Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Question

Are there any legitimate Lancet studies?

Don’t answer. Rhetorical question.

(thanks to TerryH)

25 Replies to “Question”

  1. happyfeet says:

    let’s hope Meghan’s coward daddy gets the memo

  2. sdferr says:

    Seems like the first link is busted. Does this work instead?

  3. happyfeet says:

    the first link worked in IE but not firefox

  4. happyfeet says:

    oh… that’s cause I copied it in … the h is missing in http

  5. sdferr says:

    The Dem committee members of the Rules committee are getting their demagogic hate on with the Repeal Bill as it works its way through consideration there. Closed rule! Republican Liars talking about an open rule for the House and proven false on the first day! etc., etc.

  6. Bob Reed says:

    Those Lancet studies are as real as Jenny McCarthy’s boobs; and about as considered as her opinions. Thanks to her high visibility and volume, low education, opinion a lot more folks than might have were convinced to have their young-unz skip vaccination.

    So if they should die of a disease that was effectively eradicated previously, they can than friggin’ Lancet, Andrew Wakefield, and Jenny “stoopid-iz-kewl” McCarthy.

  7. sdferr says:

    So study writers must not be operating under an Hippocratic Oath thinger insisting “First, Do No Harm”; which, for serious intentional harm doers, ought to be encouraging, since the Doctor operating under the injunction is mostly focused on avoiding harm to one individual and near kin (kin, say, in the case of killing the individual, for instance), whereas the serious intentional harmist is reaching out to injure whole populations with his falsifications.

  8. Mueller says:

    Does this mean I can put them next to Scientific American and National Geographic?

  9. JD says:

    You are all anti-science denialists.

  10. Slartibartfast says:

    Isn’t the Lancet one a them there peer-reviewed journals?

    Why, yes! Yes it is!

    I thought peer review was supposed to help prevent stuff like utterly, obviously (when inspected by qualified peer reviewers) bogus scientific studies from making it into the public knowledge base for a dozen years at a stretch.

    Guess not.

  11. Silver Whistle says:

    Kinda depends on the peers, don’t it, Slart?

  12. Slartibartfast says:

    Or the definition of peer. “One who pees”, though, doesn’t instill much confidence. So it’s got to be something else.

Comments are closed.