2 ms·

A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers". That is as good as "

A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers". That is as good as "supports Wakefield" to me. It certainly demonstrates the same ignorance and causes the same harm.

Alex3917 16y ago
"A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of 'anti-vaxers'." Not only have I never supported any anti-vaccination group, the first thing that comes up when you search for alex3917 + vaccine is: "I don't believe nor have I ever believed that vaccines cause autism. What I do believe is that the systemic design of the CDC makes it impossible to trust what they say for various reasons." (397 days ago) Followed by: "I've seen a lot of evidence since then saying the autism-vaccine link isn't true, but I've seen zero evidence saying that the cover up that RFK wrote about didn't actually occur." (448 days ago) "The anti-vaccine crowd was also in the wrong for putting excessive weight on this study in the first place, but this apologism for the scientific establishment is completely unwarranted." (6 days ago) But feel free to make up whatever you like.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  What I said: "you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers"." An example of you doing so: "Most doctors get their information about medical issues by reading the marketing pamphlets from drug companies. If you actually read the relevant journal articles then you'd be significantly more knowledgeable about any given topic than the average doctor." I don't have to make up a thing.
  - khafra 16y ago
    Unless Jenny McCarthy gets published in peer-reviewed medical journals, I don't see how that quote supports anti-vaxers.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      Because it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals. Check the context yourself if you don't believe me. Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement. He's a purposeful troll at best.
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        "Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement." I already gave you a perfectly good example, but I'll give you another one: "Conclusions — Increasing promotion of CCBs has mirrored trends in physician prescribing. An association between advertising and prescribing patterns could explain why CCBs have supplanted better-substantiated therapies for hypertension." http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/2055 http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/2055
        burgerbrain 16y ago
        That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors. We've been over this already.
        Alex3917 16y ago
        "That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors." Probably because I never said that doctors don't ever read journals, I just said that they got their information from marketing literature-- a claim which I've now backed up with 5+ sources. Secondly, I never claimed that an uneducated person could make better decisions than doctors, my only claim was that someone following the recommendations of the academic research would on average get better treatment than they would from a doctor. And again, I've backed up this claim with multiple sources.

Alex3917 16y ago

"A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of 'anti-vaxers'." Not only have I never supported any anti-vaccination group, the first thing that comes up when you search for alex3917 + vaccine is: "I don't believe nor have I ever believed that vaccines cause autism. What I do believe is that the systemic design of the CDC makes it impossible to trust what they say for various reasons." (397 days ago) Followed by: "I've seen a lot of evidence since then saying the autism-vaccine link isn't true, but I've seen zero evidence saying that the cover up that RFK wrote about didn't actually occur." (448 days ago) "The anti-vaccine crowd was also in the wrong for putting excessive weight on this study in the first place, but this apologism for the scientific establishment is completely unwarranted." (6 days ago) But feel free to make up whatever you like.

burgerbrain 16y ago
What I said: "you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers"." An example of you doing so: "Most doctors get their information about medical issues by reading the marketing pamphlets from drug companies. If you actually read the relevant journal articles then you'd be significantly more knowledgeable about any given topic than the average doctor." I don't have to make up a thing.
- khafra 16y ago
  Unless Jenny McCarthy gets published in peer-reviewed medical journals, I don't see how that quote supports anti-vaxers.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Because it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals. Check the context yourself if you don't believe me. Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement. He's a purposeful troll at best.
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      "Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement." I already gave you a perfectly good example, but I'll give you another one: "Conclusions — Increasing promotion of CCBs has mirrored trends in physician prescribing. An association between advertising and prescribing patterns could explain why CCBs have supplanted better-substantiated therapies for hypertension." http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/2055 http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/2055
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors. We've been over this already.
        Alex3917 16y ago
        "That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors." Probably because I never said that doctors don't ever read journals, I just said that they got their information from marketing literature-- a claim which I've now backed up with 5+ sources. Secondly, I never claimed that an uneducated person could make better decisions than doctors, my only claim was that someone following the recommendations of the academic research would on average get better treatment than they would from a doctor. And again, I've backed up this claim with multiple sources.