Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd leave it mate I have, they are obviously a bit deluded and unlikely to let it go.

Yes but its kind of fun to watch how often he keeps lying rather than admit a fairly simple and pretty irrelevant mistake.

You have nothing to add to the conversation other than accusing others and making unsubstantiated claims that have been refuted.

If I was you I would have ceased communication long time ago.

Here is one of your arguments

"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study"

Do you see how these get someone exposed?
No?

a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't spot that, I was kind of skimming by the last part.

But we all know that if its in the south African diabetes journal scene its only a matter of time before it hits the desks of every major world leader.

I bet it's gonna be top of the pile in the whitehouse inbox ready for the morning.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Same answer again.

Let me know when you already to be a big boy and admit your mistake.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't spot that, I was kind of skimming by the last part.

But we all know that if its in the south African diabetes journal scene its only a matter of time before it hits the desks of every major world leader.

I bet it's gonna be top of the pile in the whitehouse inbox ready for the morning.

Are you also a critic of the paper?
I am listening.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've told you several times now.

I'm not critical of the paper as such, I'm critical of you calling it what its not and putting more credence in than is due.

Its a review paper.

In a small journal.

By one doctor.

It's an interesting opinion and I'm sure that there's some elements of truth in it.

No spelling mistakes that I noticed.

That is my opinion, not that it counts for much.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

t

There is virtually no data to discuss. He spends more time talking about his own experience and his appearance on day time TV.

In real research the identity of the the author(s) should be almost irrelevant.

If you want to belief a non piece of resesrch in an obscure journal is major feel free. Let me know when it gains traction in the real world. I won't hold my breath.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've told you several times now.

I'm not critical of the paper as such, I'm critical of you calling it what its not and putting more credence in than is due.

Its a review paper.

In a small journal.

By one doctor.

It's an interesting opinion and I'm sure that there's some elements of truth in it.

No spelling mistakes that I noticed.

That is my opinion, not that it counts for much.

It's a peer reviewed scientific paper.
And yes reviews qualify as such.

Being a smaller journal doesn't make any difference. The number of scientists isn't relevant but the quality of their research and data.

I am not calling it anything by the way. I just find it fascinating given that Dr Malhotra was promoting Vaccinations for all in the absence of evidence and good data. He admitted it in the interview I linked earlier.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

t

There is virtually no data to discuss. He spends more time talking about his own experience and his appearance on day time TV.

In real research the identity of the the author(s) should be almost irrelevant.

If you want to belief a non piece of resesrch in an obscure journal is major feel free. Let me know when it gains traction in the real world. I won't hold my breath.

Ah I see!

After the claim that this isn't a peer review paper and that Dr Malhotra is biased now we have further expansion of the argument!

After claiming this isn't proper research now you claim is a non piece of research (you need to decide is it not proper research or non research at all) The journal is obscure!

What about the peer reviewed process? You haven't made any claim about this.

Please provide the evidence for your arguments and some critical evaluation of the paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

t

There is virtually no data to discuss. He spends more time talking about his own experience and his appearance on day time TV.

In real research the identity of the the author(s) should be almost irrelevant.

If you want to belief a non piece of resesrch in an obscure journal is major feel free. Let me know when it gains traction in the real world. I won't hold my breath.

So another claim that this isn't real research but an opinion. And this isn't a proper journal.

Please continue with your criticisms. At one point you will need some data and evidence to support your claims.

I forgot to ask you where did you complete your PhD? As you seem to be very critical of journals and scientists.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

t

There is virtually no data to discuss. He spends more time talking about his own experience and his appearance on day time TV.

In real research the identity of the the author(s) should be almost irrelevant.

If you want to belief a non piece of resesrch in an obscure journal is major feel free. Let me know when it gains traction in the real world. I won't hold my breath.

Ah I see!

After the claim that this isn't a peer review paper and that Dr Malhotra is biased now we have further expansion of the argument!

After claiming this isn't proper research now you claim is a non piece of research (you need to decide is it not proper research or non research at all) The journal is obscure!

What about the peer reviewed process? You haven't made any claim about this.

Please provide the evidence for your arguments and some critical evaluation of the paper.

What part do you want to discuss?

His daytime TV appearance of his time volunteering in a vaccine centre it reads more like a millennial insta feed than a research paper.

Or let's be more serious. He completely misrepresents VAERs data. That alone is enough to make me doubt either his honesty or his competence.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you have a PHD?

Does Dr. Malhotra?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: nonspecific

I particularly love the way he added a refence to diabetes right at the end just so it would meet the acceptance criteria for the journal.

Ah I see! Now you criticise the journal he decided to publish his paper. Any valid arguments? I mean arguments based on science and data.

t

There is virtually no data to discuss. He spends more time talking about his own experience and his appearance on day time TV.

In real research the identity of the the author(s) should be almost irrelevant.

If you want to belief a non piece of resesrch in an obscure journal is major feel free. Let me know when it gains traction in the real world. I won't hold my breath.

Ah I see!

After the claim that this isn't a peer review paper and that Dr Malhotra is biased now we have further expansion of the argument!

After claiming this isn't proper research now you claim is a non piece of research (you need to decide is it not proper research or non research at all) The journal is obscure!

What about the peer reviewed process? You haven't made any claim about this.

Please provide the evidence for your arguments and some critical evaluation of the paper.

What part do you want to discuss?

His daytime TV appearance of his time volunteering in a vaccine centre it reads more like a millennial insta feed than a research paper.

Or let's be more serious. He completely misrepresents VAERs data. That alone is enough to make me doubt either his honesty or his competence.

He misinterpreted VAERS data? Show me how.
He isn't competent enough? Prove it
He isn't honest? Prove it

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you have a PHD?

Does Dr. Malhotra?

I have asked you a question but you haven't replied. Instead you replied with another question...

Let me pose it again. Do you have a PhD? Given that you seem to be very critical of publications, journals, and scientists.

Do you ask if Dr Malhotra has a PhD? Or is it further trolling?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

He makes several claims about VAERs that are basically all conspiracy nonsense.

He claims the 1% reporting rate which doesn't apply to serious reactions, coveted on this site multiple times.

He misrepresents criticism of people misusing VAERs data as criticism of VAERs itself.


He misrepresents what VAERs data actually is. Again covered on this site multiple times.

These are bad enough mistakes for a lay person, for a medical professional it suggests deliberate dishonesty.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

no PHd here.

Do you or the Doctor?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

He makes several claims about VAERs that are basically all conspiracy nonsense.

He claims the 1% reporting rate which doesn't apply to serious reactions, coveted on this site multiple times.

He misrepresents criticism of people misusing VAERs data as criticism of VAERs itself.


He misrepresents what VAERs data actually is. Again covered on this site multiple times.

These are bad enough mistakes for a lay person, for a medical professional it suggests deliberate dishonesty.

No he doesn't as I have read his paper. The entire 8 pages.

You either misunderstood what he said or you deliberately accusing him (again).

Which are the claims he makes that are conspiracy theories?

'He claims the 1% reporting rate which doesn't apply to serious reactions, coveted on this site multiple times.'

What do you mean by this?



How does he misrepresent the VAERS system?
In which way?

How does he misrepresent the data on the VAERS system?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

no PHd here.

Do you or the Doctor?

Are you seriously asking whether one of the top British Cardiologists has a PhD?!

Can I ask whether you have any qualifications in general. BSc? Masters?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The 1% isn't accurate for serious reactions

People aren't the claiming VAERs is flawed when it hasn't changed as he claims. They are criticising misuse of VAERs data.

VAERs data is not a database of adverse reactions. It expicitly can't be used as such .