Two Up

[Crankitup]

.... raises the question why you seem unaware he's considered a loon by, well, normal people?

I couldn't care less what people think of him. Plenty of people in the past who have made breakthroughs in science have been considered nuts by the prevailing orthodoxy. I just want to debate the science. You OTOH like to waste time on the peripheral issues.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I couldn't care less what people think of him.

"him"? what happened to "them"? which articles has he published in peer-reviewed journals do you think are particularly relevant to this thread/immunology?

Plenty of people in the past who have made breakthroughs in science have been considered nuts by the prevailing orthodoxy.

and many, many more have just been nuts. which "breakthroughs" do you think he has provided or is on the verge of?

I just want to debate the science. You OTOH like to waste time on the peripheral issues.

if you really wanted to debate facts and research, you'd be honest and admit you had no f'n idea who mercola was when you lazily copy-pasted his site as a reference.

 

[Crankitup]

"him"? what happened to "them"? which articles has he published in peer-reviewed journals do you think are particularly relevant to this thread/immunology?



and many, many more have just been nuts. which "breakthroughs" do you think he has provided or is on the verge of?



if you really wanted to debate facts and research, you'd be honest and admit you had no f'n idea who mercola was when you lazily copy-pasted his site as a reference.

Still wasting time debating prepheral issues?

Seriously it wasn't long ago that you said the following when I suggested you should debate the issue instead:

...
honestly, just can't be bothered trying to properly engage with every cretin that thinks what they reference has some merit. whack-a-mole is a tiring (and tiresome) excercise.

Since then you've responded 4 times to me. If you'd just debated the science with me instead of the other BS maybe we might get somewhere. I think the reason you don't is that you're already aware that the opposing argument to your own worldview actually has some merit.

Finally, you've made mention of peer reviewed articles. Are you saying if I quote someone who has published several you would listen to what they've said? If so, you're digging yourself a mighty big hole. Just forget the BS and debate the issue, or piss off.

 

[chargers 09]

Actually no. Hence the debate.

You're a nurse yes?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Still wasting time debating prepheral issues?

haha, says the guy that tried to make a big song and dance about grammar
but at least we're making progress. we've ascertained you're merely a lazy googler as opposed to a mercola subscriber.

Seriously it wasn't long ago that you said the following when I suggested you should debate the issue instead:

and i've been mocking you ever since? i feel pretty comfortable with the consistency.

Since then you've responded 4 times to me.

impulse control problems. we all have our vices.

If you'd just debated the science with me instead of the other BS maybe we might get somewhere.

please, dazzle me with more of your science nous by quoting celebrity pseudoscience profiteers.

I think the reason you don't is that you're already aware that the opposing argument to your own worldview actually has some merit.

uh huh. those 911 conspiracy theorists, flat earthers and holocaust deniers are just destroying my worldview, man.

Finally, you've made mention of peer reviewed articles. Are you saying if I quote someone who has published several you would listen to what they've said?

hahahaha. no, buddy. you used mercola as a source without knowing anything about "them". rather than do the adult thing and admit your error, you doubled-down on that stupid 'they're' grammar post (lol), pretending you totally knew who we were talking about. the peer-review retort from me was just a challenge to you to find a study published in a reputable journal by mercola in the field of immunology (serious scientific debate being oh so important to you). admittedly this request was unfair given i know no such study exists, but such are the traps for inexperienced players and their first few games of Spot the Crank.

 

[Crankitup]

haha, says the guy that tried to make a big song and dance about grammar ...

Nice attempt to rewrite history there bud. YOU acted as the grammar police when you first questioned my use of the word 'they're' when referrring to a singular person. I explained that there was no problem using it in this way and provided one of many dictionary references that supports me in this. That should have been the end of it, but still the merry go round continues.

You still persist with your delusion about thinking I must never have come across Mercola before. Do I need to trawl back through my internet history to find articles of his I've read in the past and put up on Bigfooty screenshots of the URLs and dates I accessed them? Will that then end this ridiculous charade?

the peer-review retort from me was just a challenge to you to find a study published in a reputable journal by mercola in the field of immunology (serious scientific debate being oh so important to you). admittedly this request was unfair given i know no such study exists...

