starts with an ad-hominem logical fallacy. here's one back - this guy just got his phd in molecular biology (seems to have studied primarily in ribosomes (which are involved in protein synthesis, not too far from my own studies) and has never worked in the medical or even science fields. none of his studies involve any medical or health related at all.
the main mistake in this debunk failure he makes repeatedly, using a small aside fact as if it has anything to do with the main argument he's attempting to debunk elt alone a counter to it. take the bit around 12 minutes - the claim is that vaccine side-effects are larger than first reported (and this has proved to be true with most countries acknowledging it and rolling back their vaccinations plans accordingly), and wilson "debunks" this by showing that some of the data in only 2 of the possible side effects in only one of the vaccines in only 2 countries makes that tiny portion less than clear.
bonus points for anyone who can name that particular logical fallacy!
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The problem with campbell is the same asi it is with weinstein and the others, people are pointing out his mistakes and he doesn't respond. The conspiracy theorists are of course happy with that because they only need one yt prophet to tell them what they want to hear.
In this video quite a few experts are mentioned who tried to talk sense to him.
The presenter does not need any of the qualifications you stated in you own ad hominem, he only needs to be able to understand the studies he is quoting from. So should campbel, but he chose to go the other way.
Lastly stating what his background is and what he does as well as that his comment sections are full of antivaxxer bullshit is not ad hominem they are simply facts, the former 2 not used in a way to say that he is incompetent, quite the opposite.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
"my own studies" as in you went to school or as in "i did my own research"? i'm trying to figure out why you would omit the conclusionary part of a study(cochrane review) and misrepresent it as something else. i don't think thats something thats taught in school
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Kind of a blanket statement. He's done hundreds of videos and I'm sure there a plenty of mistakes and misrepresentations among them. Does that mean it's all on purpose just for the sake of views? I doubt it, but nobody really knows. Mr. Debunk the Funk here sure thinks he does it all on purpose.
Why I tend to listen to the guy every now and then is because he talks about papers I would never even know existed.
His latest is pretty interesting.
Can anyone say if he is misrepresenting the paper here or not?
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
is he misrepresenting the paper? lets find out together
for starters. that "71% of the suspected adverse reactions occurred in 4.2% of the vaccine" isn't in the study, he added that himself.
second, here's a note from the author. "I just wanted to add, that the lot size data, we obtained from The Danish Serum Institute, is in fact the number of doses pr. batch, that were shipped from the Danish Serum Institute to all the Danish vaccination centers". that means according to the study, they have no idea how many doses were injected into someone, only how many were shipped.
third, it does't take anything else into consideration. i.e. how were the doses stored or administered.
fourth, the blue dots, the ones that represent the early vaccine, probably corresponds to seniors and those who got priority who were on a ticking time line to start with. cause you know.... at the start we only gave them to people who were more than likely going to die soon
lastly and i think its the most important thing. its using information from a source that accepts anything. its like, doing a study on desktop keyboards and resorting to using google reviews for the data set
so, thats what i know and i'm not a doctor or a nurse. so, is john with his years in the medical field misrepresenting the paper?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"for starters. that "71% of the suspected adverse reactions occurred in 4.2% of the vaccine" isn't in the study, he added that himself."
It's there just rounded off to one decimal point, so a quick ctrl+f doesn't come up with results.
Vaccine batches representing the blue, green and yellow trendlines comprised 4.22%, 63.69% and 32.09% of all vaccine doses, respectively, with 70.78%, 27.49% and 47.15% (blue trendline), 28.84%, 71.50% and 51.99% (green trendline), and 0.38%, 1.01%, and 0.86% (yellow trendline) of all SAEs, serious SAEs, and SAE-related deaths, respectively.
"that means according to the study, they have no idea how many doses were injected into someone, only how many were shipped."
Well, it's a fair assumption that these batches would have been used as they are the first ones and there's demand for them. Or maybe for some odd reason, something peculiar happened to all the "blue batches"?
But this is all besides the point. My question was, is Campbell misrepresenting the study here?
"third, it does't take anything else into consideration. i.e. how were the doses stored or administered."
Sure, could be a number of reasons why there are differences among the batches. Really the point is that there are differences.
But again, I'm asking if Campbell is misrepresenting the study.
"the blue dots, the ones that represent the early vaccine, probably corresponds to seniors and those who got priority who were on a ticking time line to start with."
I'm not sure what Pfizer said about the vaccines. Are higher numbers of adverse events more acceptable in seniors? 1 in 20 ok?
"Lastly and i think its the most important thing. its using information from a source that accepts anything."
