Why consensus is the go-to argument around here - Mothering Forums

 117Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 43 Old 12-17-2015, 08:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Why consensus is the go-to argument around here

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...ion=topstories

Quote:
Q: What were your key findings?
A: We found that participants who were exposed to any of the medical consensus messages were less concerned about vaccine safety; less likely to endorse the discredited link between vaccines and autism; more likely to perceive consensus among medical scientists about vaccine safety; and more likely to intend to vaccinate their children and support provaccine policies.
But it only works if people don't look critically at what constitutes "consensus".

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 05:14 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1644 Post(s)
I wonder how participants would react if they were given that message and then saw the actual vaccine uptake record of those same medical scientists that formed the consensus (or anyone in the medical field for that matter). I'm guessing anywhere from confused to down right p'od.
samaxtics is offline  
#3 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 05:33 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,031
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 600 Post(s)
Quote:
Question: What prompted you to conduct this experiment?

Answer: What intrigued me is the fact that despite the best efforts of many public health campaigns, vaccine hesitancy and influential misperceptions about vaccine safety still persist among a substantial minority of Americans.
substantial minority??? Obviously nonvaxxers are a threat on some level to be considered a 'substantial minority'.

Quote:
People use the medical consensus as a judgment cue to guide their beliefs about the issue.
-- I don't. I use good old fashioned experience and common sense.
emmy526 is offline  
 
#4 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 05:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
I wonder how participants would react if they were given that message and then saw the actual vaccine uptake record of those same medical scientists that formed the consensus (or anyone in the medical field for that matter). I'm guessing anywhere from confused to down right p'od.
In order to do that it would be necessary to define who participates in the consensus and then check them all for up-to-date on the latest CDC recommendations for adults. Actually, most people being told that the medical consensus supports vaccines for babies and children would be surprised that ADULTS are now expected to get multiple vaccines throughout their lives.
caned & able and Anne Jividen like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#5 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 05:40 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1644 Post(s)
I would also want to see the vaccination records of their (the medical scientists that make up this consensus) children because as parents they would have made/be making those decisions. I sincerely doubt they are fully complying with the schedule. If they aren't getting the flu shot for themselves, what are the chances they are giving it to their children?

Last edited by samaxtics; 12-18-2015 at 08:38 AM. Reason: Clarified which group this post is directed at.
samaxtics is offline  
#6 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 06:08 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,778
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2586 Post(s)
As studies go, I don't think it means very much.

It was 206 people and done by online survey. The control group was only 43 people. They were paid a paltry sum to participate and it is also possible they just told the surveyors what they wanted to hear or answered without deep thought. None of this means it would hold when it came time to vaccinate their baby.

I do understand why scientific consensus is a go-to argument. It is easy to pick apart even the best study, so this is one way to get around that : "so you do not like this study? I disagree, but it isn't overly relevant. After looking at the body of evidence, the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective." It is a bit of a get-out-of-jail free card (its a bit lazy, really) while still underscoring key pro-vax messages.

I think it is is superficial statement that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, however. It is an argument meant to catch those who do not think too deeply about what is being said. If you do, thoughts tend to go like this:

Who are these scientists? Who was polled? Where are the studies/the questions? (answer: to the best of my knowledge there has not been a definitive study or even body of studies on what scientist think on this issue. the people who made up the phrase made up the phrase, they might think it is true, but there is not much evidence to support it)

What are they purported to be in agreement about? Have we even defined terms?

Messages about scientific consensus are not from scientists, they are from public health communicators.

(ETA: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral...889-015-2541-4 )

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 12-18-2015 at 06:20 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#7 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 09:52 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 24,268
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Majorities are never a proof of the truth. – Dr. Walter R. Hadwen, 1896

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” ― Henrik Ibsen

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” ― Bertrand Russell

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of CONSENSUS, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

These say it better than I ever could.

"Vaccines are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get - acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, allergies, anaphylaxis, asthma, autoimmune disease, diabetes, eczema, petit/gran mal seizures, fibromyalgia, Henoch-Schonlein purpua, Dravet's Syndrome, Retts Syndrome, Sweet's Syndrome, Hughes Syndrome, encephalitis, speech delay, tics, neurological damage, coma, ADEM, ADHD, AFP, ASIA, CFS, CRPS, GBS, ITP, JPA, JRA, LGS, LKS, MS, ORS, PANDAS, PANS, PINTANDS, POF, POTS, RA, SIDS, SJS, SLE, SPD, SUDS, TPI, the disease one is being vaccinated against, or death."

