You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can the Scientific Community Better Respond to 'Fake News' in Science?
Yup. That was point #3 she suggested be improved upon. Thanks for the feedback.
Yup. That was point #3 she suggested be improved upon. Thanks for the feedback.
Another issue that I have observed is citing an article for something it did not say. This happens with my own work, out of curiosity I always look to see where a citing article has used my work. I would say 1/10 times the information I am being cited for was not indicated by my work, or the authors are making an inference that the data does not justify.
There really isn't a way to correct for this, and if it happens with my work, it likely happens all over the place.
Its hard to stop "fake news" when the primary sources contain false information from the outset.
Yes, just this week I investigate the claims made on a wikipedia article on small pox, there was no proof of the claim in the 6th edition and there is no reason to believe that going out there and finding the 4th edition will show the claim and even less the sources of it, as the whole book is full of bogus crap that is purported as science and used in educating the unquestioning doctors and physicians in our country.
https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadian-coconut/fathers-talk-about-their-unvaccinated-children-and-the-unbelievable-difference-from-most-kids#@baah/re-baah-re-timbo-re-baah-re-timbo-re-canadian-coconut-fathers-talk-about-their-unvaccinated-children-and-the-unbelievable-difference-from-most-kids-20170216t223242416z
Dude, cowpox was used to successfully shown to protect people against smallpox as early as the late 1700's/early 1800's. To further this, cowpox exposure had actually been observed to protect people against small pox for perhaps thousands of years if we are to look at Iranian nomadic peoples. [Source]
What the heck you talking about? What bogus information?
The article is full of crap:
"and believe that this action immunizes them against smallpox infection."
"The heads of the various tribes of Baluchistan assured me on the efficacy of this vaccination method. Although the disease is very rare, smallpox sometimes becomes epidemic."
All it takes is assurance and belief and guess what:
Sometimes becomes epidemic.
What else says it works than saying It doesn't.
Bogus information in the book Sherris Medical Microbiology:
Indistinguishable yet they distinguish the two.
Cowpox works to prevent smallpox yet epidemics still happen, it affects very few but it's epidemic at the same time...
Go ahead and explain the methods and how they tested that this still works: Because people didn't get infected with smallpox, even though it affected very few, and they tested this by claiming that it was cowpox that stopped the infection: without any way to prove it works, there is no way to prove that cowpox will stop smallpox because there are still people that get affected with smallpox after they have had been infected with cowpox, so exactly by what mechanism can you prove that cowpox is what provided immunity and not the body itself IN SPITE of cowpox.
Indistinguishable angenically not indistinguishable. The only thing full of crap here is what you are posting.
If it is distinguishable then show exactly how they distinguish it, because:
Don't try to play word games, it says it right there, and don't try to speak out of your ass about stuff that clearly you don't have knowledge of.
The hint that they are bogus/full of crap is the blue text on the right side: Hard to distinguish, but offer no methodology about exactly what the mechanism is to distinguish between the two if it isn't antigenic.
The other part is the discrepancy of 3-40%.. another bullshit statistic derived without sources which yells bullshit/we don't know but we assume.
Statistics explains that it works. Give people cowpox as a vaccine, see reduction in small pox cases that is statistically relevant over a long period of time? Well guess what bub, then the coxpox inoculation is the causative agent for protection from the small pox.
All you are showing me is that the vaccination does not provide 100% immunity, okay. So what? Again you are misinterpreting things.
Which statistics? Your assertion is not fact, you are regurgitating scientific fraud purported for over 200 years. Look into the book The Poisoned Needle, everything in that book is sourced and verifiable, unlike Sherri's Medical Microbiology which offered ZERO sources or citations.
Look into the book "How to lie with statistics".
Without methodology and causation shown clearly and not through mere inference and conjecture based on what is thought to be happening there is nothing to understand besides assumptions and unproven claim for those mechanisms.
