ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd May 2019, 10:37 AM   #281
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Well then that shouldn't present a problem here. It's simple.
I make a claim and point to the clip that supports it.

If that's construed as cherry-picking, then the entire testimony is freely available for anyone to call me on it and provide a clip that unpicks the cherry.
I did just that. You ignored my post.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:00 AM   #282
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I did just that. You ignored my post.
If I understood correctly, you claimed the video clips were cherry picked.
By me? Or by the video uploader?

Don't we all cherry-pick? Or, when in a debate, do we present information that supports the other side?

I linked those clips for (my) convenience. After I get through notating the deposition, I'll be able to more easily find whatever section I'm looking for.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:10 AM   #283
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If I understood correctly, you claimed the video clips were cherry picked.
By me? Or by the video uploader?

Don't we all cherry-pick? Or, when in a debate, do we present information that supports the other side?

I linked those clips for (my) convenience. After I get through notating the deposition, I'll be able to more easily find whatever section I'm looking for.
This post
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:59 AM   #284
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
That has already been done, but you repeated the original quote at a later stage. See Plotkin's statement that as a scientist he cannot prove that the measles vaccine is safe, but you conveniently forgot how he qualified this by saying that as a physician he could claim it is safe.

I too do not understand your obsession with Plotkin. You have brought lots of quotes, but you have not found a single smoking gun. You have even tried to hint that because he may have acted unethically many years ago, this should somehow have an influence on whether the measles vaccine is safe.
I explained in a post that Plotkin said that as a paediatrician he would tell parents "There's no proof that vaccines cause autism." Which is true.
But he also said that as a scientist, he couldn't make that claim." Why not? Because the IOM study was asked to find proof that the DTap vaccine did or did not cause autism. The IOM investigated and reported there was insufficient data to make a determination either way. And that flies in the face of those who claim otherwise. The jury is still out.

So even though he's making a true statement to the parent, he's lying by omission. Why should he not make 'full disclosure' and tell the parent the other half of the story? If you read my posts, I didn't 'conveniently forget' to mention his qualifying statement. It's all there. What motive do you think I have to intentionally mislead people?

I didn't try to imply any connection between what Plotkin did in the past and the measles. I was exposing things he has done that so that people may make their own judgement about his ethics. It has no bearing on the safety or efficacy of any vaccine or on what is considered ethical today.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 12:09 PM   #285
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OK. I didn't ignore your post. I had a quick look at your link when you made the post. There was nothing in there about me or what I present or how I present it, so I didn't see the relevance. Am I responsible for what others do?

What's the difference between cherry-picking and 'choosing' evidence to support one's position? In either case, evidence that doesn't support one's position is omitted, is it not? Can you explain the difference?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 12:58 PM   #286
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,744
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Well then that shouldn't present a problem here. It's simple.
I make a claim and point to the clip that supports it.

If that's construed as cherry-picking, then the entire testimony is freely available for anyone to call me on it and provide a clip that unpicks the cherry.
The notion that one expert's trial testimony is the definitive source of information about vaccines is just plain stupid. There is actual scientific evidence available.
CORed is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:01 PM   #287
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Why do I cite Plotkin?
One quick example is that many people say it's been 100% proven that vaccines don't cause autism. Shouldn't they know the truth - that there's no data to support that claim - so they can stop making a false claim?

Now that I have the clip, if someone makes that claim to me, I can show them Plotkin. If they want to challenge Plotkin and the IOM report, good luck.

"When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest."
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:19 PM   #288
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,979
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What the episode of the Brady Bunch shows is that measles was not considered a particularly dangerous disease before the vaccine became available. Other shows dealt with it in much the same light hearted manner. Why?

The only counter argument is that people back then just didn't know how dangerous measles is. That makes no sense. Measles has been around forever. Other diseases were recognized as deadly but somehow, the 'deadliness' of measles was not known. Until a vaccine was available, that is.
Someone is citing a sit com as a valid source in a discussion of disease?

