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.
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.
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.
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.
let’s hope Meghan’s coward daddy gets the memo
Seems like the first link is busted. Does this work instead?
the first link worked in IE but not firefox
oh… that’s cause I copied it in … the h is missing in http
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.
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.
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.
Does this mean I can put them next to Scientific American and National Geographic?
You are all anti-science denialists.
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.
Kinda depends on the peers, don’t it, Slart?
Or the definition of peer. “One who pees”, though, doesn’t instill much confidence. So it’s got to be something else.
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Qυеѕtіοn […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]
[…] Question […]