Jump to content

Conspiracy Theories


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, The Minertaur said:

My brother in law just shared this on Facebook. I don't even know where to start with this.

image.png.27ae07e5b46eb787f19f1796cafd8721.png

Couple of weeks ago he sent me a video about Isaac Kappy which was full of a load of shite.

There were a number of posts on here back in late February early March to that effect on this forum on the Covid 19 thread. Including by some well known individuals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

The BBC and others treating the claim that MMR caused autism (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in their usual he said, she said style lent it a credence that it didn't deserve. This led to children dying. 

The BBC killed children did it. If only they had listened to you. :rolleyes:

Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link)

It was officially withdrawn in February 2010. 

Reporting between those dates would have been on very safe ground stating a study in a high profile journal had raised an issue when explaining why there was as controversy. Virtually no reporter would have been qualified to read research and state that it was wrong. They could report on the issue and state that the vast majority disagreed with it. 

Reporting by credible news sources after this point would be on solid ground to point out there was no credible research suggesting a link between MMR and Autism. If you can show when the BBC reporting a credible link after February 2010 then the floor is yours. 

I bet you have never read a single science paper in your life, let alone have to follow as contradictory evidence is worked through in a contentious topic. Lancet referees let the paper through. Lancet, BMJ and NEJM are the top journals in medicine (although Nature, Science and PNAS will take medical papers). Papers appearing in those journals have met the fields highest standards for entering the scientific discussion. The fault lies with and has been acknowledged by The Lancet (in that the paper was withdrawn). Reporting research of interest to the public from the very top journals in the world is acceptable. So long as you explain there is a body of opposition. 

We live in a world where people want simple stories that make themselves to be the heroes who can see through the dumbarsed scientists giving out dangerous vaccines or dumbarsed science reporters who's weeks of research into a complex topic where there is contradictory evidence can be attacked with self congratulatory smugness by people 15 years later who's sole understanding of the 22 year long controversy is they can spell MMR. 

Welcome to our future. Dumb and dumber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lancet article was only officially withdrawn in 2010. It was known for years before then that it was bogus. The process (it is a long-winded one) to start withdrawing it started in 2006 or 2007 I believe. His financial conflict of interests were known far earlier, about 2003 IIRC.

Any 'journalist' reporting on this beyond the mid-2000s was knowingly contributing to the lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

aye pretty sure it was getting pelters very much earlier than 2010.

I have not seen peer reviewed science "getting pelters" before. Can your describe the great many fields you pretend to be an expert in and your long history of identifying which "pelters" are good science and which are just poorly constructed critiques. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

There were a number of posts on here back in late February early March to that effect on this forum on the Covid 19 thread. Including by some well known individuals. 

Coward's move. Name names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link)

It was officially withdrawn in February 2010. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70321-4/fulltext

There you go. It's in the Lancet and it hasn't been retracted.

Thank you for repeating what I already said. 

It helps the slow ones keep up. 

Edited by dorlomin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

that's from 98 my dude.

 

Me

Quote

Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link)

Thank you for confirming what I said. 

Quote

It sounded like you were meaning to say it was fine for the news to quote it between 98 and 2010 because it was still notionally published

Kind off.

It was withdrawn in February 2010.

I did not say "fine" but I am sure that nuance is not the objective here.  

I will explain (and be ignored). Science is not someone produces a paper and suddenly everyone agrees (no matter what our wanna be clever posters say). 

When people disagree they produce contrary papers. These fight it out until a consensus appears. (See Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). 

What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. 

 

I am sure that the 20 plus posts a day types will be convinced they win. But they are buffoons out their depth on science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hero to villain.

Quote


In December 1961, the Australian obstetrician William McBride warned in a letter to the Lancet that he had observed “multiple severe abnormalities” in babies delivered from women who had taken the drug thalidomide during pregnancy.1 He concluded his letter by asking: “Have any of your readers seen similar abnormalities in babies delivered of women who have taken this drug during pregnancy?”

The letter, thought to be the first published suggestion from a doctor of teratogenicity of thalidomide in humans, was brief—only five sentences. McBride’s concerns about thalidomide were subsequently confirmed by researchers in Europe, and the drug was banned around the world, saving countless infants from being born with birth defects.

An article in The BMJ in 2016 about a documentary film chronicling the lives of people who had birth defects as a result of the drug stated: “The thalidomide scandal stands as one of the worst ever medical disasters.”2

Global recognition
For helping alert the world to the dangers of thalidomide taken during pregnancy, McBride gained global recognition. In his native Australia he was hailed as a national hero, and a glow of honour hovered over him for the following three decades. He had a thriving practice in Sydney, and he received a CBE in 1969 and the Order of Australia in 1977.