Wow. Just Wow. I never thought that that Anti Vaxers were the brightest bulbs on the planet but that.......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:20 PM   #289
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,979
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The notion that one expert's trial testimony is the definitive source of information about vaccines is just plain stupid. There is actual scientific evidence available.
You are talking with a guy who cited a episode of "Tne Brady Bunch" as valid evidence.....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:24 PM   #290
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The notion that one expert's trial testimony is the definitive source of information about vaccines is just plain stupid. There is actual scientific evidence available.
If you look for other sources of information about vaccines, many will lead directly or indirectly right back to Plotkin. He's a big, big deal in the vaccine world. He wrote what's considered the 'vaccine bible'.

It doesn't matter if I use a single source to support my points.
All that matters is the veracity of the information, and whether that information supports any particular claim I'm making.

Where's the problem?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:27 PM   #291
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You are talking with a guy who cited a episode of "Tne Brady Bunch" as valid evidence.....
You left out valid evidence of 'what'. The comedy shows that dealt with measles are valid evidence of the prevailing attitude towards the disease at the time. It was no big deal. Now, people are more frightened of measles than ebola.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:39 PM   #292
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK. I didn't ignore your post. I had a quick look at your link when you made the post. There was nothing in there about me or what I present or how I present it, so I didn't see the relevance. Am I responsible for what others do?
WTF?

Is it really that difficult for you to see a pattern of deceit?

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What's the difference between cherry-picking and 'choosing' evidence to support one's position? In either case, evidence that doesn't support one's position is omitted, is it not? Can you explain the difference?
In one case the evidence actually supports the position and in the other case it doesn't at all.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:42 PM   #293
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,113
Itchy Boy missed the conclusion of this exchange

I'm lurking in this thread, but thought I'd remind one poster that they haven't responded to this question.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Informed consent means no ethical violation as far as the volunteers are concerned - they are not being coerced. It doesn't mean no ethical violation as far as the participating doctors are concerned, as they will still be violating their Hippocratic Oath. That seems to be the point you are missing.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Then aren't they violating the oath when they expose the participants to the disease? They don't know that 100% of the vaccinated will be protected.
Isn't the study itself, regardless of how it's conducted a violation if participants are purposely exposed to a disease?

You can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
They are not "exposing them to the disease" they are vaccinating them, a procedure which it has been amply proved reduces their chances of suffering future health problems. Obviously improving a patient's chances of enjoying continued good health does not violate the Hippocratic Oath.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
When they do a vaccine trial, people are given the vaccine then exposed to the disease to see how the vaccine works. Am I missing something?
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
No-one is exposed to the disease in a vaccine trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_trial
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From your link (Phase 3 trials):
The vaccine must be shown to be safe and effective *in natural disease conditions* before being submitted for approval and then general production.

"Natural disease conditions" means exposure to the disease.

Also from Phase 1 of your link:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The participants in the trial have exactly the same chance of encountering the disease as they would if they had not been vaccinated. That's what "natural disease conditions" means. They are not deliberately exposed to it. Do you understand this?
Itchy Boy - do you understand this?
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:18 PM   #294
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,658
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK. I didn't ignore your post. I had a quick look at your link when you made the post. There was nothing in there about me or what I present or how I present it, so I didn't see the relevance. Am I responsible for what others do?

What's the difference between cherry-picking and 'choosing' evidence to support one's position? In either case, evidence that doesn't support one's position is omitted, is it not? Can you explain the difference?
Are you saying you are Plotkin?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 03:21 PM   #295
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Wow there must have been a sale on straw at the Canadian Tire, I hope you got some of those dollars for buying enough to make a straw city and populate it with straw citizens
With each intersection magnificently illuminated by gaslight!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 04:46 PM   #296
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK. I didn't ignore your post. I had a quick look at your link when you made the post. There was nothing in there about me or what I present or how I present it, so I didn't see the relevance. Am I responsible for what others do?
You are responsible for the research you do. If you choose to base your understanding of a subject on a highly biased and cherry-picked source, that's on you.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What's the difference between cherry-picking and 'choosing' evidence to support one's position? In either case, evidence that doesn't support one's position is omitted, is it not? Can you explain the difference?
There is no difference. Either you choose to include only certain evidence, or you do your research honestly by examining as many different sources as you can find.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:13 PM   #297
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
WTF?

