Reading List ( cleaned up)

cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote:
In article <1150298072.337871.242100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote:
In article <1150211226.513739.295230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David Wright wrote: In article
<1150120471.826670.228240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't need to defend a reading list. The suggestion that I do is idiotic,
at best.

Then all I can assume is that your list is also idiotic, since you can't
even provide any reasons why anyone should bother reading anything on it.

If you need a reason to read, you're a dolt.

And as for Scheibner, OK, here we go:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1997/1_immunise.htm

Happy now?

More amused than anything. A website (subscription-based with a shopping
mall, no less) devoted to shedding light on vampires, ouija boards, goblins,
and lucky charms? Is that where you spend your time?

The URL I provided simply produces an article explaining why Scheibner's
"research" is bogus.

You haven't bothered to defend that article, which you say is necessary
before someone take time to read it. So then, what's your defense? Or does
that only apply to material others recommend?

I notice you aren't able to defend her "research," so you are reduced to
complaining about the site containing the URL. Yawn.

You're the one making making the stupid argument that you need someone to
explain why you should read material on a reading list. That tells me you
aren't bright enough to make your own decisions, so just shut up and do what
you're told. But then, you do that already.

Still no rebuttal of the (many) points raised concerning the Scheibner book.
Just more kindergarten insults. Petey just gets more and more shrill,
doesn't he?

David won't let me. He insists it must first be defended. I am waiting for
his defense of Basser, since I will otherwise have no reason to read the
article. Maybe you can talk some sense into him. No, that won't work.
Perhaps you could preach one of your little sermons. Or just defend Basser
yourself. They say laughter is the best medicine.

Oh, I forgot to mention--no-one has come up with any criticism of the Basser
article from which to defend it.

No one is asking you to defend criticism of the article. David says you
can't recommend a book or article without first defending it, without regard
to a rebuttal.

Gee, PeterB, your living in your own fantasy world must make your life a lot
simpler. I said nothing of the sort. You can recommend anything you want --
but you've gone to some lengths to avoid saying that you recommend anything
on your list, remember? You just keep telling us that it's just a list and
you don't need to defend it.

I don't "defend" the lobster tail at a favorite seafood restaurant I
recommend, either. You either try it, or you don't.

So I posted a URL that exposes the shoddiness of one of your list items, and
I do recommend the article at that URL, and I think it bears reading because
it's a good rebuttal of Scheibner.

Your premise was that you shouldn't have to read anything someone recommends
if they don't defend it first. Basser's rebuttal is not
*your* rebuttal, it's Basser's. I also find no published works by Basser,
just this one article circulating among your drug defending friends like
Barrett and Bowditch. Unfortunately, vaccine is a poorly researched medical
intervention that remains highly suspect and unproven. Even if it works 50%
of the time, the reward-risk benefit is unknown if you haven't done the
proper safety studies.

Basser, on the other hand produced many cogent criticisms of the Scheibner
book, which poor Petey has yet to address.

If you don't believe enough in Basser's material to defend it, why should
anyone believe you?

Basser's material defends itself. Also, nobody needs to go buy a book (or
find it at the library) to read it, they can do it online. Let's see you do
that with Scheibner's book.

It's sad you're so lazy. And again, Scheibner is a published author,
whereas Basser's article only shows up on sites managed by your drug-happy
friends.

What a lot of tap-dancing Petey's doing to avoid the fact that he obviously
can't rebut a single one of Basser's cogent criticisms of Scheibner's rag.

You haven't bothered to defend Basser's material, why should I?

Let's give him another chance. It might be fun since it involves the use of
statistics:

"In reviewing the development of the pertussis vaccine earlier this century
Dr Scheibner mentions two studies reporting on epidemics that affected the
Faeroe Islands, and reports that:

In both epidemics six patients of the 3,926 vaccinated died and 26 among the
1,073 unvaccinated cases died.2(p15)

Unfortunately, that was not an randomized, controlled study. When you have
one, let me know.

This result appears to support a contention that is anathema to Dr
Scheibner - namely that immunisation is effective - but she is not about to
be discouraged, going on to say:

So the vaccine seemed to provide some degree of protection; however,
*the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated are so different that any
comparison is scientifically invalid*.2(p15) [emphasis added]

Any first year statistics student will be able to tell Dr Scheibner that
this is incorrect. In performing a statistical analysis between two
populations such as this (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) the samples do not
have to be the same size, or even similar, as long as each separate sample
is large enough.24

She could have made the point that only an RCT trial can determine the value
of vaccine. This tally-stroking excuse for "evidence based medicine" just
isn't good enough.

In this case the sample sizes are more than adequate and when the analysis
is done on the figures provided by Dr Scheibner the difference between the
populations is highly significant, with a p value of <0.0001.

Which proves nothing because this study wasn't randomized and controlled.
In fact, vaccine may have been a factor in some of the
*deaths* -- in *either* group. Lots of things are responsible for disease,
resistance, or outcomes in a given demographic. Just because all these
people were on the same island doesn't mean they were equivalent in terms of
their medical histories, exposures, or susceptibilities. Do you not
understand any aspect of the scientific method?

It is difficult to understand how a "principal research scientist" could
make such a fundamental error, and does not instill great confidence in Dr
Scheibner's ability to critically and objectively analyse the literature."

You'll notice it's not at the top of my list, however I do believe she
understands the failure of your sponsors to properly test their primitive
concoctions.

Oh, this is spiffing.

PeteyB has taken this entire post to say that he doesn't give a monkeys that
one of his recommended books contains an utterly inaccurate analysis of a
study, in which the author explicitly contradicts the conclusions of the
study on grounds that are utterly incorrect, due either to her profound
ignorance of the use of statistics or her dishonesty.

The fact vaccines have never been proven safe (as VAERS data proves) means
nothing to Rosalind. Her ad hominems are just tools of the trade.
Typical pharma blogging.

He then goes on to say that the author was obviously too stupid to use his
own pet argument: that there have been no randomised controlled trials of
vaccines.

It's her book, not mine. And she's a published author. What about you?

Perhaps that was an untruth too far for Scheibner. After all, Petey has seen
or been directed to such trials...

No, I haven't. And you've never produced any. If you mean the one chicken
pox study David referred to once, that was the only one he could dredge up,
and was so small it could hardly be used as proof of vaccine safety.

, and certainly knows that they have been carried out prior to licensing of
vaccines.

"Studies" by vaccine makers only prove positive antibody titre results under
laboratory conditions, nothing else.

Perhaps he is even more, er, economical with the truth than Scheibner.

I'm not the one who quoted data from a simple chart and got it wrong by
1000%, or cited studies on diseases not under discussion in an effort to
promote vaccine, or used religious imagery to pander and coerce in order to
leverage an argument. That would be, er, you.

No wonder Petey pretends never to have read Basser's critique of Scheibner's
tissue of lies.

Dimwit. When I say I haven't taken time to read Basser's web-only published
article, it's the simple truth. I did point out that the only place I could
find any reference to Basser is in relation to your quackwatch friends
Barrett and Bowditch.

He doesn't seem to have a defence against any of the criticisms therein.

You're the one promoting an unproven medical intervention, not me.

All he has said here is that she should have used a different lie.

Coming from someone who misquotes a little number off a chart by 1000%,
that's pretty funny.

PeterB

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm


.

Quantcast