Paraphrased from "Forrest Gump".

List from the drug companies' own package inserts that come with their product as required by law.

Last edited by applejuice; 12-18-2015 at 09:54 AM.
applejuice is offline  
#8 of 43 Old 12-18-2015, 08:15 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
As studies go, I don't think it means very much.

It was 206 people and done by online survey. The control group was only 43 people. They were paid a paltry sum to participate and it is also possible they just told the surveyors what they wanted to hear or answered without deep thought. None of this means it would hold when it came time to vaccinate their baby.

I do understand why scientific consensus is a go-to argument. It is easy to pick apart even the best study, so this is one way to get around that : "so you do not like this study? I disagree, but it isn't overly relevant. After looking at the body of evidence, the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective." It is a bit of a get-out-of-jail free card (its a bit lazy, really) while still underscoring key pro-vax messages.

I think it is is superficial statement that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, however. It is an argument meant to catch those who do not think too deeply about what is being said. If you do, thoughts tend to go like this:

Who are these scientists? Who was polled? Where are the studies/the questions? (answer: to the best of my knowledge there has not been a definitive study or even body of studies on what scientist think on this issue. the people who made up the phrase made up the phrase, they might think it is true, but there is not much evidence to support it)

What are they purported to be in agreement about? Have we even defined terms?

Messages about scientific consensus are not from scientists, they are from public health communicators.

(ETA: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral...889-015-2541-4 )
Yes , "but as studies go", evidence is waning, this is my problem? I believe that when science is concerned, there is an obligation to explain the reality before our eyes.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#9 of 43 Old 12-19-2015, 05:47 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,778
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2586 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
Yes , "but as studies go", evidence is waning, this is my problem? I believe that when science is concerned, there is an obligation to explain the reality before our eyes.
Maybe I need a coffee as I am not sure I understand this comment.

The article and study purport that touting scientific consensus works. I am arguing that the study isn't worth much consideration, and that we cannot draw any conclusions from it. The numbers in the study were small and it was an internet survey.

I don't think the study is about science. The study is about if communicating that "scientific consensus is that vaccines are xyz" impacts listeners.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 12-19-2015 at 11:31 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#10 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 09:40 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I do understand why scientific consensus is a go-to argument.

I think it is is superficial statement that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, however. It is an argument meant to catch those who do not think too deeply about what is being said. If you do, thoughts tend to go like this:

Who are these scientists? Who was polled? Where are the studies/the questions? (answer: to the best of my knowledge there has not been a definitive study or even body of studies on what scientist think on this issue. the people who made up the phrase made up the phrase, they might think it is true, but there is not much evidence to support it)

What are they purported to be in agreement about? Have we even defined terms?

Messages about scientific consensus are not from scientists, they are from public health communicators.

(ETA: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral...889-015-2541-4 )
I disagree.

I've mentioned this before. As far as I'm aware, every medical organization on the planet is in agreement on the importance of vaccination. This link does a good job of going into the issue of consensus on vaccines:

"World Health Organization (WHO):
“Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available, saving millions of people from illness, disability and death each year. Effective and safe vaccines, which protect against more than 20 serious diseases, are available and many promising new vaccines are being developed.”

European Commission:
“Vaccination – making people immune to diseases caused by viruses or bacteria – is unquestionably one of the most cost-effective public health measures available. Wide-spread vaccination has eradicated smallpox and made Europe polio-free.”

National Health Service -UK:
“All medicines have side effects. However, vaccines are among the safest and the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the risk of side effects.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
“The United States’ long-standing vaccine safety system ensures that vaccines are as safe as possible. In fact, currently, the United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history.

Safety monitoring begins with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who ensures the safety, effectiveness, and availability of vaccines for the United States. Before a vaccine is approved by the FDA for use by the public, results of studies on safety and effectiveness of the vaccine are evaluated by highly trained FDA scientists and doctors. FDA also inspects the sites where vaccines are made to make sure they follow strict manufacturing guidelines.”

American Academy of Pediatrics:
“Vaccines work, plain and simple. Vaccines are one of the safest, most effective and most important medical innovations of our time. Pediatricians partner with parents to provide what is best for their child, and what is best is for children to be fully vaccinated.”