Is it really that difficult for you to see a pattern of deceit?

In one case the evidence actually supports the position and in the other case it doesn't at all.
If you think I'm being deceitful, please point out where/what and I'll try to set the record straight. I'm not here with any intention to deceive.

Can I be wrong about something? Sure. That's why I'm going to be quoting 'your man' to make my points. After all, if I quoted Mercola, for example, my point would be instantly dismissed. Plotkin cannot be dismissed lightly by anyone who honestly seeks truth.

Can you please elaborate on your 'cherry-pick' explanation? Help me understand, so that I may avoid cherry-picking.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:23 PM   #298
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You are responsible for the research you do. If you choose to base your understanding of a subject on a highly biased and cherry-picked source, that's on you.
I'll try to write very slow and loud for you.
(pause)

We're talking about making a claim and backing it with reputable evidence.
(pause)

We're not talking about anyone's understanding of a subject. That's a different matter.
(pause)

I don't have to know a thing about vaccines to make a point and have Stanley support it.
(pause)

Stan is biased towards 'your side'.
(pause)

If you don't want to accept Stanley as a reputable source, that's on you.
(pause)

(resumes normal cadence and addresses the gallery...)
Why does everyone here seem to be so afraid of what Plotkin says under oath?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:23 PM   #299
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you think I'm being deceitful, please point out where/what and I'll try to set the record straight. I'm not here with any intention to deceive.
You are the one being deceived. I doubt anyone in this thread is being deceived by you.


Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Can I be wrong about something? Sure. That's why I'm going to be quoting 'your man' to make my points. After all, if I quoted Mercola, for example, my point would be instantly dismissed. Plotkin cannot be dismissed lightly by anyone who honestly seeks truth.

Can you please elaborate on your 'cherry-pick' explanation? Help me understand, so that I may avoid cherry-picking.
Look at this post again. Look at the excerpt I quoted.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:26 PM   #300
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll try to write very slow and loud for you.
(pause)

We're talking about making a claim and backing it with reputable evidence.
(pause)

We're not talking about anyone's understanding of a subject. That's a different matter.
(pause)

I don't have to know a thing about vaccines to make a point and have Stanley support it.
(pause)

Stan is biased towards 'your side'.
(pause)

If you don't want to accept Stanley as a reputable source, that's on you.
(pause)

(resumes normal cadence and addresses the gallery...)
Why does everyone here seem to be so afraid of what Plotkin says under oath?
When are you going to figure out Plotkin is not saying what you think he is saying?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:31 PM   #301
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll try to write very slow and loud for you.
(pause)
Okay
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're talking about making a claim and backing it with reputable evidence.
(pause)
Your source is not reputable because it disorts what Plotkin said.
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're not talking about anyone's understanding of a subject. That's a different matter.
(pause)
It's not, because you have no understanding of vaccines or virology and are arguing from a position of ignorance.
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't have to know a thing about vaccines to make a point and have Stanley support it.
(pause)
Because you don't know a thing about vaccines, the points that you make are invalid and it doesn't matter who supports them.
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Stan is biased towards 'your side'.
(pause)
And why doesn't that raise a red flag for you that he doesn't actually support what you're saying?
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you don't want to accept Stanley as a reputable source, that's on you.
(pause)
It's not Stanley that we're not accepting as a reputable source, it's whoever distorted his words by selectively quoting him.
(pause)

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
(resumes normal cadence and addresses the gallery...)
Why does everyone here seem to be so afraid of what Plotkin says under oath?
Am I getting through yet?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:54 PM   #302
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I'm lurking in this thread, but thought I'd remind one poster that they haven't responded to this question.

Itchy Boy - do you understand this?

Thanks for your post. I spoke out of turn here and shot my mouth off without being certain of my facts. It happens sometimes in the heat of the moment.

So i apologize to everyone and withdraw my comments on vaccine testing until I know more about the testing process.

Thanks for alerting me of my transgression.

This is one reason why I've decided to stick with Plotkin for now. I can't be too far wrong on a point if Plotkin agrees with me.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:58 PM   #303
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Okay
(pause)

Your source is not reputable because it disorts what Plotkin said.
(pause)

Am I getting through yet?
Plotkin is under oath and the entire deposition is available to anyone. That's the source.