But a later chapter of McBride’s life was not so pleasant. In 1993, at the age of 65, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud by a medical tribunal for knowingly publishing false and misleading research. He was removed from the medical register.

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415.full

Quote

In 1981 he published a paper indicating that the drug Debendox (marketed in the US as Bendectin) caused birth defects. His co-authors noted that the published paper contained manipulated data and protested[11] but their voices went unheard. Multiple lawsuits followed by patients and McBride was a willing witness for the claimants. Eventually, the case was investigated and, as a result, McBride was struck off the Australian medical register in 1993 for deliberately falsifying data.[12] An inquiry determined "we are forced to conclude that McBride did publish statements which he either knew were untrue or which he did not genuinely believe to be true, and in that respect was guilty of scientific fraud." He was reinstated to the medical register in 1998.[13][14][15]

The Bendectin case, and the subsequent removal of the drug from the US market, has had a number of consequences.[16] Firstly, there was an immediate increase in the rates of hospitalization for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.[17] Secondly, it created a treatment void in terms of having a safe medication that could be used for alleviating morning sickness in US pregnant women, a condition which, in the most severe form, called hyperemesis gravidarum, could be both life-threatening and cause women to terminate their pregnancy.[18]

The lack of availability of a safe and effective drug for the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy resulted in the use of other, less studied drugs in pregnancy.[16][19][20] Thirdly, it has been claimed that subsequent to the Bendectin experience, drug companies stayed away from developing medications for pregnant patients.[21] As a result, only a few medications were approved by the FDA for obstetrical indications in the past several decades.[22] Lastly, the perception that all medications are teratogenic increased among pregnant women and healthcare professionals.[23] The unfounded fear of using medications during pregnancy has precluded many women from receiving the treatment they require.[23] Leaving medical conditions untreated during pregnancy can result in adverse pregnancy outcomes or significant morbidity for both the mother and baby.[23] Ongoing education of physicians and the general public has resulted in improvements in the perception of medication use in pregnancy; however, further advances are required to overcome the devastating effects of the Bendectin saga.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)#Debendox_case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Me

Thank you for confirming what I said. 

Kind off.

It was withdrawn in February 2010.

I did not say "fine" but I am sure that nuance is not the objective here.  

I will explain (and be ignored). Science is not someone produces a paper and suddenly everyone agrees (no matter what our wanna be clever posters say). 

When people disagree they produce contrary papers. These fight it out until a consensus appears. (See Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). 

What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. 

 

I am sure that the 20 plus posts a day types will be convinced they win. But they are buffoons out their depth on science. 

Is this what it looks like when the gloves are off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Is this what it looks like when the gloves are off?

Dorlomin would only take a glove off to challenge an intellectual equal to a duel. Fortunately for them he hasn't met one yet, I'm sure he'd be ferocious.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. 

This man disagrees. The press ignored all the mass of evidence that contradicted the Lancet paper, because panic sells more papers. I include the Lancet in that, though they got the jitters in 2004 and phoned Wakefield's boss who reassured them that he was a fine chap, nothing to worry about, and sat on it for another 6 years.

Short version.

https://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict

Longer version.

https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/07/2020 at 06:30, MONKMAN said:

There's people who believe that bigfoot is widely found in the Pacific North West of America, although any evidence of their existence is being systematically covered up by the US and Canadian governments.  

These idiots (the believers, not bigfoot)  actually live amongst us, and are allowed to vote.  

We did a road trip a few years ago through South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee, we were walking a section of the Appalachian trail, we came to a clearing and a hundred or so metres away was a bear standing upright rubbing its back against a tree, for a second my brain couldn't process what i was seeing, by the time I got my camera out it had moved on. 

A few hours later we're in Gatlinburg eating bbq and get sauce all down my white t shirt so i popped into the first clothing store i found and the t shirt below was right there as i entered i had to get it, weirdly the tag said it was a large but it turned out to be a medium but it fitted perfectly. 

Don't know if there is a bigfoot sightings/wrong clothing label crossover theory. 

 

IMG_20200729_100600.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weirdest conspiracy I've heard recently was a postman saying that Covid-19 had something to do with 9-11. As in some kind of retaliation by god knows who, trying to harm god knows who.
Also heard the classic Covid linked to 5G towers and the flat earth shite. All from different people I might add.
My gran thinks Covid-19 has some kind of link to nuclear and spaceships but surprisingly she's never been able to go into more detail.
For me the most irritating part about conspiracy theories is there is so much other horrendous stuff out there, with evidence attached, which just gets ignored. People like being the edgy outsider with "incredible" information not being discussed by mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...