Discussion:
How would you criticize this vaccine safety study?
(too old to reply)
b***@spamcop.net
2017-05-12 14:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/mawson-et-al-2017-vax-unvax-jnl-translational-science.pdf
Eric©
2017-05-12 19:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@spamcop.net
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/mawson-et-al-2017-vax-unvax-jnl-translational-science.pdf
There's no sure thing in science, and people who say there is are either paid to do it or
imbeciles. Interesting study, thanks.
b***@spamcop.net
2017-05-18 20:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric©
Post by b***@spamcop.net
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/mawson-et-al-2017-vax-unvax-jnl-translational-science.pdf
There's no sure thing in science, and people who say there is are either paid to do it or
imbeciles. Interesting study, thanks.
Professors get tenure, so that they can afford to learn from being
imbeciles, and when they're young and cocky, sometimes imbecilic
follows. They do pay for fraud, though, and I am afraid that's NOT why
this article was retracted -- can't find the reason -- says
"provisionally accepted". The article, itself, says it was printed.
Maybe it'll get more electronic exposure than it did on paper.

Somebody estimated that 73.6% of statistics are made up. I say that
depends on how you estimate in-person statistics. It is much less than
that in PubMed articles. Tilted and skewed the statistics might be: If
anyone calls you on why, then you better be prepared. A lot more
certainty is in Physics. With Psychology and Biology, a ninety-five
percent confidence interval is required of you. With Physics, it's
upwards of ninety-nine percent.

Once the product gets to sales personnel...well, the statistics become
buried. I had Chickenpox, so a Shingles vaccine would be a redundant
waste of my time. NHS told me something different, though.

Loading...