You are making assumptions about Churchill’s intention when his posting history points to him being mostly interested in stirring shit up.
you are trying to prove your point by saying your point is proven. that’s not good discussion.
1 Like
I’d say both options are about equal, especially in comparison with Option C which you correctly pointed out:
1 Like
Let me rephrase that then. A lot of preprints we have come across in the thread were of dubious quality and preprints in the middle of a pandemic when information and data was very much incomplete needed to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
everything should always be taken with a grain of salt. published or in stages of getting published. no arguments about that.
You seem to be convinced that every one who thinks Churchill’s posting has been bad is wrong despite not having read his posts.
Amazing
I literally said a million times he not only might be a bad poster, it seems obvious watching Dr John is bad.
I seem to be convinced that if he posted the PDF he did nothing wrong in this specific instance.
Why did you post what you just did when I REPEATEDLY said that’s not what I claim.
I flagged this post again for lack of content. Can you please reply to what is “Amazing”? This is a math equation and you are bad at math if you still don’t recognize you are factually mistaken.
I offered you to PM me so I can explain this to you if you like. You ignored my proposal and continue to post in what cannot be possibly characterized other than bad faith.
Please stop.
Yuv, I think you are trying hard but you are not seeing the forest for the trees. I know all analogies are terrible, but here’s my attempt:
Go back 60 years and pretend we are on a forum where smoking and cigarettes are topical. Somebody posts a link to a non-peer-reviewed study that concludes that cigarettes do not cause cancer and in fact have many health benefits.
The poster does not list the source of the study and refuses to when asked. Later it is revealed that the tobacco company funded the study and, or course, only released its findings when they were “positive” to their cause.
If that happens, once it’s no big deal. After a second or third time the poster’s motives would rightly be called into question. And if it were a moderated forum the next time it occurred the link would probably be removed and the poster given a timeout.
That’s a long-winded way of saying providing or not providing total transparency in sourcing can be important and can convey information it and of itself.
But he did, according to him.
I already agreed that not posting the source (WHICH IS THE PDF NOT DR JOHN) is bad etiquette. I did so in MY FIRST REPLY to makehaste.
I haven’t posted much in the covid thread since I got it a year and a half ago, probably have missed half the posts since.
I think his drive by posting runs people the wrong way and not engaging with people on their own citations is just kind if weird? The closest we have is probably how RM posts in the crypto thread, but he has way more “lol crypto” posts than just links to scams without any other substance to the post.
Posting a link, not commenting on it at all even when asked by people is kind of weird. It’s not “actionable behaviour” or anything, but people should actually discuss their posts imo.
1 Like
Just to be clear - what do you mean by source? In your example, they are hiding where the source of the actual study (or that it was funded by tobacco). Church only hid his source, not the actual source of the study. In his initial post he linked to the pdf for the actual study (plus the jpeg from Dr. John).
I think church’s source is irrelevant to the merits of the study (although it is relevant to church’s thought process and where he’s getting his information). As far as I’m aware, Dr. John had no involvement/relationship to the actual study - he was just using it in a youtube video (which I have not watched).
edit - looking more at the deleted posts, after he was asked by Trolly where he got the jpeg from he said it was from Dr. John, so I don’t think he even hid that part (unless he did a quick delete). To be fair, Trolly did have to ask twice.
9 Likes
omfg thank you. I thought i was taking crazy pills here.
this is the worst showing i’ve ever seen in this forum about a point that should be so fucking obvious. It really makes me question what i thought of some users intellectual capabilities dear god.
2 Likes
I’ve provided multiple direct quotes directly contradicting what Church said and you demand absolute mathematical proof vía and entire survey of their post histories over the past two years.
There have been clear and unambiguous statements that the vaccine effectiveness will wane over time. It would be un-Darwinian if they didn’t! Church’s claims are demonstrably pure bollocks.
i demand it of him not of you. if he doesn’t show (i didn’t bother reading some of his links) then he’s at blame here. why is this something you disagree with?
clearly your links don’t prove it. I was there when Wookie said that vaccines will not be less effective vs the variants. He was wrong. I’m sure I can find quotes of him saying it does after realizing he was wrong. Are those quotes proof that he never said they will not be less effective?
Why are you arguing this?
Edit - Do you think churchil claim is that “at this moment in time everyone still claim vaccines aren’t waning”? Cause you proved that. This seems very clearly not what he meant to me.
1 Like
A for commitment to the bit, but methinks you’ve about reached the reasonable limit of how often you get to call people ~morons in a 48 hour period, and your posts are going to start getting flagged.
2 Likes
If we’re going to nit this up, I asked multiple times, Church refused to reveal the source because “youtubes”
Eventually CN sniffed out where the image came from:
Stuff has been deleted and I could be wrong, but I don’t think he ever said where he got it from until after CN found it.
Thanks. If you have anything to add about the very strange (to me) confusion of so many people here as to what is the meaning of “a source” when it comes to a scientific paper I’d love to hear that.
I hope since Johnny explained it in english and not my gibberish, it will be fully understood by all and can be put to rest.