I'm well aware no such study exists but you're missing the point. What is the point of connecting him and peer review unless you're trying to suggest that because peer review is so valuable his contributions are valueless. The flipside of this argument is that people who HAVE had articles published in peer review journals are of worthy & should be taken notice of. Otherwise your point is a complete and utter waste of time.

So then, let's see, I can think of a certain cardiothoracic surgeon who is also a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University who directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, has authored more than 400 medical research papers & holds several patents. His name? Dr. Oz. Now I don't think you would hold him in any high esteem whatsoever and probably also think of him as a quack and yet using your implied argument about peer review and value you should listen to him.

Are you ready to debate the issue yet?

 

[CM86]

Actually no. Hence the debate.

For example?

Also, welcome to the Internet, where you can argue for days(debate) without having a shred of evidence.

 

[DemonTim]

Nice attempt to rewrite history there bud. YOU acted as the grammar police when you first questioned my use of the word 'they're' when referrring to a singular person. I explained that there was no problem using it in this way and provided one of many dictionary references that supports me in this. That should have been the end of it, but still the merry go round continues.

You still persist with your delusion about thinking I must never have come across Mercola before. Do I need to trawl back through my internet history to find articles of his I've read in the past and put up on Bigfooty screenshots of the URLs and dates I accessed them? Will that then end this ridiculous charade?







I'm well aware no such study exists but you're missing the point. What is the point of connecting him and peer review unless you're trying to suggest that because peer review is so valuable his contributions are valueless. The flipside of this argument is that people who HAVE had articles published in peer review journals are of worthy & should be taken notice of. Otherwise your point is a complete and utter waste of time.

So then, let's see, I can think of a certain cardiothoracic surgeon who is also a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University who directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, has authored more than 400 medical research papers & holds several patents. His name? Dr. Oz. Now I don't think you would hold him in any high esteem whatsoever and probably also think of him as a quack and yet using your implied argument about peer review and value you should listen to him.

Are you ready to debate the issue yet?

Your entire point in this post is based on a fallacy. Valuing peer review, does not mean that all peer review is valuable.

 

[Nothing]

For the record - I studied for a Bachelor of Science degree at UWA some years ago. I didn't finish the degree mind you, having gained employment before needing to do so. I've often thought about going back and finishing what I started.

Well clearly the value of education was lost on you. I maintain, anyone who has an iota of knowledge does not give credence to crackpot ideas about vaccines.

The thing about Anti-vaxxers is that their stupidity costs other people's lives. Often their children.

 

[Flash of power]

It's the mercury... it causes the down syndrome.

No its fluoride, or was it peanuts, not sure, but was one of them.

 

[Long Live HFC]

You still persist with your delusion about thinking I must never have come across Mercola before.

you don't get the fact that by doing so I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt! otherwise, if you did know who mercola was, yet still believed he was a reasonable source to use in discussions such as this, this fact alone identifies you as a bit of a loon. which just goes to show how good my instincts were

I'm well aware no such study exists but you're missing the point. What is the point of connecting him and peer review unless you're trying to suggest that because peer review is so valuable his contributions are valueless. The flipside of this argument is that people who HAVE had articles published in peer review journals are of worthy & should be taken notice of. Otherwise your point is a complete and utter waste of time.

So then, let's see, I can think of a certain cardiothoracic surgeon who is also a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University who directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, has authored more than 400 medical research papers & holds several patents. His name? Dr. Oz. Now I don't think you would hold him in any high esteem whatsoever and probably also think of him as a quack and yet using your implied argument about peer review and value you should listen to him.

you're right, I do think people who have published research in quality journals are worthy of attention, if their opinions are related to and are consistent with what they've published (and is replicated/supported by other researchers of course). the stupid shit Oz promotes on his show is completely at odds with what he's published. so, I ignore what he spews in order to sell his snake oil and tshirts, but if there was a quality article from a reputable journal then I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand.

so, to answer your question, mercola is a nut who has published **** all and who contributes nothing to our understanding about anything and should be routinely ignored. Oz is also a nut, but perhaps just a capitalist one who likes to take advantage of people for $$, who should also be dismissed unless his opinion comes in a more professional package than his site/tv show.