How can I or anyone distort what he says when you can hear him say it yourself, and you can hear what comes before and after?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 23rd May 2019 at 06:15 PM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:04 PM   #304
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You are the one being deceived. I doubt anyone in this thread is being deceived by you.


Look at this post again. Look at the excerpt I quoted.
The question is, do you think I'm intentionally trying to deceive?
If so, give an example, and explain what you think my motive is.

"...as a physician, I have to take the whole body of scientific information into consideration when I make a recommendation for a child."

So why doesn't he tell the parent the other side of the IOM's finding?
How is he not cherry-picking what he tells the parent?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:09 PM   #305
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You are the one being deceived. I doubt anyone in this thread is being deceived by you.


Look at this post again. Look at the excerpt I quoted.
Are you going to give me a more informative idea of what cherry-picking is, so that I may avoid doing it? Or should I give up on that request?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 23rd May 2019 at 06:11 PM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:19 PM   #306
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
One quick example is that many people say it's been 100% proven that vaccines don't cause autism. Shouldn't they know the truth - that there's no data to support that claim - so they can stop making a false claim?
That "100% proven that vaccines don't cause autism" claim is an exaggeration but correct. It is proven well beyond a reasonable scientific doubt that vaccines don't cause autism. Anyone stating that they do has no scientific evidence to support them.

Sceince is not established by what you think one person said. The scientific evidence for many decades is that vaccines are medically safe. That means they benefit many more people than they harm.
Should we stop doing surgery despite the benefits because some people die? Should we shut down ER departments because some people die there? Should we shut down pharmacies because they sell drugs that harm some people? Should we stop using vaccines that have benefited many millions because some people have been harmed?

Argument by YouTube video is usually weak. Hours of testimony by Dr. Stanley Plotkin statements in a disposition is not a good source of science. You need to actually view what you cite: Here's the link you asked for dealing with pertussis.
Hour 3 of 9 @ 57:30
. Those 3 minutes of that video is an attorney asking about well known biology and Plotkin explaining the immune system to him and a bit about how vaccines effect the immune system. That part of the disposition is general biology, not pertussis. It is irreverent.

Those 3 minutes do not support a "herd immunity doesn't exist for DTap" assertion. A supported low rate of pertussis immunization could indirectly support that assertion. However herd immunity is not that every person in the world has been immunized. Herd immunity is that a large enough % of the population a person could be exposed to have been immunized. That is a reason why pertussis boosters are recommended for adults that care for children.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:25 PM   #307
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Are you going to give me a more informative idea of what cherry-picking is, so that I may avoid doing it? Or should I give up on that request?
Wikipedia and Google exist, Itchy Boy ! Cherry picking
Cherry picking is the act of selecting only evidence that supports your stance out of a body of evidence that may overall say you are wrong. An extreme example would be cherry picking Wakefield's invalid and retracted paper when there is ~20 years of studies with evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

Skeptic Ginger did not write that you cherry picked. Skeptic Ginger wrote that you are being deceived. Deceived means being fooled by others. That may explain why you cited an irrelevant part of Dr. Stanley Plotkin disposition. That citation might have been parroted from somewhere else. To avid that you need to double check your sources and what is actually in a video. Those 3 minutes of that video is an attorney asking about well known biology and Plotkin explaining the immune system to him and a bit about how vaccines effect the immune system.

The deceptive acts from anti-vaxxers Skeptic Ginger mentions is ignorance and quote mining what Plotkin said. FYI this is taking part of what someone said so that it does not show their actual position. Read This reminds me of the climate change hearings where people didn't understand why science doesn't prove things, rather it seeks out the best explanation for the evidence.

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd May 2019 at 06:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:09 PM   #308
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That "100% proven that vaccines don't cause autism" claim is an exaggeration but correct. It is proven well beyond a reasonable scientific doubt that vaccines don't cause autism. Anyone stating that they do has no scientific evidence to support them.