Health Canada:
“Vaccines are safe, with huge benefits to children’s health – all through their lives. Most vaccine side effects are minor and self-limited, lasting only a few days and not disrupting daily activities. Serious allergic reactions from vaccines are extremely rare and are reported immediately to the Public Health Agency of Canada so that any problems can be dealt with quickly.”

Australian Public Health Agency:
“Immunisation is one of the best ways to protect yourself, your children and safeguard the health of future generations.

Immunisation remains the safest and most effective way to stop the spread of many of the world’s most infectious diseases. Before the major vaccination campaigns of the 1960s and ’70s, diseases like tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough (pertussis) killed thousands of young children each year. Today, deaths from these diseases are extremely rare in Australia, and the rest of the developed world.”

China’s Ministry of Health with WHO, CDC:
WHO: “The mission of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in China is to support the Chinese Government’s efforts to control and prevent vaccine-preventable diseases through timely vaccination, effective surveillance, and strengthening China’s routine immunization programme.”

CDC: “The CDC works with Chinese public health officials to eradicate, eliminate, or control vaccine preventable diseases through immunization efforts.”

CDC Around the World:
“Global Immunization: CDC’s Global Immunization Division (GID) is a diverse group of people dedicated to the mission of creating a world without the diseases, disabilities, and death that could be prevented with vaccines.”

– – – –

If this list seems small, that is because I didn’t want to be seen as padding the list. I decided to use national/multi-national organizations. Had I wanted to, I could have included the public health organizations from each state in the US, each province in Canada, and each country in the EU. I also wanted to keep my list clear of charitable organizations as well. They can sometimes be contentious, even though they provide reliable information. Many such organizations can be found on the WHO website in various languages.

Further evidence of the wide spread acceptance of vaccines across the globe can also be found in the immunization schedules published by the WHO. Vaccine programs large and small are in place from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Not only do these public health organizations around the world endorse vaccines, but the world’s major religions also have no objections to immunization.

The consensus is clear. Vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the greatest public health advances mankind has ever made."

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 09:59 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,031
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 600 Post(s)
[QUOTE=teacozy;19187625
The consensus is clear. Vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the greatest public health advances mankind has ever made."[/QUOTE]

emmy526 is offline  
#12 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 10:47 AM
 
Xerxella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,281
Mentioned: 552 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Again. Just because something is good public policy, does not mean it's good individual policy. For instance, which is safer for a baby. 1. Be breastfed and taken care of at home by a single caregiver and never be around other children or 2. Get the Rotavirus vaccine. Obviously, it's 1. The chance of getting rotavirus for the first option is less than being harmed by the vaccine. In this instance, public policy is a worse idea than individual policy.

Married to one of the last good guys left Jim
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mom to AJ 4/07
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and Genevieve 5/09
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And THEN twins: Matt 11/14
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and his guardian angel Billy
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ten days in our lives, a lifetime in our hearts


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Xerxella is offline  
#13 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
I'm actually perfectly okay with all the big international organizations recommending vaccines.

What I'm not okay with:

1) Doctors denying possible vaccine injuries without doing any research or considering all the data. For example, if previous vaccine reactions reported by the parents were not recorded in the medical records, a baby could have several reactions without a doctor noticing. After all, they see hundreds of babies.

2) Clinical trials done on healthy people, children, babies and then the vaccine given to a broader population without careful collection of data and without warning the parents that there is no science on the safety of this vaccine for, say, children with asthma.

3) Vaccines being mandated for work or school attendance.

That will do for starters.

What bugs me is the over-reach based on incomplete science which disregards individual experiences. Vaccines are supposed to save lives, not just on a world level but also on an individual level. If the problems experienced by individuals don't count, then how do we know that vaccines are actually saving lives?

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#14 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 11:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,778
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2586 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
As studies go, I don't think it means very much.

It was 206 people and done by online survey. The control group was only 43 people. They were paid a paltry sum to participate and it is also possible they just told the surveyors what they wanted to hear or answered without deep thought. None of this means it would hold when it came time to vaccinate their baby.

I do understand why scientific consensus is a go-to argument. It is easy to pick apart even the best study, so this is one way to get around that : "so you do not like this study? I disagree, but it isn't overly relevant. After looking at the body of evidence, the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective." It is a bit of a get-out-of-jail free card (its a bit lazy, really) while still underscoring key pro-vax messages.

