physiciansforinformedconsent.org
physiciansforinformedconsent.org
They can, but I'm now of a view that peer reviewed articles and publications suffer from human behavior, including greed, ego, apathy and group think. A recent book "Doctored" by Piller goes through a few of those traits (including outright fraud) in some very main stream and well-respected Alzheimer's research.
Not sure anyone says not believing someone is bs, maybe just healthy skepticism. And for me, extraordinary claims (that someone can transmit and another can receive thoughts, or however explained) require extraordinary evidence. The fact that she is a neuropsychiatrist doesn't mean she is immune from above-referenced flaws.
Agreed
Lots of people got that wrong, and plenty of other stuff. That someone was wrong in the past doesn't, alone, mean they are wrong again. But a skeptic posting about any complicated topic via social media makes me think he isn't very serious. But I don't think many people are serious.
One - very little research is funded other than by for profit companies, and usually pharmaceutical companies. It makes sense, but it's unfortunate. It's one area in which I would agree with more government spending - but that's a theory and any group of people of more than maybe 5 people are highly likely to screw that up in another way, and if it's a gov't program, double the chances.
^^^this is science, or at least part of it. Everyone should try to prove someone else's theory wrong. Unfortunately much is done today instead that builds upon someone else's hypothesis, even if the studies that the proponent has published supporting said hypothesis has never been replicated. See "Doctored" referenced above, and something called the Replication Crisis.
I knew it! God told you to buy more gear, right? Me too!
I haven't even listened to the podcast (I will be trying to listen to the first one, to try to be a good sport), but I find this even more unlikely than the underlying premise. See Replication Crisis above, which applies to even "normal" scientific research.
I may have missed in this thread where someone attached the kids and parents. She's putting herself out there and making big claims, so she should expect some skepticism and criticism. Not sure we attacked her here either.
I agree with much of the above, and that's part of my skepticism. There are plenty of "knowns" that we now know were wrong - Sun revolving around the Earth, Earth is flat, Vioxx is a wonder drug, get 6 weeks of bed rest after a heart attack. Who knows now what we believe that will later be found to be invalid?
This was one of the saddest parts of "Doctored" above - the incredible amount of money spent on research that has not yielded anything, and in a material respect, was based upon fraudulent foundational aspects. Just think about how that money could have been better allocated.
I would normally absolutely agree on this point and would await replication. Unfortunately today the news of replication is often conveyed by writers who don't know the difference between correlation and causation ("Red wine makes you live longer!"). But since I've gone through this insane mulit-post quote post, I should probably spend at least a few minutes listening to it. But I might start with the link that @Marbles posted.
IMHO you should be biased that it is not real.
^^^ this. If only there was some sort of forum in which a rational and neutral reporter would ask someone who is a proponent and opponent and then we can hear both sides.
I, for one, was surprised at some of the things he has written about that were news to me - Fauci's work and critics during the beginning of AIDS (etc.), some of the ingredients in vaccines and a few other things. The problem is that some of the other claims are not as easily verifiable and just sound whacko, which then makes me question other stuff.
Truth
I think he was referring to the 100% success rate you mentioned and/or that others have reproduced it with exact results.
Correct, I did not click your link to social media.
So more non-peer reviewed publications.Wanna learn about the HEP B jab and newborns?
Hepatitis B Vaccine: Is It Safer Than Hepatitis B?
The hepatitis B vaccine used for mass vaccination of infants since 1991. About 50% of vaccinated children lose immunity after turning 5.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yet more non-peer reviewed publications.If you want to know about any childhood vaccine you can find the info at this website.
Physicians for Informed Consent
Deliver data on infectious diseases and vaccines, unite doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The opinions in that article, and statements of fact (how the video displays what is being done) are more believable than thoughts passing through the air, but only by autistic kids, and only those autistic kids who can't communicate on their own.
No, it’s not.
I’m a chemist by training and ex-professor, who now works on the clinical trial side of biopharma for a living. I have spent lots and lots of time with peer reviewed literature.