Sceince is not established by what you think one person said. The scientific evidence for many decades is that vaccines are medically safe. That means they benefit many more people than they harm.
Should we stop doing surgery despite the benefits because some people die? Should we shut down ER departments because some people die there? Should we shut down pharmacies because they sell drugs that harm some people? Should we stop using vaccines that have benefited many millions because some people have been harmed?

Argument by YouTube video is usually weak. Hours of testimony by Dr. Stanley Plotkin statements in a disposition is not a good source of science. You need to actually view what you cite: Here's the link you asked for dealing with pertussis.
Hour 3 of 9 @ 57:30
. Those 3 minutes of that video is an attorney asking about well known biology and Plotkin explaining the immune system to him and a bit about how vaccines effect the immune system. That part of the disposition is general biology, not pertussis. It is irreverent.

Those 3 minutes do not support a "herd immunity doesn't exist for DTap" assertion. A supported low rate of pertussis immunization could indirectly support that assertion. However herd immunity is not that every person in the world has been immunized. Herd immunity is that a large enough % of the population a person could be exposed to have been immunized. That is a reason why pertussis boosters are recommended for adults that care for children.
Your first paragraph - according to you, "it is proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that vaccines don't cause autism." The IOM says, regarding DTaP, "there is insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism." So there's at least one vaccine on which the jury is still out. By extension that means the jury is still out on 'vaccines' in general. 'Insufficient data' is not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' in my book.

I gave the wrong link for the DTaP part. Sorry.
Hour 2, not 3 @ 57:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkAXkazVlo
I think you'll find he says exactly what I indicated.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 23rd May 2019 at 07:11 PM. Reason: clarity
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:17 PM   #309
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The question is, do you think I'm intentionally trying to deceive?
No. I think you can't understand why you are being deceived.


Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"...as a physician, I have to take the whole body of scientific information into consideration when I make a recommendation for a child."

So why doesn't he tell the parent the other side of the IOM's finding?
How is he not cherry-picking what he tells the parent?
In scientific terminology theories are never 'proved'. Proofs are used in math, not science.

Believe it or not, there is no scientific proof the Earth is spherical. But there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is spherical. So can a scientist (be it a pedantic one) say there is proof the Earth is not flat? No.

It seems counterintuitive, of course the Earth isn't flat, we can see it from satellites. But in scientific terms theories are the best explanation for the evidence. Theories are not 'proven facts'.

All Plotkin is saying is technically one cannot "prove" vaccines don't cause autism. We also can't prove tap water doesn't cause autism. We can't prove using your computer doesn't cause autism.

But we can say there is overwhelming evidence vaccines don't cause autism. And that is what Plotkin is saying.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:18 PM   #310
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wikipedia and Google exist, Itchy Boy ! Cherry picking
Cherry picking is the act of selecting only evidence that supports your stance out of a body of evidence that may overall say you are wrong. An extreme example would be cherry picking Wakefield's invalid and retracted paper when there is ~20 years of studies with evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

Skeptic Ginger did not write that you cherry picked. Skeptic Ginger wrote that you are being deceived. Deceived means being fooled by others. That may explain why you cited an irrelevant part of Dr. Stanley Plotkin disposition. That citation might have been parroted from somewhere else. To avid that you need to double check your sources and what is actually in a video. Those 3 minutes of that video is an attorney asking about well known biology and Plotkin explaining the immune system to him and a bit about how vaccines effect the immune system.

The deceptive acts from anti-vaxxers Skeptic Ginger mentions is ignorance and quote mining what Plotkin said. FYI this is taking part of what someone said so that it does not show their actual position. Read This reminds me of the climate change hearings where people didn't understand why science doesn't prove things, rather it seeks out the best explanation for the evidence.
I wanted to get Ginger's definition of cherry-picking in her own words, so that I can try to avoid being accused of it here.
Again, whatever other 'anti-vaxxers' have said or done is out of my hands. I try to conduct myself with integrity. If I'm proven wrong on a particular point, I'll admit my mistake and be grateful to the person who corrected me.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:18 PM   #311
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your first paragraph - according to you, "it is proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that vaccines don't cause autism." The IOM says, regarding DTaP, "there is insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism." So there's at least one vaccine on which the jury is still out. By extension that means the jury is still out on 'vaccines' in general. 'Insufficient data' is not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' in my book.
You're ignoring a wealth of data in favour of one source again. The link between vaccines of all kinds and autism has been tested again and again and again and again. The overwhelming result of all these rigorous scientific tests is that no link between vaccination and autism can be demonstrated.

