Page 3 of 25
Posted on February 16 at 6:21 p.m.
Naturalnews may be an entertaining and provocative site but it is not what it claims to be:
“Natural News is a science-based natural health advocacy organization led by activist-turned-scientist Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/About.html...
Science in the ideal is a pursuit of objective ‘truth.’ Humans are never perfect so their work needs checking – called peer review in science circles. Naturalnews is sole source – there is no peer review – it’s just one guy’s blog. So when commenters react to the observation that "Naturalnews is riddled with nonsense…" with statements like…
“I'm confident that participants here with even a rudimentary understanding of online media can easily grasp how silly are these attack-the-source-site or attack-the-author type of ad hominems”
…they reveal that they don’t understand how science actually works (and have a weak grasp of logical fallacies).
Here’s another view of naturalnews, well referenced if not peer reviewed:“NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes numerous alternative medicines and assorted woo.”
Snopes usually has a balanced approach and here’s part of what they say about oft spewed basis for ‘the flu plot:’
“First, the flu shot is not nearly as profitable to pharmaceutical companies as many imagine, generating less than one percent of global pharmaceutical company revenues. By contrast, a flu epidemic would likely generate a far larger profit for those companies…”
It comes down to confidence: If you or a loved one were seriously ill, would you seek medical help from naturalnews? Or from the commenters here? For your sake, I hope you'd choose to see your doctor.
On Herd Immunity or Insanity?
Posted on February 15 at 10:02 p.m.
14no - no ad hom or strawman. I commented on your comment not you. The fallacy at play here is 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' I don't yet see how medalerts argues against vaccination... Naturalnews is riddled with nonsense. Since you are bucking the overwhelming weight of medical advice to participate in vaccination programs, the burden is actually on you to show in a meaningful way how the bulk of the medical community are wrong.
Posted on February 15 at 9:28 p.m.
14no you cite 'naturalnews' and expect your comment to be taken seriously? With that level of veracity one could prove the Earth is flat and only a few thousand years old. Please explain clearly how vaccination programs have failed to yield a net benefit to society starting at least one hundred years ago.
Posted on February 15 at 9:21 p.m.
JohnTieber is correct when he suggests we should all get the MMR vaccination.
On Viral Immunity
Posted on February 15 at 6:14 p.m.
“I encourage Starshine to use her power of word to stick to what she is most talented at — rather than medical advice that is so full of tricksterism that it is truly scary.” Dale Figtree
Mr. Figtree need only to look into a mirror to see the trickster here. Starshine’s position is consistent with reality and sound medical advice, for example:
Key facts• Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.• In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.• Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.• In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.• During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.
Posted on February 15 at 5:46 p.m.
“In the churning over the refusal of some parents to immunize their children against certain diseases, a venerable Latin phrase may prove useful: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It means, “After this, therefore because of this.” In plainer language: Event B follows Event A, so B must be the direct result of A. It is a classic fallacy in logic. It is also a trap into which many Americans have fallen. That is the consensus among health professionals trying to contain recent spurts of infectious diseases that they had believed were forever in the country’s rearview mirror. They worry that too many people are not getting their children vaccinated, out of a conviction that inoculations are risky. Some parents feel certain that vaccines can lead to autism, if only because there have been instances when a child got a shot and then became autistic. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Making that connection between the two events, most health experts say, is as fallacious in the world of medicine as it is in the field of logic.”
Posted on February 13 at 10:03 p.m.
Tabatha – I hope you are not terribly surprised by the revelation of our water supply being poisoned by reckless oil extraction. I think, as you made clear in several posts, that it was clear to any informed and objective observer that aggressive petrochemical extraction had this collateral result was a significant possibility with little contingency. Clearly the arguments against measure P were inspired by some combination of incompetence and greed. Sit back and wait for the lame bleats to the contrary.
On Santa Barbara Wells Part of Statewide Investigation
Posted on February 11 at 1:56 p.m.
"I dunno the difference." JJ
Gotta agree with you on this one Jarv
On Dildo Wielded During City Council Meeting
Posted on February 11 at 1:52 p.m.
The problem seems to be widespread
Posted on February 11 at 11:34 a.m.
“"…vaccines have nothing to do with autism..." is false” is false.
On Autism Enlightenment