You forgot to add "rightly". They pulled out all the stops to get the vaccine approved in quick order. They did not cut corners, they added resources. Bl**dy glad they did.
Met office "faking" climate data
- Thread starter ANDYLASER
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
If this your field, could you shed any light on whether what Doctor Mike Yeadon, ex vice president of Pfizer has to say has any merit?
Last edited:
Is this the same Dr Mike Yeadon who’s been long since discredited?
Did Pfizer's Former 'Chief Scientist' Say There Was 'No Need for Vaccines'?
Michael Yeadon last worked at Pfizer a decade ago, and was never the company's "chief scientist." His anti-vaccine argument relies on predictions that never panned out.
www.snopes.com
The same, Yet he somehow managed to pull the wool over enough experts eyes to become vice president of Pfizer and a the worlds leading expert on respiratory diseases. Somewhat implies the industry doesn't care too much for due diligence if his shenanigans weren't exposed until long after he'd left.Is this the same Dr Mike Yeadon who’s been long since discredited?
Did Pfizer's Former 'Chief Scientist' Say There Was 'No Need for Vaccines'?
Michael Yeadon last worked at Pfizer a decade ago, and was never the company's "chief scientist." His anti-vaccine argument relies on predictions that never panned out.
Last edited:
I did not read the link, i have not considered Snopes a reliable source since they were forced to retract 60 articles that were plagiarized by the sites co founder David Mikkelsen who was also embroiled in legal disputes with former business associates over ownership of the site that generated claims and counterclaims of fraud, financial mismanagement, conspiracy and embezzlement.
You’re right, an ex-Pfizer employee spouting disproven conspiracy theories on YouTube is a much more reliable source. I’m glad you’ve done your due diligence.
His Wikipedia page cites sources for his misinformation as well. I wonder if those citations are acceptable?
A quote from a medical doctor acquaintance after he had finished his PhD thesis: "There seems to be be a notable difference in statistical and clinical significance."
He was referring to (possibly without knowing this reference)((from WP):
"
In 1925, Ronald Fisher advanced the idea of statistical hypothesis testing, which he called "tests of significance", in his publication Statistical Methods for Research Workers.[28][29][30] Fisher suggested a probability of one in twenty (0.05) as a convenient cutoff level to reject the null hypothesis.[31] In a 1933 paper, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson called this cutoff the significance level, which they named α
. They recommended that α
be set ahead of time, prior to any data collection.[31][32]
Despite his initial suggestion of 0.05 as a significance level, Fisher did not intend this cutoff value to be fixed. In his 1956 publication Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, he recommended that significance levels be set according to specific circumstances."
However that p=0.05 seems to have been written in very hard stone as it is used in many fields as the word of god without any thought (mine included). Only later did I start to wonder where that value originated. It seems to have been working fairly well in engineering when applied to test values in materials within a batch but not so well when several batches are considered. (Reason for batch testing in critical applications, that had to be learned the hard way.)
Just one example of the pitfalls in research. There are some more ...
He was referring to (possibly without knowing this reference)((from WP):
"
In 1925, Ronald Fisher advanced the idea of statistical hypothesis testing, which he called "tests of significance", in his publication Statistical Methods for Research Workers.[28][29][30] Fisher suggested a probability of one in twenty (0.05) as a convenient cutoff level to reject the null hypothesis.[31] In a 1933 paper, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson called this cutoff the significance level, which they named α
Despite his initial suggestion of 0.05 as a significance level, Fisher did not intend this cutoff value to be fixed. In his 1956 publication Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, he recommended that significance levels be set according to specific circumstances."
However that p=0.05 seems to have been written in very hard stone as it is used in many fields as the word of god without any thought (mine included). Only later did I start to wonder where that value originated. It seems to have been working fairly well in engineering when applied to test values in materials within a batch but not so well when several batches are considered. (Reason for batch testing in critical applications, that had to be learned the hard way.)
Just one example of the pitfalls in research. There are some more ...
Could not find it now but I have once seen a climate model results with uncertainty value added, that did not really assure me of anything else but of these researchers being a bit more realistic and maybe also honest than the rest.
It's the lack of critical thought that irks me, happens in lots of areas. Safety is one of them. In many cases someone just rushes on and uses a standard metric or document to cover themselves from blame, or does not have the ability to assess the variables/risks - in which case they should probably not start doing the work until they have got a better handle on it. Even if not known this can be stated, and if necessary a range of potential variables used to demonstrate the impact.
The problem with computer simulations and projections being used to justify an intervention is that when the projected outcome fails to materialise it's touted as proof the intervention was a success even though the outcome would be the same if the intervention did nothing and the projection was wrong. It reminds me of an old joke about a man, on a bus, throwing cigarette papers out of the window. When the conductor asked him what he was doing he exclaimed "it keeps the elephants away". when the conductor pointed out that there aren't any elephants, the man asserted "i know, it works doesn't it"
Last edited:
Rightly?
How so? Because those did not comply? Because those had doubts, questioned the narrative and as it turns out with good reason?
So it was the right thing to do? To demonize those critics? To destroy their reputation, their livelihoods, their lives? It was ok to make them outcasts, parias and in many cases even wishing that "stronger measures" were taken against them?
No, I don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source and if you read their own "Conflict Of Interest Editing on Wikipedia" page diligently, including the subsection titled "Incidents" (it's quite long), you probably wouldn't either.
Last edited:
I was referring to the citations given there, but I suspected that might be the case.
Those people who you seem to treat with such distain and contempt would most likely be much more willing to put up a fight for your freedom and your right to express your opinion, even though your opinion is arguably a far worthier contender to be vilified, belittled and ignored.
No, you really don't. Not if you want to reach any meaningful conclusion.
If you disagree with peoples position, then put forward a counter-argument. Open discussion is by far the best approach to finding out the truth, as has been shown time and time again throughout our history.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Similar threads