I think it is is superficial statement that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, however. It is an argument meant to catch those who do not think too deeply about what is being said. If you do, thoughts tend to go like this:

Who are these scientists? Who was polled? Where are the studies/the questions? (answer: to the best of my knowledge there has not been a definitive study or even body of studies on what scientist think on this issue. the people who made up the phrase made up the phrase, they might think it is true, but there is not much evidence to support it)

What are they purported to be in agreement about? Have we even defined terms?

Messages about scientific consensus are not from scientists, they are from public health communicators.

(ETA: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral...889-015-2541-4 )
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I disagree.

I've mentioned this before. As far as I'm aware, every medical organization on the planet is in agreement on the importance of vaccination. This link does a good job of going into the issue of consensus on vaccines:


snip <long list of countries and world health organizations that recommend vaccines> snip
I am not quite sure what you disagree with. Your post simply listed a bunch of countries or health bodies that recommend vaccines. That does little to address my concerns.

Break down the sentence:

"scientific consensus is that vaccine are safe and effective"

Which scientists? Were they polled/studied? Where are the survey results?

Define safe. Define effective.

I am not interested in who says vaccines are safe and effective - but more in how did they arrive at that conclusion? Is it based on actual evidence, or is it some catch phrase they hope will sell the public on vaccines (I have seen no evidence to suggest it is the former) .

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 12-21-2015 at 12:06 PM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#15 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 12:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,778
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2586 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I'm actually perfectly okay with all the big international organizations recommending vaccines.
I am not sure how I feel about it.

I am slowly coming to think that health care professionals (including public health) should be less in the business of making recommendations and more in the business of laying out information.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#16 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 12:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I am not sure how I feel about it.

I am slowly coming to think that health care professionals (including public health) should be less in the business of making recommendations and more in the business of laying out information.
If they STOPPED at recommendations I'd be very happy. It is the over-reach that makes me crazy. Mandates? Mandatory vaccines for babies, children, teens and adults? Lack of accountability? Limited studies treated as though they answered all questions? Anyone who has any question about any vaccine at any time treated like scum who are out to destroy the world by spreading disease?

Dangerous.
caned & able and 95191 like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#17 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 04:58 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Your post simply listed a bunch of countries or health bodies that recommend vaccines.
Kathy, you though you were replying to @teacozy , clearly you were not!
95191 is offline  
#18 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 04:58 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
Emmy, emmy emmy!!!!!!!!! Does "Skeptical" raptor want a cracker? (you had the wrong birdie!)

speaking of bird-brains! http://skeptiforum.org/2015/10/03/va...re-to-find-it/ RICHARD GREEN

@teacozy copy & past much? Oh, I'll answer that - YES!!!!!!!

Do you get more for the copy and paste work or less?

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

If this list seems small, that is because I didn’t want to be seen as padding the list. I decided to use national/multi-national organizations. Had I wanted to, I could have included the public health organizations from each state in the US, each province in Canada, and each country in the EU. I also wanted to keep my list clear of charitable organizations as well. They can sometimes be contentious, even though they provide reliable information. Many such organizations can be found on the WHO website in various languages.

Further evidence of the wide spread acceptance of vaccines across the globe can also be found in the immunization schedules published by the WHO. Vaccine programs large and small are in place from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Not only do these public health organizations around the world endorse vaccines, but the world’s major religions also have no objections to immunization.

The consensus is clear. Vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the greatest public health advances mankind has ever made."
- the "I"s have it!!!!!!!!




yup that consensus is crystal clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I suppose original thought must be hard! why do so! Copy & paste and plagiarism is sooooooooo much easier!

from the link I provided!! http://skeptiforum.org/2015/10/03/va...re-to-find-it/


from RICHARD GREEN

The consensus is clear. Vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the greatest public health advances mankind has ever made.[/QUOTE] ak! word for word! "I" i i !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Not only do these public health organizations around the world endorse vaccines, but the world’s major religions also have no objections to immunization.

Quote:
If this list seems small, that is because I didn’t want to be seen as padding the list. I decided to use national/multi-national organizations. Had I wanted to, I could have included the public health organizations from each state in the US, each province in Canada, and each country in the EU. I also wanted to keep my list clear of charitable organizations as well. They can sometimes be contentious, even though they provide reliable information. Many such organizations can be found on the WHO website in various languages.


OR what really is the case------ @teacozy , you really are a dude?? - dude looks like a lady!!!!!!! That "I" we are to think is you? RICHARD GREEN ????

