIP I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a financial association between the information source and his evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow any bias to influence his decision. LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable. I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many, some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long. Yeah, right. You know, I used to have that sort of faith in some professions. Doctors and scientists and priests seem trustworthy kind of folks just by the very virtue of their professions. Did you catch the headlines the other day? It's estimated that over 11,000 Catholic priests have abused young boys. Look, I'm not disparaging these people, even though you seem to take it that way. I really think that the people on these committees are, for the most part, intelligent well-educated men and women of high integrity doing their level best to make good decisions. I also think the vast majority of Catholic priests are good men, working hard to make the world, or at least their parish, a better place to live. I'm even willing to suspend judgement on Michael Jackson. Maybe he's completely innocent. I don't know. But I wouldn't let my son spend the night over at his house. And I'm not comfortable with decisions made by a committee composed entirely of members with the same bias, even if that bias is openly admitted in all cases. I think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as fallible. When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial thing. When your livelyhood comes into conflict with your integrity it is not a trivial thing either. Why do you think that just because bias is known that it doesn't affect the outcome? Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research goes out the window. LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to achieve the results their sponsors want. You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant to be a yes man. I'm not so sure about that. You seem to get upset when someone disagrees with you about even trivial matters. How many consultants have you listened to when you disagreed with them? Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on. Chicken. Got a bit too close to home? No. Just got better things to do with my time. The only reason I'm responded to this post is because I came down with a bad flu last night and am typing this from home while I'm recovering. Bye. Which leaves us with what? No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you grinding? Must I have an axe to grind? Is it so hard to believe that I'm just another soul searching for truth and reason in this world? Why do I discuss these issues? I just enjoy needling reasonable men with discomfiting facts and pointing out behaviors that ought cause them cognitive dissonance. Been nice chatting with you, but I simply have other things I need to attend to - especially now that I've had an involuntary absence from work and will have to play catch up. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message . com... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message om... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... SNIP However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her bias: ""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open, verifiable and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American medicine, however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating." Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true. As I pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. There have always been examples of system malfunctions but those are hardly sufficient to prove systematic malfunction. SNIP Do you understand the context of the financial relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship. Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. Oh, wait. I think I said that before in the very next sentence. It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships. Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get. Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is what transparency does. The effects of bias can be reduced or eliminated from experiments through the use of randomization. The bias due to selection can - not the bias due to the design, as you suggest. Randomization does nothing for external validity other than to provide the necessary evidence of internal validity threats due to selection. You said you did research - this shouldn't be a new thing for you. To reduce or eliminate the effect of bias from policy-making committees, it is necessary to have competing points of view represented at the table. That simply isn't happening in the vaccine-policy committees. Their membership consists entirely of people with financial ties to the vaccine producing industry. The membership consists of people with expertise on the issues which is valued by a variety of customers - be they regulatory or commercial. These members get PAID to be part of the committee - are they therefore not beholden to the government? And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come to completely different conclusions if you like. OK - do it. http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who arrived at completely different conclusions. Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs myself. As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data. You might try reading the book yourself before dismissing it. I tend to rely on primary data - not interpretation of anecdote by journalists. I discount all such "exposes" for the simple reason that they are not data based. I'm sorry if you think that the op ed page is the same as JAMA. You asked a question that I could not answer in a single post, so I provided a site for the type of evidence you requested. If you don't care to bother to read it, that's fine. But dismissing it on the basis of hearsay evidence isn't particularly convincing to me. I've already formed my opinion of it based on its actual contents. Good for you. It's 10 years old, and it's not at my local library. I checked. Its a literary expose, not a science based analysis. Its opinions, not facts. It's anecdotes, not data. OK - which one of these statements izs a mischaracterization? SNIP I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a financial association between the information source and his evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow any bias to influence his decision. LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable. I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many, some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long. Yeah, right. You know, I used to have that sort of faith in some professions. Doctors and scientists and priests seem trustworthy kind of folks just by the very virtue of their professions. Did you catch the headlines the other day? It's estimated that over 11,000 Catholic priests have abused young boys. I'm not a Catholic priest. I am a scientist (ret). Look, I'm not disparaging these people, even though you seem to take it that way. You said yuou had no faith in their recommendations: "I also find it hard to place much faith in the pro-vaccination information provided by the CDC given that, with only a small amount of effort I found to very credible sources that indicate that ALL of the vaccine policy makers are financially beholden to the vaccine producing industry." I'm sorry - I took offense when you equated the whaletoo with the CDC sites. To me, that is one of the biggest insults possible - and even John would agree but for obviously different reasons. I really think that the people on these committees are, for the most part, intelligent well-educated men and women of high integrity doing their level best to make good decisions. I also think the vast majority of Catholic priests are good men, working hard to make the world, or at least their parish, a better place to live. Clearly you don't as you believed the headline without any data whatsoever. I'm even willing to suspend judgement on Michael Jackson. Maybe he's completely innocent. I don't know. But I wouldn't let my son spend the night over at his house. And I'm not comfortable with decisions made by a committee composed entirely of members with the same bias, even if that bias is openly admitted in all cases. I think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as fallible. When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial thing. When your livelyhood comes into conflict with your integrity it is not a trivial thing either. No - and that is my point exactly. It cannot be in conflict in that without one, the other is not possible. Why do you think that just because bias is known that it doesn't affect the outcome? Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research goes out the window. LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to achieve the results their sponsors want. You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant to be a yes man. I'm not so sure about that. You seem to get upset when someone disagrees with you about even trivial matters. "credible sources are difficult to find." "vaccine policy makers are financially beholden..." Not trivial points. How many consultants have you listened to when you disagreed with them? All of them. I pay them for that opinion. Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on. Chicken. Got a bit too close to home? No. Just got better things to do with my time. The only reason I'm responded to this post is because I came down with a bad flu last night and am typing this from home while I'm recovering. Bye. Which leaves us with what? No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you grinding? Must I have an axe to grind? I asked for your perspective basis - you suggest you have a scientific background and are trained in medical/drug evaluation, statistics, and epidemiology. I'm just curios if in fac that is true. Is it so hard to believe that I'm just another soul searching for truth and reason in this world? Why do I discuss these issues? I just enjoy needling reasonable men with discomfiting facts and pointing out behaviors that ought cause them cognitive dissonance. Been nice chatting with you, but I simply have other things I need to attend to - especially now that I've had an involuntary absence from work and will have to play catch up. You argue semantics and inuendo based on anecdote and supposition while arguing the possibility of scientific bias in spite of transparency and completeness. Strange. Very strange. And certainly enough to understand why you prefer to run away. js |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message . com... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... (abacus) wrote in message om... (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om... snip I didn't have a chance to look at your examples yesterday, but I did today. And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come to completely different conclusions if you like. OK - do it. http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who arrived at completely different conclusions. The two reports do not come to two completely different conclusions. The interpretation of the ten SAIC studies is identical - however, one author is not willing to accept the amount of evidence sufficient to generalize the results to all phenomena or ready to agree that all alternative explanations have been ruled out. As far as the ten experiments are concerned - as far as the interpretation of the statistical validity of the results - both articles agree. Thanks for proving my point. Data tables do not lie. Now, what biases influenced the second researcher? Why is he biased to the disagreement side? What beholdenness would you like to argue is driving his hesitancy to take the SAIC results beyond the ten studies? A difference in scientific opinion is not evidence of impropriety. js |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 13th 04 05:42 PM |
Homeschoolers to be vaccinated | al gu | Pregnancy | 20 | March 1st 04 05:28 AM |
vaccine genocide in Uganda update | john | Kids Health | 1 | December 11th 03 03:31 PM |
Vaccination is NOT immunization/Breastfeeding *is* immunization! | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 30 | October 6th 03 09:16 PM |
CAN YOU LOSE YOUR HAIR FROM A VACCINE? | john | Kids Health | 3 | September 25th 03 04:40 AM |