Pfizer Hearing

Not really a ludicrous position at all. You will factor in a lot of things when assessing research. Left or right wing leaning publications will be part of that. It just forms part of the thought processes.

Are there publications which may read and dismiss because of their "stance" or ideology?

But to be aware of possible bias does not make them an authority anymore than anyone else who is aware of possible bias. Its just another factor to consider when appraising evidence. Infact, this is not exclusive to any degree course. It is just good practice for anyone looking at any evidence. Infact, only the other day i was discussing conflicts of interest with regards to Patrick Vallance. Considering bias is just what any sensible person would do. To be fair to frijj he didn't even argue this point.
It’s always fun when people like Kermit argue the toss over a minor point. It’s because they don’t want to argue about anything substantive.

Let’s argue about whether or not universities teach students about biased sources, definitely not about the far right Chinese propaganda that he supports.
I didnt bring it up after our initial exchange and, to be fair, neither did you. Its other people getting involved.
 
Last edited:


But to be aware of possible bias does not make them an authority anymore than anyone else who is aware of possible bias. Its just another factor to consider when appraising evidence. Infact, this is not exclusive to any degree course. It is just good practice for anyone looking at any evidence. Infact, only the other day i was discussing conflicts of interest with regards to Patrick Vallance. Considering bias is just what any sensible person would do. To be fair to frijj he didn't even argue this point.
Exactly right it is good practice but is taught specifically in the course that you questioned and as @rudd pointed out in other related subjects.

You factor in bias when appraising evidence and discuss it (in well researched and written papers anyway). Even more so when a peer review or meta analysis has been conducted.
 
Exactly right it is good practice but is taught specifically in the course that you questioned and as @rudd pointed out in other related subjects.

You factor in bias when appraising evidence and discuss it (in well researched and written papers anyway). Even more so when a peer review or meta analysis has been conducted.
Agreed but not exclusive to the course clearly, therefore boasting about a public health qualification as if it gives authority to brand something as right wing is clearly nonsensical. No point keep going back and forth on this. I think the above is pretty obvious to most people.
 
Agreed but not exclusive to the course clearly, therefore boasting about a public health qualification as if it gives authority to brand something as right wing is clearly nonsensical. No point keep going back and forth on this. I think the above is pretty obvious to most people.
Nobody said it was exclusive to that course but you asked to be pointed towards the module in a Public Health Masters Degree course

Ok, then please direct me to the module in frijjs Public Health Masters degree where they study the political leanings of media outlets and i will admit i am wrong. With proof ofcourse. Otherwise its just unevidenced bluster. A staple of yours. Interesting that frijj himself didnt push back on this point.
 
Agreed but not exclusive to the course clearly, therefore boasting about a public health qualification as if it gives authority to brand something as right wing is clearly nonsensical. No point keep going back and forth on this. I think the above is pretty obvious to most people.

That isn’t what I said tbf. You were shitting on about textbooks.

Obvious what you’re doing though. Drag an argument out over the minutiae, and ignore the far right misinformation shared by @Poacher.

This is a common tactic employed by trolls and conspiracy theorists.

Let’s focus on the important stuff shall we?
 
That isn’t what I said tbf. You were shitting on about textbooks.

Obvious what you’re doing though. Drag an argument out over the minutiae, and ignore the far right misinformation shared by @Poacher.

This is a common tactic employed by trolls and conspiracy theorists.

Let’s focus on the important stuff shall we?
I never asked for this argument. Im trying to shut it down because its ridiculous. They are trying to bend facts to say that you were taught how to assess what is right wing media in your public health degree just because it says you have to look into bias. :lol:
Nobody said it was exclusive to that course but you asked to be pointed towards the module in a Public Health Masters Degree course
It is clearly not studying the political leanings of a media outlet. It is taking into account bias when looking at evidence. At a stretch, if desperate, you could try to say a right wing bias to the evidence in question, but at no stage are they teaching people what right wing media is. Its not going to fit no matter how hard you try. :lol: Thats my last word on it.
 
Last edited:
It is clearly not studying the political leanings of a media outlet. It is taking into account bias when looking at evidence. At a stretch, if desperate, you could try to say a right wing bias to the evidence in question, but at no stage are they teaching people what right wing media is. Its not going to fit no matter how hard you try. :lol: Thats my last word on it.
Of course it is not teaching them what right wing media is you numpty. Its assessing evidence and part of that is battling through utter shite from right and left wing to determine credible data and information.

this has all been a nice diversion though
 
I never asked for this argument. Im trying to shut it down because its ridiculous. They are trying to bend facts to say that you were taught how to assess what is right wing media in your public health degree just because it says you have to look into bias. :lol:

It is clearly not studying the political leanings of a media outlet. It is taking into account bias when looking at evidence. At a stretch, if desperate, you could try to say a right wing bias to the evidence in question, but at no stage are they teaching people what right wing media is. Its not going to fit no matter how hard you try. :lol: Thats my last word on it.

Well if that’s your last word let’s get back to the fake news about stillbirths.
 
Well if that’s your last word let’s get back to the fake news about stillbirths.
That wasnt me. It wouldnt surprise me but its not something ive looked into. They appear to be causing a lot of other problems so i wouldnt be shocked. Not that you would care anyway. You would still encourage women to queue up.
 
That wasnt me. It wouldnt surprise me but its not something ive looked into. They appear to be causing a lot of other problems so i wouldnt be shocked. Not that you would care anyway. You would still encourage women to queue up.

It’s interesting you’re so quick to (almost) libel me as negligent in the workplace mind.
 
Its a bit like when you accused me of being pleased people had died. We're all friends here so no harm done eh?

There’s a difference mind, when I work in a healthcare field and you don’t.

