|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 6, 2014 16:32:01 GMT -5
I think it was another one? One with a stupid K name. No...not Kevin. Kendra. No, I don't know why I remember this. Same reason I do. Boobies. |
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,016
|
Post by Mozenrath on Apr 6, 2014 16:36:28 GMT -5
Kendra. No, I don't know why I remember this. Same reason I do. Boobies. Eh, she was never my type. I want to say she was a guest on something, since I don't remember ever watching her show. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 6, 2014 16:41:10 GMT -5
Ok I remember cuz of boobies.
I've watched their show. I actually bought the first season as a Xmas gift once if I'm remembering that correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Apr 6, 2014 16:52:38 GMT -5
The only scientist who currently has that kind of public forum is Neil deGrasse Tyson. And as amusing as it would be for him to have an hour long episode of Cosmos called "Jenny McCarthy Is A f***ing Moron And You're Killing Your Kids Listening To Her," it's a bit off topic for the show. And it's a wordy episode title. He could tie it in by saying "So far we have found no evidence of intelligent life on other planets" *Neill points to a picture of Jenny on The View* "But then again, we struggle to find intelligent life here on Earth" |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 6, 2014 17:22:20 GMT -5
She's responsible for a lot of anti-vaccination campaigns due to her claims that vaccinations cause autism. Lol what a c*** having opinions and such |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 6, 2014 17:28:03 GMT -5
It's not that she's had opinions that make her bad; it's that those opinions are blatantly, horribly, unequivocally false, and as a direct result parents that have listened to those opinions have put both their and by extension other children in danger of communicable diseases that could be easily prevented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Apr 6, 2014 17:31:41 GMT -5
She's responsible for a lot of anti-vaccination campaigns due to her claims that vaccinations cause autism. Lol what a c*** having opinions and such Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 6, 2014 17:33:09 GMT -5
Besides, science isn't democratic, facts are facts.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Apr 6, 2014 17:33:44 GMT -5
Lol what a c*** having opinions and such Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. I mean really everyone. She is a hazard to public health. She is the most visible spokesperson against recommended vaccinations, so she shouldn't be shielded from criticism for being a woman. jennymccarthybodycount.com/ |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 6, 2014 18:01:48 GMT -5
Lol what a c*** having opinions and such Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. I know a lot of people who aren't vaccinating their kids it's a trend and has little to do with her. There arebactual studies with evidence to support the theory that has nothing to do with her |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 6, 2014 18:02:16 GMT -5
Lol what a c*** having opinions and such Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. I know a lot of people who aren't vaccinating their kids it's a trend and has little to do with her. There arebactual studies with evidence to support the theory that has nothing to do with her |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,351
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 6, 2014 19:10:34 GMT -5
Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. I know a lot of people who aren't vaccinating their kids it's a trend and has little to do with her. There arebactual studies with evidence to support the theory that has nothing to do with her None of those studies stand up to peer review scrutiny. Believe me, as someone who does research for a living I know how easy it is to get meaningless and bogus studies released. There are a ton of "journals" who are not peer reviewed and will publish any crap in order to get paid to do so (yes, we scientists pay to get published). These journals even sound respectable. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly respected, peer reviewed published work that have high standards in order to get published in. You have to have your crap in order, have extremely well designed experiments with strong controls, have results that strongly support your claims, and go through a stringent peer review process where you will be forced to not only defend your paper but will have to supplement it with data that supports your next application of your results. It takes months, if not nearly a year, to edit any paper into something that the NEJM will accept for publication. Journals with names like New England Medical Journal are crap that simply look good on a CV if you don't dig deep. Oftentimes, journals like that don't even READ the articles they publish. They simply collect their $500-1,500 and publish away (especially if they only publish online). On the plus side, real scientists don't read those journals to get misled by them (or if they do they merely have to read the articles themselves to determine that the conclusions are meaningless. I have looked at a few of these (they are my boss's pet peeves since he does the literature research and I do the experiment work, which means that he occasionally comes across crappy papers online that he shares with me for a laugh). Many such articles are clearly manipulated or meaningless because of experimental design or useless controls. The problem is that while scientists can spend 10 minutes reading such an article to determine it is crap, the average citizen oftentimes cannot. This leads to people believing things that an overwhelming majority believing things that either there is no legitimate evidence supporting those theories or the evidence actually supports the exact opposite claim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 19:18:08 GMT -5
Can't stand her but I have to move on. As someone with Asperger's (and speaking of that, read the negative feedback of Autism Speaks to keep being angry lol) we have to spread the message and tell people about our experiences, self-advocate, and show the world we can do the same things as (hate this word) "NORMAL" people can.
