It really is Kung flu

[SueEllen]

Oh, right, the ex-academic scientist who now does science outside of academia is confusing science and academia. Cretin.

"Proving facts".

You have a Noddy understanding of science.

You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.

[SueEllen]

Doesn't say anywhere that the person doing it has to be qualified to any level. That would be Academia's position.

You mean you accept something as a fact without proof?



Noddy Holder or Big Ears friend? do please try to be specific.

You should have a good read on why Andrew Wakefield is no longer a doctor and what he did wrong with his research.

[vetran]

You should have a good read on why Andrew Wakefield is no longer a doctor and what he did wrong with his research.

Why do you need me to explain it to you? I have crayons.

[vetran]

You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.

Calling people cretin or fool is not normally considered argument more an ad hominin attack which suggests the attacker is far from competent in discussion or even anything.

[d000hg]

You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.

That's an interesting hypothesis but there is a lot of empirical data suggesting people not only can, but do - very often.
I've compiled it into a nice dataset: https://forums.contractoruk.com/general/

[d000hg]

possibly you are confusing academia with science. Academia is about stature and science in my opinion is about proving facts.

It's not. And don't you see the contradiction talking about "proving facts" and "an opinion"?

[vetran]

It's not. And don't you see the contradiction talking about "proving facts" and "an opinion"?

No an opinion is not a fact a 'fact' is not a fact until proven. In my heart I know there is no God, I can also say there are no absolute facts to prove his existence. Do you have any? Some of the many clergy I have met I would consider underqualified for life yet I respect their belief & opinion.

Your opinion is that this lady who is more highly qualified in this specialist subject than probably anyone on here and has international renown is wrong because in your OPINION she is underqualified. To prove she is wrong why not try to float some credible ideas or explanation as to why you think she is wrong. I suggested a few that challenge the WHO view. Even a CUK poster can be right occasionally.

The very fact (yes your posts prove them) you are dismissive but unable to counter her ideas does not boost your credibility as an 'expert'.