Are you ready to debate the issue yet?

let's see...you think washing our hands or flushing the shitter did more to eliminate smallpox than vaccination...sorry, not quite there yet.

 

[JoseMourinho]

let's see...you think washing our hands

I'd say washing our hands would be a pretty big thing in the medical profession! .

Saved a whole ton of lives

 

[Good_Old]

I'd say washing our hands would be a pretty big thing in the medical profession! .

Saved a whole ton of lives

**** off Jose.

 

[JoseMourinho]

**** off Jose.

I'm not joking, the guy who suggested the medical profession to wash their hands and have basic hygiene was essentially bullied into a depression.

I'm not sure if it did much for smallpox though.

 

[Good_Old]

I'm not joking

Neither am I.

 

[Crankitup]

...if you did know who mercola was, yet still believed he was a reasonable source to use in discussions such as this, this fact alone identifies you as a bit of a loon.

That's quite ironic for a number of reasons.

(1) While you proclaim to hold peer review in the highest of esteem, Mercola actually reads and reviews more peer-reviewed medical journal articles in a week than I suspect you have in your whole life. He provides a free weekly newsletter and website where he provides reviews of 10-20 peer-reviewed articles selected from the 2-300 newly published articles that he and his associate editor read each week.

(2) The article you've had such a great issue with all this time, whilst posted on his website, wasn't actually even written by Mercola! You probably never had the chance to realise this as you've already admitted to being too pressed for time to thoroughly engage with people like me who you consider to be a 'loon'. You probably just saw his name in the link I provided and thought - HAHA! Poison the well time. No need to do any actual work, i.e. trying to debunk the facts about smallpox epidemics in the past that have been created by vaccination. Now you'll probably try and dig up some dirt on the real author of the article so again you won't have to engage with the facts presented. That presents another irony. It would probably take you less time to engage with the facts rather than the approach you are currently persisting with. In any case sooner or later I'll find a site or article that presents the same statistics from a source who's whiter than snow in their purity, someone who you can't find even a hint of dirt to throw at. What will your approach be then? Probably something akin to - "I don't have time to debate this any more" - anything to avoid the issue and the FACTS.

TBH I'm currently fairly agnostic on vaccination. If you look at my first post here on the issue you will see that I have been reading up on it recently (having come across some things that challenged my preconceived notions on it's effectiveness & safety). I'll repost my original statement again and I think you might see that I've been pretty unfairly characterised as a 'loon' and an 'anti vaxxer' when I'm really presenting my current agnostic/seeking for truth state of mind on this issue.

Sorry for thread resurrection but was doing some research on smallpox and came across this Bigfooty thread. A lot of what I have come across so far points to two things - (a) in the whole history of vaccinination/innocolation programs targeting smallpox, far more people have contracted the disease through them than have been protected from it and (b) better hygiene and sanitation are far more compelling causes for it's eradication in much the same way as polio & the Black Death/Bubonic Plague.

I know you and many others would prefer I was firmly in one camp or the other on this issue. It's much easier to ridicule someone effectively once you've been able to properly label them.

 

[Probitas_]

In any case sooner or later I'll find a site or article that presents the same statistics from a source who's whiter than snow in their purity, someone who you can't find even a hint of dirt to throw at. What will your approach be then? Probably something akin to - "I don't have time to debate this any more" - anything to avoid the issue and the FACTS.

This won't happen because anyone backing an anti-vaccination stance will turn out ultimately to be a loon.

This really isn't something open for discussion. It's like arguing for the flat earth theory. The numbers are in, the science is done, fringe crazies aren't going to change the results. Normally I don't care, believe what you'd like, this on the other hand is dangerous and looney.

 

[CM86]

That's quite ironic for a number of reasons.

(1) While you proclaim to hold peer review in the highest of esteem, Mercola actually reads and reviews more peer-reviewed medical journal articles in a week than I suspect you have in your whole life. He provides a free weekly newsletter and website where he provides reviews of 10-20 peer-reviewed articles selected from the 2-300 newly published articles that he and his associate editor read each week.

