let me know what proof you’re after, Yuv?
because it will cause the people in the forum to disregard the paper which has big enough importance that Science decided to publish it
(I will say that i haven’t actually checked if Science published it, I’m taking greg word on it i hope it’s true).
Seems like he was right in this case.
It seems obvious that Church watched this Dr John fellow. It seems also obvious that Dr John is being accused of providing false information at times. That’s not great for Church, but that’s his right. As long as he provides the studies Dr John is referencing for you guys to dissect, his source is irrelevant. I can’t see how this point can even be challenged in anyway, unless the conversation is churchill good or bad. It shouldn’t be the conversation.
2 Likes
I don’t remember the exact claim you made, but I think it was that people in the thread denied vaccine wanning at some point? Proof of that.
1 Like
Why would they get so angry about the screenshot, indicating that vaccine waning may be a thing, the first from a US study of (just) 680,000 people. Why would I post that study, if it was well known at the time. All of Trolly’s ‘hey I believe in waning posts’ were generated by me posting the study.
I’ll find the posts.
This seems VERY dubious.
Having an unknown source for stuff like this is always worse for credibility than an unknown source.
No waning apparently, just 4 weeks ago (but keep choking that chicken) Vermont nonetheless, 90% against infection. must be peer reviewed. I chose not to respond.
1 Like
Funny, just today I acknowledged that CN’s “Dr. John” bit was out of line. Him railing about that monkeypox article was needlessly abrasive. He’s a dock quite often.
Go ahead and flag his posts when you think he’s being inappropriate, see if I complain.
Your sentence seemed like it got messed up, so maybe edit?
I find this discussion so strange and anti-science. What is the meaning of a source when regarding a paper? A paper is a paper. That’s the source. It has authors. Their name is out there to be examine. Their work is out there to be examine. This discussion makes no sense if indeed a link was provided.
I literally gave you a link with direct quotes.
See whosnext’s post. During the pandemic a lot of garbage pre-prints were linked and shared. You could find a preprint for about every bunk claim. The fact that this was at the time an unpublished preprint was very important information.
I explained why those quotes aren’t a proof in the literal post you quoted.
I don’t want to accuse you of bad faith, but it’s getting close.
Claim A: People in the thread said vaccine waning isn’t real
Trolly: Here are examples where they did say it real.
That doesn’t prove claim A wrong. All claim A has to do is show one instance (or more) where they said waning isn’t happening. Clearly opinions change, like the examples I gave. Your quotes do nothing to prove Church is a liar, but as I mentioned, it’s not on YOU to prove that, it’s on HIM.
Please stop with that. You are writing things that make no logical sense even when I explain them in a way that there’s absolutely no way you can misunderstand. I get that it’s funny to say I’m a bad communicator and as you know english isn’t my first language so that is always an insecure spot, but no one can believe you really don’t understand why you didn’t prove he’s lying. It’s impossible.
so is the conclusion that preprints shouldn’t be discussed? I don’t get the point. Preprints that was mentioned on Dr John shouldn’t be discussed?
I’m not saying any of you should have accepted that paper as gospel.
Every study posted in that thread, since chapter one is a pre-print. Covid moves fast, people need early indicators.
Your response to “Why do you think he omits his sources?” was “because it will cause the people in the forum to disregard the paper”.
This makes no sense to me.
And, I didn’t omit the source. I posted the paper. It was deleted. The summary of the paper, a jpeg, was not the relevant source. The paper was the source. I posted the paper… your honour.
Unless I’m wrong, it looks like in his initial post Church linked the study and the jpeg from the Dr. John Youtube. It seems the issue was that the jpeg might not have perfectly matched the data in the study (I’m not clear on this) and church was circumspect about revealing exactly what youtube video it came from (but admitted it was from youtube).
Once the source (of the jpeg) was reveleaed, the discussion turned from whether the study had merit, to whether Dr. John was an anti-vaxxer/quack.
3 Likes
Why? Church source was Dr John. Dr John is a terrible source (I assume), but the paper in question isn’t.
Option 1:
a) Hi guise here’s a screengrab from the guy you hate will you ignore that and talk about the paper?
b) Hi guise here’s an unknown screengrab
followed by a link to paper.
option B is way better imo if you want the paper to be discussed.
is it better to:
- Not watch Dr. John
- Wait till you have the PDF link and only post that?
Absolutely.
Again, you are not familiar with Churchill’s posting history. I don’t understand why you are so confident that Churchill’s intention was just to share some information that might be interesting.
- We knew at the time that preprints are suspect
- We knew that Campbell is a conspiracy theorist.
- Campbell promoted a preprint.
- Churchill then posted it.
Given 1&2 you don’t think 3 is important information when 4 happens?
that makes no sense. Preprints aren’t a thing. They’re a phase in publishing papers. They are not suspect or unsuspect.
The rest of your posts shows that you had a bias that made it impossible for you to assess the paper had church given the source. You are quite literally proving his point.
3 Likes