Campbell says it was published in a peer-review journal. I don't know if this is true or not. Haven't looked into it.
"is john with his years in the medical field misrepresenting the paper?"
Yes that was my question but didn't really get an answer. Just some vague criticism of the paper itself.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
i was hesitant to say it because its more complicated than you think but in essence, yes he is
on principal, the study is a shit sandwich. like it says in the study itself. its based on SAE reports. that SAE reports are like VAERS and that it accepts reports from any source, along with incomplete data and that none of it is medically verified. that the system is subject to reporting biases with both over reporting and under reporting. because of those things. the system can't be used to establish causality and there is no prior covid case history to compare any of this to. that they've not looked into any other batches or essentially anything else.
the problem with the graph and the dots is that 7% of the SAE reports are someone not filling out the paper work or not being able to find a batch. less thant 1% are deaths. so we've got no idea what the other 98% are about and the bigger problem is that you don't which ones are which. we do know that more people got covid and more people died of covid during 2021 compared to 2020 in denmark. so its fair to say that whatever the blue ones are. they more than likely do not represent deaths. i was being very generous when i said it was seniors because more than likely what the blue dots represent is the anti-vaccine rhetoric that was at its highest during vaccine rollout match with a system that accepts reports from anyone and which over time, died down. thats why it goes from 1/20(blue) to 1/1000(green) to john saying the yellow is low because not all data is out but that doesn't make sense because they've got more SAE reports in regards to the yellow dots than the blue dots
another thing that batches are bigger than whats sent to denmark. a production run of vaccines doesn't produce the specific requested amount of doses. so when denmark tells pfizer they want 801,294 doses, 2.8 million doses from the same batch went somewhere else and we've got no information on that
now, this study in the hands of random joe, is still a shit sandwich but joe doesn't know any better. john on the other hand went to school. learned how to read, research and create studies along with receiving training at using new systems during his tenure in the medical field. john knows better yet here he is serving a shit sandwich to an audience that doesn't know any better. because of that, i'd go so far as to liken john knowingly and willingly spreading a study that misrepresents the data as basically misrepresenting the paper
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again you are criticizing the paper, (which is fine) but my question is if Campbell is misrepresenting it. This is what the whole post is about.
He said the paper is peer-reviewed, I tried looking if it's actually so but couldn't find if this really is the case.
Did you find anything about this?
IF it is actually peer-reviewed, I suggest you start using your detective skills in the science field since you seem to find faults that everyone else missed in the review process.
I fully agree that the SEA reports can be incomplete or just bullshit for some parts. There might be overreporting and underreporting. The correlation is still there though. We should expect a similar trend in other batches too if it was due to people being paranoid about side effects. It should not be limited just to the blue batches.
Maybe Pfizer should do a follow-up study on this. After all, it should be their job to follow up on vaccine safety.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
criticizing the paper is what the whole peer-review process is about. see, a bunch of scientists didn't gather around and go over the study before it was published. you submit the study to be published and everybody gathers around to poke holes in the study to make sure it passes the scientific standards. peer-review is where studies go to die. i can write a study showing vaccines don't work by comparing people that like apples to those that like oranges. i can get it published for peer-review. getting to that point doesn't mean the studies any good. that's where the batch studies at.
now, what i've been trying to do for the past few posts is show you how bad the study is and remind you that john's got a medical background. he's intentionally not following scientific standards, he's knowingly perpetuating misinformation and because of that, he's got a hand in the cookie jar
why does pfizer have to do anything, why can't the anti-vax community employ scientists to use proper data and scientific methods to disprove the validity of vaccines rather than poor data used in convoluted manor to create studies that don't pass the scientific standard?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"criticizing the paper is what the whole peer-review process is about. see, a bunch of scientists didn't gather around and go over the study before it was published."
It's a process that subjects the paper, to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. i.e they look if your paper is total nonsense or not.
But again, I'm not even really interested in that, just if Campbell is misrepresenting the paper or not.
If he talks about a paper that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, according to you that is bad science?
"why does pfizer have to do anything, why can't the anti-vax community employ scientists"
So what youre saying is that following up on vaccine safety should fall on the anti-vaxxers? But not those who produce, sell and distribute the vaccine itself?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
see my reply to sato above
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
jdt73 (Short Spike)
Real person with real world experience and real relevant qualifications (who was pro vaccine up until it became obvious the drug companies had lied about their claims)
Vs
Cartoon scientist (who wants some of that drug company funding)
Comments
(Long Spike)
How to make money from excrement.
