He concentrates on everything, every, single, bit and yes it is annoying and boring but how people can watch it and then say he is spreading misinfo is bizarre, it's all there right in front of you and him and he breaks it down one excruciating bit, by bit, by bloody bit
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It’s not a good way of deducing because he misses out a lot of information. It shows that he is not knowledgeable on research and how to break it down in a concise manner.
He skips over important points.
No he does not.
Otherwise he would not keep making mistakes. Have you missed out all the posts where we have pointed out his errors.
I think the best thing for people is to keep a good weight, exercise (even if walking everyday) and eat as best as possible. The pandemic definitely woke people up to keeping good health.
No he just breaks down reports with a disclaimer for people to make of them what they will
I also forgot to add that my sister is on the heavier side. She isn't obese or anything, just a little overweight. So again, maybe that contributed to her getting Covid worse than my brother who has always kept a similar weight and is obviously pretty fit due to the physicality of his job, despite being a smoker. It's just the minutiae of these things.
No Monga, he deduces things from the studies and interprets them in a way that is not always accurate.No he just breaks down reports with a disclaimer for people to make of them what they will
He interprets how they read to him, hence the disclaimer .No Monga, he deduces things from the studies and interprets them in a way that is not always accurate.
No. Example - the Pfizer 9 pages of potential adverse events are exactly that (potential adverse events) but people all over the internet have been running with it and saying it is a list of actual adverse events which is false. Dr John did the same.He should leave it to the experts and stick to what he knows.
Like the vaccines MaYhAvE saved thousands of lives
He should leave it to the experts and stick to what he knows.
yea sure 🥱
The biggest shock to me here is the idea that people actually read disclaimers!
He should leave it to the experts and stick to what he knows.
Why ask for evidence if you have no intention of reading it, and are just gonna respond with an emoji?Like the vaccines MaYhAvE saved thousands of lives
Just seems like a waste of everyone's time
Disclaimers don’t make it okay. Maybe he should also put in the disclaimers that he makes errors, occasionally misinforms but it’s okay because he is a Dr - not a medical one.
They’re always good to have to keep yourself right
I asked for factual, maybes don’t countWhy ask for evidence if you have no intention of reading it, and are just gonna respond with an emoji?
Just seems like a waste of everyone's time
@monga
presumably you could actually read the full article, and then give a list of specifically what you don't agree with, what you think he's wrong about etc.
rather than just "OMG A SCIENTIST SAID MAYBE" so the whole article (which is commentary on a lancet paper) is not worth reading.
But I guess this is is what happens if you're used to a certain type of "reporting".
As I said earlier - credible scientists convey nuance and uncertainty, cranks & fools make hard claims with no room for movement. The latter is what gets clicks and likes, and explains why people like John Cambpell are incentivised to promote misinformation rather than accurate reporting.
presumably you could actually read the full article, and then give a list of specifically what you don't agree with, what you think he's wrong about etc.
rather than just "OMG A SCIENTIST SAID MAYBE" so the whole article (which is commentary on a lancet paper) is not worth reading.
But I guess this is is what happens if you're used to a certain type of "reporting".
As I said earlier - credible scientists convey nuance and uncertainty, cranks & fools make hard claims with no room for movement. The latter is what gets clicks and likes, and explains why people like John Cambpell are incentivised to promote misinformation rather than accurate reporting.
They forgot to mention in the title that it’s not vaccines alone ,they may have contributed , that alone is misinformation.
It may well have done, I believe excess weight was highlighted from early on as an indicator for being more likely to have a severe illness with covid.
I totally agree with you on all the points you’ve raised. Especially around people maintaining a good health. Many people think if they have no known medical conditions then they’re healthy but it’s simply not the case. To be healthy is to thrive and that involves taking care of all aspects of your health including nutrition, exercise and your emotional health. It’s hard work but it’s worth it for the reward!
This is a pretty bizzare criticism, given the lancet article was trying ascertain the specific contribution of vaccination, and that the author of blog post comprehenively outlines the contribution of other measures (and comments on this exact issue & how is is problem when deriving estimates).
But if you don't bother reading it, of course it will fly over your head!
Estimates aren’t factual that’s been my point all along the vaccines are only a tool not the saviour as you’re trying to make out.
I read the lancet article and it is constructed of estimates, can you link anything that is concrete data?
What a baffling reply.
No one can say the vaccines prevented exactly 30134512 deaths, and 129934512 cases of severe disease. Of course any analysis done by a credible research group will derive estimates. These analyses are complex - you'll include many covariates, consider a range of counterfactuals etc.
If anyone is telling you they have "concrete data" then they have no understanding of science. What do you actually mean by "concrete data"?
- Status