You're like a climate change denier quoting one study that shows that human-cause climate change has not been demonstrated while ignoring 99% of other studies that show that it has.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:23 PM   #312
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I wanted to get Ginger's definition of cherry-picking in her own words, so that I can try to avoid being accused of it here.
If you want to avoid being accused of it, you need to not do it. Get your information from a wide range of sources, not just a few.

Here are some YouTubes to get you started.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:24 PM   #313
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your first paragraph - according to you, "it is proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that vaccines don't cause autism." The IOM says, regarding DTaP, "there is insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism." So there's at least one vaccine on which the jury is still out. By extension that means the jury is still out on 'vaccines' in general. 'Insufficient data' is not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' in my book.

I gave the wrong link for the DTaP part. Sorry.
Hour 2, not 3 @ 57:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkAXkazVlo
I think you'll find he says exactly what I indicated.
Regardless of what testimony you think is absolute, or what wording Reality Check chose to use, we indeed now have sufficient evidence to conclude vaccines don't cause autism.

The key evidence: autism can now be diagnosed before the supposed offending vaccines are given.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 07:55 PM   #314
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Thanks for your post. I spoke out of turn here and shot my mouth off without being certain of my facts. It happens sometimes in the heat of the moment.



So i apologize to everyone and withdraw my comments on vaccine testing until I know more about the testing process.



Thanks for alerting me of my transgression.


You’re welcome. Admitting error is generally admired around here so kudos for that.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 08:06 PM   #315
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your first paragraph - according to you, "it is proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that vaccines don't cause autism." The IOM says, regarding DTaP, "there is insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism."
You need to give a source, Itchy Boy.
If I google "IOM "insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism"" I do not get a match on that quote. There was a 2012 report (866 pages!) but this is 2019. What Epidemiologic Evidence and Mechanistic Evidence actually says
Quote:
Epidemiologic Evidence
...
The epidemiologic evidence is insufficient or absent to assess an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.
...
Mechanistic Evidence
The committee assesses the mechanistic evidence regarding an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism as lacking.
Causality Conclusion
Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.
They evaluated a single epidemiologic study from 2004 that was not good enough to be considered evidence and found no mechanistic evidence in the literature. Thus a "inadequate to accept or reject" conclusion.

N.B. Selecting a 7 year old IOM report is actual cherry picking.
Prenatal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis Vaccination and Autism Spectrum Disorder (2018) by Tracy A. Becerra-Culqui, Darios Getahun, Vicki Chiu, Lina S. Sy, Hung Fu Tseng. This study showed that pregnant woman who had the DTap vaccination were slightly less likely to have a child with autism. ETA: That may be a statistical fluke or a sample bias ("Women vaccinated were more likely to be Asian American or Pacific Islander, ...").

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd May 2019 at 08:48 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 08:27 PM   #316
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I gave the wrong link for the DTaP part. Sorry.
Hour 2, not 3 @ 57:30
57:30 is an attorney asking Dr Stanley Plotkin about well known facts of the pertussis vaccine. A few comments in an obscure video are a bad source. Pertussis vaccine is an article that is easily cited and quoted.
Quote:
Pertussis vaccine is a vaccine that protects against whooping cough (pertussis).[1][2] There are two main types: whole-cell vaccines and acellular vaccines.[1][2] The whole-cell vaccine is about 78% effective while the acellular vaccine is 71–85% effective.[1][3] The effectiveness of the vaccines appears to decrease by between 2 and 10% per year after vaccination with a more rapid decrease with the acellular vaccines.[1] Vaccinating the mother during pregnancy may protect the baby.[1] The vaccine is estimated to have saved over 500,000 lives in 2002.[4]
What is the issue you have with the life saving pertussis vaccine?