(Old Spike)
starts with an ad-hominem logical fallacy. here's one back - this guy just got his phd in molecular biology (seems to have studied primarily in ribosomes (which are involved in protein synthesis, not too far from my own studies) and has never worked in the medical or even science fields. none of his studies involve any medical or health related at all.
the main mistake in this debunk failure he makes repeatedly, using a small aside fact as if it has anything to do with the main argument he's attempting to debunk elt alone a counter to it. take the bit around 12 minutes - the claim is that vaccine side-effects are larger than first reported (and this has proved to be true with most countries acknowledging it and rolling back their vaccinations plans accordingly), and wilson "debunks" this by showing that some of the data in only 2 of the possible side effects in only one of the vaccines in only 2 countries makes that tiny portion less than clear.
bonus points for anyone who can name that particular logical fallacy!
(Old Spike)
The problem with campbell is the same asi it is with weinstein and the others, people are pointing out his mistakes and he doesn't respond. The conspiracy theorists are of course happy with that because they only need one yt prophet to tell them what they want to hear.
In this video quite a few experts are mentioned who tried to talk sense to him.
The presenter does not need any of the qualifications you stated in you own ad hominem, he only needs to be able to understand the studies he is quoting from. So should campbel, but he chose to go the other way.
Lastly stating what his background is and what he does as well as that his comment sections are full of antivaxxer bullshit is not ad hominem they are simply facts, the former 2 not used in a way to say that he is incompetent, quite the opposite.
(Long Spike)
"my own studies" as in you went to school or as in "i did my own research"? i'm trying to figure out why you would omit the conclusionary part of a study(cochrane review) and misrepresent it as something else. i don't think thats something thats taught in school
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Kind of a blanket statement. He's done hundreds of videos and I'm sure there a plenty of mistakes and misrepresentations among them. Does that mean it's all on purpose just for the sake of views? I doubt it, but nobody really knows. Mr. Debunk the Funk here sure thinks he does it all on purpose.
Why I tend to listen to the guy every now and then is because he talks about papers I would never even know existed.
His latest is pretty interesting.
Can anyone say if he is misrepresenting the paper here or not?
(Long Spike)
is he misrepresenting the paper? lets find out together
for starters. that "71% of the suspected adverse reactions occurred in 4.2% of the vaccine" isn't in the study, he added that himself.
second, here's a note from the author. "I just wanted to add, that the lot size data, we obtained from The Danish Serum Institute, is in fact the number of doses pr. batch, that were shipped from the Danish Serum Institute to all the Danish vaccination centers". that means according to the study, they have no idea how many doses were injected into someone, only how many were shipped.
third, it does't take anything else into consideration. i.e. how were the doses stored or administered.
fourth, the blue dots, the ones that represent the early vaccine, probably corresponds to seniors and those who got priority who were on a ticking time line to start with. cause you know.... at the start we only gave them to people who were more than likely going to die soon
lastly and i think its the most important thing. its using information from a source that accepts anything. its like, doing a study on desktop keyboards and resorting to using google reviews for the data set
so, thats what i know and i'm not a doctor or a nurse. so, is john with his years in the medical field misrepresenting the paper?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"for starters. that "71% of the suspected adverse reactions occurred in 4.2% of the vaccine" isn't in the study, he added that himself."
It's there just rounded off to one decimal point, so a quick ctrl+f doesn't come up with results.
Vaccine batches representing the blue, green and yellow trendlines comprised 4.22%, 63.69% and 32.09% of all vaccine doses, respectively, with 70.78%, 27.49% and 47.15% (blue trendline), 28.84%, 71.50% and 51.99% (green trendline), and 0.38%, 1.01%, and 0.86% (yellow trendline) of all SAEs, serious SAEs, and SAE-related deaths, respectively.
"that means according to the study, they have no idea how many doses were injected into someone, only how many were shipped."
Well, it's a fair assumption that these batches would have been used as they are the first ones and there's demand for them. Or maybe for some odd reason, something peculiar happened to all the "blue batches"?
But this is all besides the point. My question was, is Campbell misrepresenting the study here?
"third, it does't take anything else into consideration. i.e. how were the doses stored or administered."
Sure, could be a number of reasons why there are differences among the batches. Really the point is that there are differences.
But again, I'm asking if Campbell is misrepresenting the study.
"the blue dots, the ones that represent the early vaccine, probably corresponds to seniors and those who got priority who were on a ticking time line to start with."
I'm not sure what Pfizer said about the vaccines. Are higher numbers of adverse events more acceptable in seniors? 1 in 20 ok?
"Lastly and i think its the most important thing. its using information from a source that accepts anything."