NOT a mom with 2 kids??? You lied to even your fellow PRO vaccers, the ones that trusted you and because of you went PRO????? All the time you were just a dude passing! So "punky"! Fooling on so many levels!!!!

shill, shill, shill, womp, womp, womp!!!!!!!!! ha ha ha - "trust" the ones that bought into the lies about being a mom with 2 kiddies, "I" i i !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mirzam likes this.

Last edited by 95191; 12-21-2015 at 06:27 PM.
95191 is offline  
#19 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 06:47 PM
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
If there are dudes in here pretending to be moms with kids (especially a dude with an agenda) that's really uncool (although I wouldn't be surprised).
95191 likes this.
SilverMoon010 is offline  
#20 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 06:48 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
If there are dudes in here pretending to be moms with kids that's really uncool (although I wouldn't be surprised).
Mr Green has his name on it!
applejuice likes this.
95191 is offline  
#21 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 06:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
I think I'd go with the cut and paste version rather than the male passing as female version.

But seriously, if you are going to cut and paste, you should provide a link.
applejuice and Turquesa like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#22 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 06:53 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I think I'd go with the cut and paste version rather than the male passing as female version.

But seriously, if you are going to cut and paste, you should provide a link.
when you use "I" and you aren't that "I" it's that bad!!!!!!!!!
applejuice and Deborah like this.
95191 is offline  
#23 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
when you use "I" and you aren't that "I" it's that bad!!!!!!!!!
Yes, that is what the quote function is supposed to be for. To show that the poster isn't the one writing that section.

I agree, it is bad.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#24 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Well, I don't think it is quite as bad as it looks.

Teacozy did include the link to the source. She was just sloppy about making it clear when she was quoting and when she was not quoting. If she hadn't included the link to the source, then I'd buy into the plagiarism, but right now I'm going with just old-fashioned sloppiness.

Sorry Serenbat!

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#25 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:21 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Well, I don't think it is quite as bad as it looks.

Teacozy did include the link to the source. She was just sloppy about making it clear when she was quoting and when she was not quoting. If she hadn't included the link to the source, then I'd buy into the plagiarism, but right now I'm going with just old-fashioned sloppiness.

Sorry Serenbat!
There is more to it!

It's hard when you have MULTIPLE usernames & posting word for word on other boards! Far more to it!!
95191 is offline  
#26 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
There is more to it!

It's hard when you have MULTIPLE usernames & posting word for word on other boards! Far more to it!!
Well, if you have more evidence...

I tend to lean over backwards to be fair to people, especially people I'm fighting with. Not because I'm a saint, but because of two factors: it makes them nervous when I'm fair and because it keeps me from getting into messes based on insufficient evidence.

I also like the slight feeling of superiority when my opposition is decidedly unfair--which, alas, the pro-vaccine around here usually are.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#27 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:32 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
If one is quoting there is a quote feature to use.

Using --------- to indicate a break and the use of "I" doesn't bode well. Not to mention word count.

Trust is hard to have when deception is occurring.
applejuice and SilverMoon010 like this.
95191 is offline  
#28 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Oh, I don't trust teacozy. I wouldn't depend on her for an honest evaluation of the evidence, nor for original thinking.

But I'm not convinced, based on the evidence so far, that there is a false personna, nor that there was an attempt to deceive us by plagiarizing without crediting the source. If someone is plagiarizing, they don't include the link to make it easy to convict them. Makes no sense.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
#29 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 07:51 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Oh, I don't trust teacozy. I wouldn't depend on her for an honest evaluation of the evidence, nor for original thinking.

But I'm not convinced, based on the evidence so far, that there is a false personna, nor that there was an attempt to deceive us by plagiarizing without crediting the source. If someone is plagiarizing, they don't include the link to make it easy to convict them. Makes no sense.
It's not the 1st time of parroting- thus the birdie! - the use of the "I" out of quotes for someone just reading along is flat out deceiving, not to mention not a way to have a decision!

It's a joke to think someone is even slightly serious in discussing anything when they don't contribute in their own words but only parrot others and try and pass it off as their own thoughts.
95191 is offline  
#30 of 43 Old 12-21-2015, 08:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,240
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3163 Post(s)
Again, I agree that teacozy is not serious, not original, etc.

I still cannot conclude more than sloppy in this case. Not an example of deliberate plagiarism.

Once again, you do not include a link to your source if you are plagiarizing.

We shan't agree.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 1,489

8 members and 1,481 guests
91mj , crownbages506 , Groov1r , Liquidat1on , mdmommy , Realdeal , skyrocket , vraonarln
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 08:45 PM.