It should not be that herd immunity is unreliable for this vaccine. Public health experts cannot rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis since:
Quote:
•Pertussis spreads so easily
•Vaccine protection decreases over time
•Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria
If children are vaccinated then herd immunity is irrelevant.
If children cannot be vaccinated then the people they are exposed to can be vaccinated. The "herd" around them will have immunity.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 09:11 PM   #317
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You need to give a source, Itchy Boy.
If I google "IOM "insufficient data to determine if DTap does or does not cause autism"" I do not get a match on that quote. There was a 2012 report but this is 2019.

N.B. Selecting a 7 year old IOM report is actual cherry picking.
Prenatal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis Vaccination and Autism Spectrum Disorder (2018) by Tracy A. Becerra-Culqui, Darios Getahun, Vicki Chiu, Lina S. Sy, Hung Fu Tseng.
This study showed that pregnant woman who had the DTap vaccination were slightly less likely to have a child with autism.
I was paraphrasing and shouldn't have used quotation marks. Sorry.
I can't readily find that particular study but if I do, I'll post it. Meanwhile this information says the same thing, just not about DTaP. They seem to be only testing one vaccine at a time for a link to autism and other disorders, not taking into consideration cumulative effects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25349/
Section: UNDER REVIEW: VACCINES AND AUTISM
"The biological models for an association between MMR and autism were not established, but nevertheless were not disproved."

"... the committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and the NDDs of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and speech or language delay. The committee's causality conclusions based on the fact that there were no published epidemiological studies examining the potential association between TCVs and NDDs, and the two unpublished, epidemiological studies that were available (Blaxill, 2001; Verstraeten, 2001) provided only weak and inconclusive evidence of an association between NDDs and TCVs."

So, clearly, the jury is out. They go on to say,
"The committee also concluded that the hypothesis linking TCVs with NDDs was not yet established and rested on incomplete evidence."

If the evidence is incomplete, why aren't they intensely looking for more instead of closing the book? If they haven't closed the book, it means the question is still open.
If the question is still open, it can't be said that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that vaccines don't cause autism or other conditions. Countless people, including two families I know personally, believe that their child's (severe) autism was caused by or could have been caused by a vaccine. Doesn't that warrant more intense investigation instead of just concluding there's insufficient data and leaving it at that?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 09:36 PM   #318
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
57:30 is an attorney asking Dr Stanley Plotkin about well known facts of the pertussis vaccine. A few comments in an obscure video are a bad source. Pertussis vaccine is an article that is easily cited and quoted.


What is the issue you have with the life saving pertussis vaccine?

It should not be that herd immunity is unreliable for this vaccine. Public health experts cannot rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis since:

If children are vaccinated then herd immunity is irrelevant.
If children cannot be vaccinated then the people they are exposed to can be vaccinated. The "herd" around them will have immunity.
I was trying to show an example where herd immunity doesn't exist and never will for many diseases. Plotkin confirms the DTaP vaccine wears off rather quickly. I don't know anyone who's had a booster lately, do you?

In my opinion, the concept of herd immunity is promulgated to pave the way for mandatory vaccines for everyone. Because that's the only way to achieve it.
That's also the reason for the current measles hysteria which older folk who've had the measles know is completely unwarranted.

Was it to you that I gave the chicken pox link? - showing how the media portrays it in the US compared to the attitude in the Netherlands where children with chicken pox attended school. Let's add that to the Brady Bunch episode as evidence these diseases are not the horror our media makes them out to be. Also note the Netherlands example is much more recent.

ed: I'm not opposed to vaccines for people who want them.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 23rd May 2019 at 09:48 PM.
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 10:02 PM   #319
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
57:30 is an attorney asking Dr Stanley Plotkin about well known facts of the pertussis vaccine. A few comments in an obscure video are a bad source.
It was a source for some very specific information, namely that DTaP wears off quickly. How is that bad?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 12:36 AM   #320
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The vaccine manufacturer profits have been so marginal the federal government in the US has had to supplement the production in order to prevent critical shortages.

There are plenty of very profitable drugs on the market. Vaccines are not top on the list.
Here's a little factoid from Stanley.
Q: The increase in the vaccine market has been due to the fact that new vaccines give higher profits, correct?
A: Correct.

PART 3 @ 12:10 - 12:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSrykwRXHc
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.