U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,817,449 times
Reputation: 4243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
He didn't head up that study. NaturalNews are, bluntly put, lying to you. Now, does that make you change your mind as regards their reliability as a source? We both know the answer to that, don't we?
what part of this statement is not true? I hope you're prepared to prove it, whatever you come up.

Poul Thorson is a scientist who formerly worked for the CDC, and over the last several years, he oversaw millions of dollars in grant money that was used to conduct research to "prove" that vaccines have no link to autism. Dr. Thorson's research papers include the famous "Danish Study" entitled Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291)


 
Old 05-14-2012, 11:12 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,891,393 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Maybe a week or two ago... but not recently.


The profound irony of that statement given the context of this thread is delicious.


To use the logical fallacy of tu quoque to defend egregiously bad science is worse than absurd, It's actually dishonest.
One minute you discuss conflict of interest as a problem, then the next you claim science doesn't care? Which is it?

I am not defending anything. Please show me where I defend, this so-called "egregiously bad science"?

You have a habit of personally accusing people, fraudulently, while not claiming your own flip-flopping. Now that is ironic.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,625,051 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
One minute you discuss conflict of interest as a problem, then the next you claim science doesn't care? Which is it?
Those are not mutually exclusive positions... as you should have figured out had you spent less time breathlessly looking for a rebuttal opportunity and more time focused on reading comprehension. So let me be as explicit as I possibly cam:

Conflicts of interest produce bad science. And the reason science ultimately does not care is because science is self correcting and over the medium run always manages to expose the bad, the incompetent and the dishionest. The poster boy for that eventual self correction is directly relevant to this thread; specifically the exposure of the 1998 Lancet paper that first linked vaccines to autism as a dishonest fraud.

If a conflict of interest exists and it delivers bad science, it will be exposed. The science will self correct. The science does not ultimately care. And in the specific area of research into a connection between vaccines and autism, that self correction has been consistent and unambiguous in terms of which position has proven to require correction.

In the specific case of the OP, the study's incompetence (and its explanation via a profound conflict of interest) was exposed immediately... and years ago! Why then do we find it resurrected here and dishonestly portrayed not merely as competent science, but as current science when it is stale as a four year old bagel? What about the anti-vaccine community leads it to accept knowing dishonesty as a legitimate rhetorical tactic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
I am not defending anything. Please show me where I defend, this so-called "egregiously bad science"?
If you wish to now furiously backpedal from essentially every post you have contributed to this thread, be my guest. I have no interest in holding you to a position that you are apparently now running away from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
You have a habit of personally accusing people, fraudulently, while not claiming your own flip-flopping. Now that is ironic.
It is clear to me that your intimate familiarity with irony does not include the ability to recognize it.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,625,051 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
what part of this statement is not true?
That's not the statement that was untrue. The statement that was untrue was the one in the post that you wrote and that was actually responded to:

Quote:
(NaturalNews) CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, who famously headed up the "Denmark Study" that many claim disproved any link between autism and vaccines, has been indicted in Atlanta by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and defrauding research institutions of grant money.

Learn more: CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme
The claim that Thorsen "headed up" the study is a bald faced lie.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:22 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,891,393 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Those are not mutually exclusive positions... as you should have figured out had you spent less time breathlessly looking for a rebuttal opportunity and more time focused on reading comprehension. So let me be as explicit as I possibly cam:

Conflicts of interest produce bad science. And the reason science ultimately does not care is because science is self correcting and over the medium run always manages to expose the bad, the incompetent and the dishionest. The poster boy for that eventual self correction is directly relevant to this thread; specifically the exposure of the 1998 Lancet paper that first linked vaccines to autism as a dishonest fraud.

If a conflict of interest exists and it delivers bad science, it will be exposed. The science will self correct. The science does not ultimately care. And in the specific area of research into a connection between vaccines and autism, that self correction has been consistent and unambiguous in terms of which position has proven to require correction.

In the specific case of the OP, the study's incompetence (and its explanation via a profound conflict of interest) was exposed immediately... and years ago! Why then do we find it resurrected here and dishonestly portrayed not merely as competent science, but as current science when it is stale as a four year old bagel? What about the anti-vaccine community leads it to accept knowing dishonesty as a legitimate rhetorical tactic?


If you wish to now furiously backpedal from essentially every post you have contributed to this thread, be my guest. I have no interest in holding you to a position that you are apparently now running away from.


It is clear to me that your intimate familiarity with irony does not include the ability to recognize it.
Well it's clear to me you like to sling mud and not much else. I haven't defended anything, except that we should have better independent studies.
Either you are deliberately trying to be deceitful, you truly have no other way to view the world, or you simply do not pay any attention to what others say or write. Maybe a combination in your case.

Last edited by CDusr; 05-15-2012 at 10:36 AM..
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,625,051 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Well it's clear to me you like to sling mud and not much else.
That can only be explained by a complete failure by you to actually have read this thread. It certainly has no other excuse that would leave you in even the most neutral of lights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
I haven't defended anything, except that we should have better independent studies.
Were this true, your presence in this thread is completely inexplicable. You have bent over backwards in the effort to misrepresent the state of current research, to disparage without cause or evidence the excellent science that has already been done in this area, and to try and make light of the explicit fraud that served as the foundation of the anti-vaccine community.

It is clear you also think us stupid. We are not.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,982 posts, read 12,230,274 times
Reputation: 14815
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
we should have better independent studies.
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this? Studies in vaccine-preventable disease, and vaccines themselves are undertaken globally by a multitude of independent organizations. How much more independent would you prefer they be before they are acceptable? Do you mean they should be executed by non-scientists? Please clarify your statement.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:50 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,469,099 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Well it's clear to me you like to sling mud and not much else. I haven't defended anything, except that we should have better independent studies.
Either you are deliberately trying to be deceitful, you truly have no other way to view the world, or you simply do not pay any attention to what others say or write. Maybe a combination in your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this? Studies in vaccine-preventable disease, and vaccines themselves are undertaken globally by a multitude of independent organizations. How much more independent would you prefer they be before they are acceptable? Do you mean they should be executed by non-scientists? Please clarify your statement.
Yeah how? What exactly should we do on vaccines that we're not doing now?

Vaccines undergo rigorous trials before brought to market. What do you think we should do to change that process?

 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: The D-M-V area
13,694 posts, read 15,608,962 times
Reputation: 9519
I would like to know the incidence of autism in countries around the world and compare that to vaccine programs given by the WHO/UNICEF etc. in developing countries and use those numbers to determine if autism is created by giving childhood vaccines. For the most part they are life savers not life takers.
 
Old 05-15-2012, 11:15 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,469,099 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
I would like to know the incidence of autism in countries around the world and compare that to vaccine programs given by the WHO/UNICEF etc. in developing countries and use those numbers to determine if autism is created by giving childhood vaccines. For the most part they are life savers not life takers.
Autism is NOT linked to vaccines. It's not. Study after study has repeatedly found no link. The belief that autism is linked to vaccines comes from the Wakefield study. The study was deeply flawed. The authors themselves admitted that such a conclusion could not be drawn from the original research.

Do you know what happened next?

Wakefield gave a press conference in which he stated that the study said it did. EVEN THOUGH THE STUDY DID NOT.

So there is no evidence.

We don't need to do anymore studies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top