Campbell says it was published in a peer-review journal. I don't know if this is true or not. Haven't looked into it.
"is john with his years in the medical field misrepresenting the paper?"
Yes that was my question but didn't really get an answer. Just some vague criticism of the paper itself.
(Long Spike)
i was hesitant to say it because its more complicated than you think but in essence, yes he is
on principal, the study is a shit sandwich. like it says in the study itself. its based on SAE reports. that SAE reports are like VAERS and that it accepts reports from any source, along with incomplete data and that none of it is medically verified. that the system is subject to reporting biases with both over reporting and under reporting. because of those things. the system can't be used to establish causality and there is no prior covid case history to compare any of this to. that they've not looked into any other batches or essentially anything else.
the problem with the graph and the dots is that 7% of the SAE reports are someone not filling out the paper work or not being able to find a batch. less thant 1% are deaths. so we've got no idea what the other 98% are about and the bigger problem is that you don't which ones are which. we do know that more people got covid and more people died of covid during 2021 compared to 2020 in denmark. so its fair to say that whatever the blue ones are. they more than likely do not represent deaths. i was being very generous when i said it was seniors because more than likely what the blue dots represent is the anti-vaccine rhetoric that was at its highest during vaccine rollout match with a system that accepts reports from anyone and which over time, died down. thats why it goes from 1/20(blue) to 1/1000(green) to john saying the yellow is low because not all data is out but that doesn't make sense because they've got more SAE reports in regards to the yellow dots than the blue dots
another thing that batches are bigger than whats sent to denmark. a production run of vaccines doesn't produce the specific requested amount of doses. so when denmark tells pfizer they want 801,294 doses, 2.8 million doses from the same batch went somewhere else and we've got no information on that
now, this study in the hands of random joe, is still a shit sandwich but joe doesn't know any better. john on the other hand went to school. learned how to read, research and create studies along with receiving training at using new systems during his tenure in the medical field. john knows better yet here he is serving a shit sandwich to an audience that doesn't know any better. because of that, i'd go so far as to liken john knowingly and willingly spreading a study that misrepresents the data as basically misrepresenting the paper
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again you are criticizing the paper, (which is fine) but my question is if Campbell is misrepresenting it. This is what the whole post is about.
He said the paper is peer-reviewed, I tried looking if it's actually so but couldn't find if this really is the case.
Did you find anything about this?
IF it is actually peer-reviewed, I suggest you start using your detective skills in the science field since you seem to find faults that everyone else missed in the review process.
I fully agree that the SEA reports can be incomplete or just bullshit for some parts. There might be overreporting and underreporting. The correlation is still there though. We should expect a similar trend in other batches too if it was due to people being paranoid about side effects. It should not be limited just to the blue batches.
Maybe Pfizer should do a follow-up study on this. After all, it should be their job to follow up on vaccine safety.
(Long Spike)
criticizing the paper is what the whole peer-review process is about. see, a bunch of scientists didn't gather around and go over the study before it was published. you submit the study to be published and everybody gathers around to poke holes in the study to make sure it passes the scientific standards. peer-review is where studies go to die. i can write a study showing vaccines don't work by comparing people that like apples to those that like oranges. i can get it published for peer-review. getting to that point doesn't mean the studies any good. that's where the batch studies at.
now, what i've been trying to do for the past few posts is show you how bad the study is and remind you that john's got a medical background. he's intentionally not following scientific standards, he's knowingly perpetuating misinformation and because of that, he's got a hand in the cookie jar
why does pfizer have to do anything, why can't the anti-vax community employ scientists to use proper data and scientific methods to disprove the validity of vaccines rather than poor data used in convoluted manor to create studies that don't pass the scientific standard?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"criticizing the paper is what the whole peer-review process is about. see, a bunch of scientists didn't gather around and go over the study before it was published."
It's a process that subjects the paper, to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. i.e they look if your paper is total nonsense or not.
But again, I'm not even really interested in that, just if Campbell is misrepresenting the paper or not.
If he talks about a paper that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, according to you that is bad science?
"why does pfizer have to do anything, why can't the anti-vax community employ scientists"
So what youre saying is that following up on vaccine safety should fall on the anti-vaxxers? But not those who produce, sell and distribute the vaccine itself?
(Old Spike)
see my reply to sato above
(Short Spike)
Real person with real world experience and real relevant qualifications (who was pro vaccine up until it became obvious the drug companies had lied about their claims)
Vs
Cartoon scientist (who wants some of that drug company funding)
(Old Spike)
(Short Spike)
cartoons so funny...