As I recall I asked if you were happy. It was a question. Selective memory?
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference mind, when I work in a healthcare field and you don’t.

As I recall I asked if you were happy. It was a question. Selective memory?
You have absolutely no idea where i work or what i do. You can sue me for libel if you want. Im not sure if it applies to anonymous posters on a message board, or if it indeed applies to speculation over what you might do in the future, i could be wrong, but you are welcome to try.
 
You have absolutely no idea where i work or what i do. You can sue me for libel if you want. Im not sure if it applies to anonymous posters on a message board, or if it indeed applies to speculation over what you might do in the future, i could be wrong, but you are welcome to try.

Calm down. I never said I was going to sue anyone for anything. I just found it interesting you believe I would encourage women to be vaccinated if there was clear evidence of harm.

Quite a heinous thing to say, believing I would wilfully and knowingly harm people in order to promote vaccination.
 
A rather peculiar article on the (right wing) National Institutes of Health (NIH) website. A presumably right wing Doctor with a scathing summary of the Covid response. I had never heard of this fella so checked him out. A look at his Wiki (edited only 3 days ago 13 times by 4 different users, prior to this the last edit was in August) shows him to be well credentialed but.... Wait for it... Is prone to the old conspiracy theory. Isnt it always the way eh? This was posted online in April but seems to have resurfaced of late and been receiving some traffic.

Just thought it odd to be on the NIH website.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

Frijj et al, ill save you the bother. Right wing... Blah blah... Not a peer reviewed opinion... Blah... Conspiracist...blah... Fake news... I am the Public Health equivalent of Muhammad Ali etc.... Blah.... Ive just given you a pasting.....
 
A rather peculiar article on the (right wing) National Institutes of Health (NIH) website. A presumably right wing Doctor with a scathing summary of the Covid response. I had never heard of this fella so checked him out. A look at his Wiki (edited only 3 days ago 13 times by 4 different users, prior to this the last edit was in August) shows him to be well credentialed but.... Wait for it... Is prone to the old conspiracy theory. Isnt it always the way eh? This was posted online in April but seems to have resurfaced of late and been receiving some traffic.

Just thought it odd to be on the NIH website.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

Frijj et al, ill save you the bother. Right wing... Blah blah... Not a peer reviewed opinion... Blah... Conspiracist...blah... Fake news... I am the Public Health equivalent of Muhammad Ali etc.... Blah.... Ive just given you a pasting.....

Given that he’s a contributing writer on health to NewsMax, which is undoubtedly a far right conservative media outlet, wrote a book about “the China virus”, and literally sells “alternative medicine”, I’m not convinced he’s a reliable source myself.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with “the NIH website” which is understandable if you’ve not done any academic research before.

All that website is doing is showing you a journal article that Blaylock wrote. A journal from a publisher that he is an editor for.

It isn’t an endorsement by the NIH, so it’s not odd at all it was on their website and just goes to show you don’t even have basic familiarity with it.

There’s also no reason it would be peer reviewed, because it’s an editorial. It’s an opinion piece. It’s in a journal yes but it’s an opinion piece.

It’s like you don’t even know how journals, research or academia works.

It’s about 5,000 words of absolute nonsense. I am sure you lapped it all up and have it ready to copy and paste to make up for your own inability to make an argument.

Mind you, copy and pasting Blaylock’s nonsense is still an improvement on your own thinking, so maybe that’s for the best.
 
Last edited:
Given that he’s a contributing writer on health to NewsMax, which is undoubtedly a far right conservative media outlet, wrote a book about “the China virus”, and literally sells “alternative medicine”, I’m not convinced he’s a reliable source myself.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with “the NIH website” which is understandable if you’ve not done any academic research before.

All that website is doing is showing you a journal article that Blaylock wrote. A journal from a publisher that he is an editor for.

It isn’t an endorsement by the NIH, so it’s not odd at all it was on their website and just goes to show you don’t even have basic familiarity with it.

There’s also no reason it would be peer reviewed, because it’s an editorial. It’s an opinion piece. It’s in a journal yes but it’s an opinion piece.

It’s like you don’t even know how journals, research or academia works.

It’s about 5,000 words of absolute nonsense. I am sure you lapped it all up and have it ready to copy and paste to make up for your own inability to make an argument.

Mind you, copy and pasting Blaylock’s nonsense is still an improvement on your own thinking, so maybe that’s for the best.
Pretty much the reply i anticipated. I did the frijj bingo to save you the effort as well. I obviously know opinions arent peer reviewed man :lol:. They are opions. I was fishing for more Muhammed Ali stuff if im honest. I just found it strange that the NIH would give it space on their website really.
 
Pretty much the reply i anticipated. I did the frijj bingo to save you the effort as well. I obviously know opinions arent peer reviewed man :lol:. They are opions. I was fishing for more Muhammed Ali stuff if im honest. I just found it strange that the NIH would give it space on their website really.

You don’t seem to understand how their website works
 
You don’t seem to understand how their website works

Ill be honest i dont. Do they just put owt on like? To be fair i didnt expect this paper to be taken seriously by the likes of you, despite agreeing with a lot of it, due to it being an opinion piece and thats understandable. We dont have to agree with peoples opinions.
 
Ill be honest i dont. Do they just put owt on like? To be fair i didnt expect this paper to be taken seriously by the likes of you, despite agreeing with a lot of it, due to it being an opinion piece and thats understandable. We dont have to agree with peoples opinions.

It’s effectively functioning as a library of journals. It isn’t an endorsement of views.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously if they’re a contributing writer to a far right media source, sell alternative therapies and have a track record of misinformation.

I wholly agree we don’t need to agree with opinions but likewise we need to recognise that opinions are not facts.
 

Back
Top