In other words, time to take our words to the streets for lack of a better metaphor.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 6, 2014 20:04:11 GMT -5
I know a lot of people who aren't vaccinating their kids it's a trend and has little to do with her. There arebactual studies with evidence to support the theory that has nothing to do with her None of those studies stand up to peer review scrutiny. Believe me, as someone who does research for a living I know how easy it is to get meaningless and bogus studies released. There are a ton of "journals" who are not peer reviewed and will publish any crap in order to get paid to do so (yes, we scientists pay to get published). These journals even sound respectable. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly respected, peer reviewed published work that have high standards in order to get published in. You have to have your crap in order, have extremely well designed experiments with strong controls, have results that strongly support your claims, and go through a stringent peer review process where you will be forced to not only defend your paper but will have to supplement it with data that supports your next application of your results. It takes months, if not nearly a year, to edit any paper into something that the NEJM will accept for publication. Journals with names like New England Medical Journal are crap that simply look good on a CV if you don't dig deep. Oftentimes, journals like that don't even READ the articles they publish. They simply collect their $500-1,500 and publish away (especially if they only publish online). On the plus side, real scientists don't read those journals to get misled by them (or if they do they merely have to read the articles themselves to determine that the conclusions are meaningless. I have looked at a few of these (they are my boss's pet peeves since he does the literature research and I do the experiment work, which means that he occasionally comes across crappy papers online that he shares with me for a laugh). Many such articles are clearly manipulated or meaningless because of experimental design or useless controls. The problem is that while scientists can spend 10 minutes reading such an article to determine it is crap, the average citizen oftentimes cannot. This leads to people believing things that an overwhelming majority believing things that either there is no legitimate evidence supporting those theories or the evidence actually supports the exact opposite claim. Right, exactly my point dude. These people aren't Jenny McCarthy and she has nothing to do with it is my point. I never agreed or disagreed with the stuff |
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Apr 6, 2014 20:12:10 GMT -5
None of those studies stand up to peer review scrutiny. Believe me, as someone who does research for a living I know how easy it is to get meaningless and bogus studies released. There are a ton of "journals" who are not peer reviewed and will publish any crap in order to get paid to do so (yes, we scientists pay to get published). These journals even sound respectable. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly respected, peer reviewed published work that have high standards in order to get published in. You have to have your crap in order, have extremely well designed experiments with strong controls, have results that strongly support your claims, and go through a stringent peer review process where you will be forced to not only defend your paper but will have to supplement it with data that supports your next application of your results. It takes months, if not nearly a year, to edit any paper into something that the NEJM will accept for publication. Journals with names like New England Medical Journal are crap that simply look good on a CV if you don't dig deep. Oftentimes, journals like that don't even READ the articles they publish. They simply collect their $500-1,500 and publish away (especially if they only publish online). On the plus side, real scientists don't read those journals to get misled by them (or if they do they merely have to read the articles themselves to determine that the conclusions are meaningless. I have looked at a few of these (they are my boss's pet peeves since he does the literature research and I do the experiment work, which means that he occasionally comes across crappy papers online that he shares with me for a laugh). Many such articles are clearly manipulated or meaningless because of experimental design or useless controls. The problem is that while scientists can spend 10 minutes reading such an article to determine it is crap, the average citizen oftentimes cannot. This leads to people believing things that an overwhelming majority believing things that either there is no legitimate evidence supporting those theories or the evidence actually supports the exact opposite claim. Right, exactly my point dude. These people aren't Jenny McCarthy and she has nothing to do with it is my point. I never agreed or disagreed with the stuff Anyone out there publicly spreading disinformation that threatens public health crises should be publicly criticized for doing so. |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 6, 2014 20:23:00 GMT -5
I don't think it can be proven one way or another
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,351
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 6, 2014 21:32:52 GMT -5
I don't think it can be proven one way or another That's not necessarily true. It just would be hard. It requires analyzing autism rates in countries where regular vaccination does not occur. The problem is that if vaccinations aren't being carried out there are many other health issues that take priority to autism. |
|
|
|
Post by Non Banjoble Tokens on Apr 6, 2014 21:53:15 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm with Jenny McCarthy on this. I really don't think anyone getting shot is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Apr 6, 2014 22:27:51 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm with Jenny McCarthy on this. I really don't think anyone getting shot is a good thing. *does best Fry impression* |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,936 
|
Post by chazraps on Apr 7, 2014 0:23:09 GMT -5
Opinions are one thing. Passing off your opinion as undeniable fact that puts the lives of children in danger is another. I know a lot of people who aren't vaccinating their kids it's a trend and has little to do with her. There arebactual studies with evidence to support the theory that has nothing to do with her No, there aren't. No legit studies support the idea that vaccinations are harmful. Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their kids is too selfish to admit their wrong and would rather put everyone else's lives in danger. |
|
