Top | Newest First | Oldest First
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
NerdyPotato · M
Oh my... I don't even know where to start with this. So many unrelated statements with claims that they proof all kinds of stuff, which they don't even if they were related.
View 1 more replies »
NerdyPotato · M
@WalterF I'll be honest, the more I read about it, the less I'm interested in reading the actual book itself. You only promote it through summaries full of logical fallacies and clear lack of understanding of the topic.
You not having any scientifically solid summary, but plenty of incoherent garbage about it, makes me think the book is just that too, and not worth any time or energy. If it really is properly researched, can you give me just one summary that reflects that?
You not having any scientifically solid summary, but plenty of incoherent garbage about it, makes me think the book is just that too, and not worth any time or energy. If it really is properly researched, can you give me just one summary that reflects that?
WalterF · 70-79, M
@NerdyPotato I'm reading the book. I teach scientific English (including Scientific Writing) in pharmaceutical companies in France, and at the Sorbonne University in Paris. It's easy to distinguish rubbish (collections of ridiculous theories and biased suppositions) from methodical, detailed, referenced studies from a highly qualified analyst. This book is the latter, and is way above the level of "objections" of the type you have just made.
The version I have is the kindle one, so I will simply take a screenshot or two as an example. However, I will not do this in the middle of Sunday lunch, even for yourself.
By the way, why ask for summaries when you can download a free sample for kindle and DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF? I find it sickening that you one-track pro-establishment people always ask for help with documents, etc. You are apparently incapable for researching for yourself, and bear a grudge against tnose of us who do.
And the fact that you sneer at the summary provided as being illogical and demonstrating a "lack of understanding of the topic" is utterly pathetic! How arrogant. Who do you think you are?
So, do your own research. I'm done with spoonfeeding.
The version I have is the kindle one, so I will simply take a screenshot or two as an example. However, I will not do this in the middle of Sunday lunch, even for yourself.
By the way, why ask for summaries when you can download a free sample for kindle and DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF? I find it sickening that you one-track pro-establishment people always ask for help with documents, etc. You are apparently incapable for researching for yourself, and bear a grudge against tnose of us who do.
And the fact that you sneer at the summary provided as being illogical and demonstrating a "lack of understanding of the topic" is utterly pathetic! How arrogant. Who do you think you are?
So, do your own research. I'm done with spoonfeeding.
NerdyPotato · M
@WalterF I'm not looking up the full book because I have no time and energy for that. And if it's only as good as the summaries, it's not even worth searching for.
[quote]He dispenses $7 billion to public health research. That means he has a one man monopoly over all public health research.[/quote]
That's only a fraction of research grants funded by other organizations, so researchers don't depend on Fauci alone.
[quote]He says that everyone agrees with him but that's only because he pays them.[/quote]
No, he doesn't fund every scientist in the world. If there is a scientific consensus across the world, that's not limited to the studies he paid for.
[quote]No other profession would be taken seriously when a single bureaucrat is in charge of all publications.[/quote]
The organization funding research is not in control of the findings or publication of that in proper research. There have been examples of steering the results by a curious choice of control group, but then the result is easily invalidated by peer reviews by independent researchers.
See? This review draws questionable conclusions from incorrect assumptions. If the book is better, I don't understand why you would share something that makes it look so bad. Can you blame me for considering the possibility that you thought this review was solid and that if you misjudged that so badly, you may have done the same with the book itself?
[quote]He dispenses $7 billion to public health research. That means he has a one man monopoly over all public health research.[/quote]
That's only a fraction of research grants funded by other organizations, so researchers don't depend on Fauci alone.
[quote]He says that everyone agrees with him but that's only because he pays them.[/quote]
No, he doesn't fund every scientist in the world. If there is a scientific consensus across the world, that's not limited to the studies he paid for.
[quote]No other profession would be taken seriously when a single bureaucrat is in charge of all publications.[/quote]
The organization funding research is not in control of the findings or publication of that in proper research. There have been examples of steering the results by a curious choice of control group, but then the result is easily invalidated by peer reviews by independent researchers.
See? This review draws questionable conclusions from incorrect assumptions. If the book is better, I don't understand why you would share something that makes it look so bad. Can you blame me for considering the possibility that you thought this review was solid and that if you misjudged that so badly, you may have done the same with the book itself?
