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 The fact that this was at the time an unpublished preprint was very important information.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
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.