To me, the fact that your critic chose to remain anonymous is an indicator that one should not take them so seriously. I rate anonymous critics right up there with the ever-popular anonymous sources.
I quite firmly believe that much of the NIH is corrupt. I can't assess why the NIH doesn't demolish the misinformation themselves, point-by-point. Their silence is disturbing in that following many who show their analyses using data available to the public, that data needs explanation. I've obtained similar data and arrive at much the same conclusion that is hard to deny. I see MMWR reports full of statistical errors, I see NEJM articles that are quite biased and wrong. Peer reviewed becomes less and less useful. I await public hearings to debate and discuss what governments have dome and the why of that. I only have an MS in Physics not the areas of concern, yet can assess data and see issues. If all this misinformation is so wrong why can't the NIH counter it?
Arguing with ignoramuses is largely a waste of time. It kindles anger in me, and one can't do much in writing online. The best way is to put them in their place face to face with printed data, actually going into the nitty gritty details. Ignoramuses are too lazy to delve into details. They want the easy way. They want to be told what to believe.
"Brett Weinberg" is actually Brett Weinstein. And I'd ask Al to send his friend a white feather, nothing more, in an envelope with no return address...
That was Bob Homans' deal. I don't know.
To me, the fact that your critic chose to remain anonymous is an indicator that one should not take them so seriously. I rate anonymous critics right up there with the ever-popular anonymous sources.
I quite firmly believe that much of the NIH is corrupt. I can't assess why the NIH doesn't demolish the misinformation themselves, point-by-point. Their silence is disturbing in that following many who show their analyses using data available to the public, that data needs explanation. I've obtained similar data and arrive at much the same conclusion that is hard to deny. I see MMWR reports full of statistical errors, I see NEJM articles that are quite biased and wrong. Peer reviewed becomes less and less useful. I await public hearings to debate and discuss what governments have dome and the why of that. I only have an MS in Physics not the areas of concern, yet can assess data and see issues. If all this misinformation is so wrong why can't the NIH counter it?
Arguing with ignoramuses is largely a waste of time. It kindles anger in me, and one can't do much in writing online. The best way is to put them in their place face to face with printed data, actually going into the nitty gritty details. Ignoramuses are too lazy to delve into details. They want the easy way. They want to be told what to believe.
Is this the lady we crowdfunded some months back? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NeHt4bFDA
I'm chust a goyisha boy with a yiddisha =kop
"Brett Weinberg" is actually Brett Weinstein. And I'd ask Al to send his friend a white feather, nothing more, in an envelope with no return address...
Thanks. I fixed it. Not a serious error, but any errors at all detract from a guy's credibility.