(2) The article you've had such a great issue with all this time, whilst posted on his website, wasn't actually even written by Mercola! You probably never had the chance to realise this as you've already admitted to being too pressed for time to thoroughly engage with people like me who you consider to be a 'loon'. You probably just saw his name in the link I provided and thought - HAHA! Poison the well time. No need to do any actual work, i.e. trying to debunk the facts about smallpox epidemics in the past that have been created by vaccination. Now you'll probably try and dig up some dirt on the real author of the article so again you won't have to engage with the facts presented. That presents another irony. It would probably take you less time to engage with the facts rather than the approach you are currently persisting with. In any case sooner or later I'll find a site or article that presents the same statistics from a source who's whiter than snow in their purity, someone who you can't find even a hint of dirt to throw at. What will your approach be then? Probably something akin to - "I don't have time to debate this any more" - anything to avoid the issue and the FACTS.

TBH I'm currently fairly agnostic on vaccination. If you look at my first post here on the issue you will see that I have been reading up on it recently (having come across some things that challenged my preconceived notions on it's effectiveness & safety). I'll repost my original statement again and I think you might see that I've been pretty unfairly characterised as a 'loon' and an 'anti vaxxer' when I'm really presenting my current agnostic/seeking for truth state of mind on this issue.



I know you and many others would prefer I was firmly in one camp or the other on this issue. It's much easier to ridicule someone effectively once you've been able to properly label them.

You can't be agnostic about vaccination.

Vaccination isn't unquantifiable. There is actual testable and observable evidence that vaccination exists, and that it works.

There are only two camps in this 'debate'. Right and wrong.
If you're saying that all of the evidence doesn't convince you, then you are wrong.
"I'm not against vaccination, I just think we need to do more tests" - Standard idiot anti-vaxxer

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I love vaccines. I do have an asthma reaction to one of them (MMR I think), but for me the potential of getting measles or mumps is far worse than having to have my vaccination in a hospital just in case.

 

[Gough]

I had both measles, and mumps when I was a kid. Measles gets you on the news these days, all I got was a week off school.

 

[00Stinger]

Remember that time about 5 years ago where there was a massive outbreak of polio in Australia?

Oh that's right there wasn't because immunizations stopped it years ago

/Thread

 

[Long Live HFC]

(1) While you proclaim to hold peer review in the highest of esteem, Mercola actually reads and reviews more peer-reviewed medical journal articles in a week than I suspect you have in your whole life. He provides a free weekly newsletter and website where he provides reviews of 10-20 peer-reviewed articles selected from the 2-300 newly published articles that he and his associate editor read each week.

given the profits he makes from selling his snake oil and misrepresenting science, this isn't remotely surprising.

(2) The article you've had such a great issue with all this time, whilst posted on his website, wasn't actually even written by Mercola!

never claimed it was, didn't care if it wasn't, didn't care to check. it's his site and he's ultimately responsible for its content; if something is worth looking at someone (in this example: you) should be able to find a better source than that hive of nuttery. you never got back to me after you asked me to provide 5 reasons for him being a nut? what happened to that line of enquiry?

You probably just saw his name in the link I provided and thought - HAHA! Poison the well time. No need to do any actual work

that's exactly what happened; a fact which I alluded to across multiple posts. how did you ever crack my code!?

i.e. trying to debunk the facts about smallpox epidemics in the past that have been created by vaccination. Now you'll probably try and dig up some dirt on the real author of the article so again you won't have to engage with the facts presented.

lol, why on earth would I do that? find its link in the lancet or something if you want something paid more respect than the dog shit sandwich you originally served up.

I'll repost my original statement again.

no need to, I remember what it said- it's like you think this argument is new to anyone. the whole sanitation > vaccination argument is a popular piece of idiocy from the anti vaxx brigade, and has been around for quite some time. new concept for you I take it? you never bothered to even try and reply to Messenger's WHO link addressing your argument. so I am sticking with the tomato-throwing

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I had both measles, and mumps when I was a kid. Measles gets you on the news these days, all I got was a week off school.

I had german measles before my booster

 

[Adzam]

It's not really something you can have even a slightly close to intelligent conversation about. You are an idiot if you are against vaccines.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

I don't know why people are against vaccines, it gets a free wollipop