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 havenât 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 âlol cryptoâ 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. Itâs not âactionable behaviourâ 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 churchâs source is irrelevant to the merits of the study (although it is relevant to churchâs thought process and where heâs getting his information). As far as Iâm 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 donât 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 iâve 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
Iâve provided multiple direct quotes directly contradicting what Church said and you demand absolute mathematical proof vĂa 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 didnât! Churchâs claims are demonstrably pure bollocks.
i demand it of him not of you. if he doesnât show (i didnât bother reading some of his links) then heâs at blame here. why is this something you disagree with?
clearly your links donât prove it. I was there when Wookie said that vaccines will not be less effective vs the variants. He was wrong. Iâm 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 âat this moment in time everyone still claim vaccines arenât waningâ? Cause you proved that. This seems very clearly not what he meant to me.
Useless, now peer reviewed, study folks.
Thread âdocâ doesnât believe waningâs a thing pre Oct '21.
1 Like
A for commitment to the bit, but methinks youâve 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 weâre going to nit this up, I asked multiple times, Church refused to reveal the source because âyoutubesâ
Eventually CN sniffed out where the image came from:
Stuff has been deleted and I could be wrong, but I donât 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 âa sourceâ when it comes to a scientific paper Iâd 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.
I was referring to a deleted post between the two from you that you cited (your second post was a reply to this post).
So he didnât link to the particular youtube, but admitted that it was from a Dr. John Campbell Youtube.
2 Likes
There was another time church posted a screenshot about a study and claimed to be unable to find a link to the actual study, only for it to have been literally right below the text he screenshotted, but I havenât had much luck trying to find that instance.
Ah, I see. Deleted posts make these exchanges confusing.
Yup - to be clear, Iâm taking no position on Dr. John or the study (as Iâve not read the study and have zero knowledge of Dr. John), was just trying to clarify the exact details.
No, you are not understanding. This will hopefully be my last reply to you on this topic because you appear to have a blind spot about this. I will explain it like you are five years old.
There is more than the apparent source at question and you can define âsourceâ any way you like. In the cigarette smoking study hypothetical, the idea of the example is that the poster who posted the study did not just randomly come across that study. Since they are sympathetic to the viewpoints expressed there, the poster frequently visits the Tobacco industryâs PR website and this is where they found the study that was posted on the internet forum.
Do you see how that could possibly be relevant?
1 Like
It could, but it would be far better for you and everyone else if you read the actual paper and analyze it, especially when that paper is shown to you in itâs full with no hidden parts. This is the far superior scientific way to judge something.
Luckily every scientific journal in the world agrees with me, hence how this paper was published in Science even though it was referenced it seems by one or maybe many Anti-Vaxxers.
The person who originally brought up this point has already agreed to this.
You guys already agreed to this cause it appears you have in fact discussed the paper and even found yourself some issues with it.
Everyone has already agreed with my point, but you seem to think that by desperately holding on to the issue you somehow make Church look worse. He can make himself look bad by watching Dr John. He doesnât need you help. You can focus on the science paper.
I hope you understand this. You are arguing a point already conceded.
This is a good point and definitely my biggest complaint.
Just looking at where Churchill posts, itâs often contrarian takes and only in the threads with high potential for trolling: COVID, Russia/Ukraine, About Unstuck.
Now thereâs certainly no rule (nor should there be) that says that each poster should be posting in threads X, Y and Z, but when someone posts only in the shit-stirring threads and frequently sparks an event that results in shit being stirred, Iâm finding it difficult to not consider that trolling.
To be fair, we did exactly that and some posters sniffed out flaws that were later corrected during peer review.
I literally wrote that. I applauded you for it and your analysis itself.
Which is why this is a non-issue. This entire case is a non-issue. Are other cases issues? Possibly. This isnât. You just explained why. Thank god, case dimissed.
No, CN poppd into the twittershere and found a âguyâ that questioned the US led study and altered little about the findings of said US study, now proven wrong following peer review (give yourself a big pat ont the back guise) ZOMG 3% went to 13% for J&J, which 1% of the forum have been vaxxed with (irrelevant?)
Avi Bitterman md not to be a trusted source in the future - no check mark tweet proved wrong by peer review - nice source, CN.
Please stop