Prove:
and
So what? So study/infer into how/why it works and don't blindly accept explanations that have no methodology for testing such things.
Statistics never EXPLAIN, they show causation. Word games.
I didn't show anything, you did with your own article where it said that epidemics happen in spite of vaccination. How smallpox was eradicated when only a small minority of the population was ever vaccinated: because vaccinations.
Could you please stop spamming me with your nonsense? Talking with you will get me nowhere, you are a lost cause. So I am not going to bother.
Edit: I am not bullying you in any capacity. I asked quite nicely if you could please stop spamming me. Thanks! Its a waste of both of our time.
O really, you've resorted to not sourcing your claims and turning tail and running because I am "spamming". Please tell me what to do some more, it's only the internet and you cannot source your claims.
Nothing like trying to bully someone with a name like mine by telling them what to do, guess what, someone tried you and you chose not to show how:
I am not spamming, that is your opinion. I am calling bullying solely on your inability to leave the conversation and deal with my "trouble" by telling me what to do, Please stop spamming is not nice, in any capacity..
I can say Go fuck yourself or Please Go fuck yourself, please won't change you telling me what to do, or how to because you believe in a nice way "I am a lost cause".
You called my questions and observations Nonsense and said I was spamming, then told me that I am a lost cause, and you won't bother with me?, and now you want to claim that it was nice, your opinion matters. Do you understand what antigenic markers mean? or that it is the only way viruses are identified? at least as markers for viruses, and even that is very reaching as those antigens haven't been shown to do that, it has only been assumed that it works that way and not the other way or that antigens themselves actually work as they were believe to work for ever (probably don't know that just recently a study has been published showing that the mechanism of one key for one virus as they thought antigens worked was false) because even antigens being doesn't mean that they happen because of the virus, as I have brought into question, or that you failed to provide ONE source for your claims when I asked you for them REPEATEDLY, that's why you were in fact spamming nonsense and I called it instead scientific fraud, which WAS a nice way of saying:
CONSIDER THE METHODS, CONSIDER THE FACTS, STOP REPEATING WHAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AS FACT, AND PLEASE SOURCE AND CITE YOUR CLAIMS.
You sought to play word games with things like indistinguishable/indistinguishable antigenically when in this context it means the same thing and then on the margin they(authors of SMM) can outright claim that it's only HARD to distinguish(so is it hard or indistinguishable antigenically), so exactly how did they distinguish? They didn't they just inferred, and what was it inferred from or how, WHO KNOWS!? You also dismissed or didn't address the incredible discrepancy of 3-40% which screams more bogus bullshit and continued with your paradigm of "Cowpox inoculation against smallpox" because assertions are facts when in fact it only takes common sense to see that cowpox inoculation doesn't WORK from your own SOURCE, to which you say "so what it works for 90% or whatever arbitrary number you want to use" as I pointed out that there is no way to test for immunity caught through cowpox to smallpox when smallpox still becomes epidemic after vaccination/inoculation with cowpox and sought to assert that statistics show it works by not offering statistics or any sources and no knowledge on the methodology of testing these statistics, just more inference from assumptions as you failed to provide exactly how much of the population was inoculated, the most important thing.
Epic Can't try you for shit, your opinion matters because what you think of me has any bearing on you providing information/sources for your claims.
True, that's an issue. I think that's what she refers to in #2 and in other places with regards to that involvement you are doing to "quality control" how people are using the data. Good job on keeping an eye out for that ;)
The issue is, I'm not doing any "quality control" as their really aren't any mechanisms by which those factual inaccuracies can be corrected. I just observe this, but can't do anything about it.
Well, the "quality control" alluding to coca-cola, is that they monitor when people are using information incorrectly, and set out to correct it in social media, maybe contact the site putting it out. Not sure how viable that is for you, but that's how they are doing the quality control by countering the incorrect data. Usually sites these days have comments so that someone can correct it. There is no official way to get them to correct it though, but someone objecting to it at least it's there for others to come across.