Date:   5/18/2011 3:49:35 AM ( 13 y ago)
Hits:   3,292
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1812798

2 of 5 (40%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

You seem to have completely missed my point, I was pointing out, that the studies and data referenced in the article, posted on SBM, can be verified elsewhere, and should be, by anyone interested in researching any of the issues raised.

The bias of the website itself, for me anyway, is of little importance, if the information can be found and verified elsewhere, the website is merely a conduit for information. In the articles I have read on this site, they do not attempt to tell the reader what to think, but present the information, and allow the reader to think for themselves.

I don't have any particular attachment to the website and am very capable of making up my own mind on what is good objective science, and what is slanted towards a particular viewpoint. As I'm sure most thinking people are.

Scientific method is the best way we currently have, of testing a theory, and until a better method is found, I choose to use this method to discern the validity of any studies or theories.

I use the same method when looking at what is posted on curezone, another very biased site, and choose to look at the information, rather than just accept information as true, simply because it suits my own personal prejudice, or the prejudice of people on this site.

As for studies on various drugs, I always look at who is performing the research, and who is funding it, this can give an indication of whose interest is served, depending on the results. The fact that there have been studies done on the drugs you have mentioned, (some of which are now banned in my own country), shows that there are independent researchers studying the efficacy and possible dangers of these drugs, and are doing a good job.

You're are of course entitled to your opinion on Natural News, but the study presented is simply poorly done, and NN decided to draw a conclusion from this study, (as witnessed by the title of the story), which is biased, (understandable), and false and misleading, which is unethical.


There are recorded adverse effects of vaccines, I'm not disputing this at all, and there needs to be more studies done. There is also a great deal of data to show that vaccines work very well, with very few people suffering side effects. This is why it is important to view all studies in an objective, rather than emotional way, so that an informed decision can be made.

Does the good out-weigh the bad, or the bad out-weight the good, in regards to vaccines? That is up to the individual to decide. Wouldn't it be wonderful if those supplying information on this issue, could be objective, then we would not see false and misleading statements by supposedly honest websites, such as NN.

spud

 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1812798