Quote:
Originally Posted by bessiedog
Sundance got lil reading fer ya... didja check it out?
|
I looked at the long lists of studies on the websites he posted. I did a Cntl+F and none of them had aluminum or adjuvant in the title, so I gather that none of them are relevant to this question. I keep asking him for a study showing that aluminum adjuvants are safe to administer to infants and he keeps failing to provide one, while continuing to re-assert that they are in fact safe because the government said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bessiedog
Would it be logical for me to automatically discount your other posted research because you posted one that was faulty and thus you have poor research scrutinization skills?
|
Slow down there, you haven't shown the paper I posted to be faulty. You showed that some people criticized the journal for having poor ethics (all complaints post-dating publication of the paper). As I said, the paper is mostly a summary of other papers posted in numerous other peer-reviewed journals, so are they all untrustworthy too?
The problem with claims that a journal or paper is unethical is that those claims themselves could be unethical. Look at this wikipedia page, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(journal)
Quote:
|
Since then, thanks to the Monsanto papers, Keith Kloor the author of the Discover piece accusing the article of pseudo-science has been shown to be closely connected to the now defunct Glyphosate selling Monsanto[9].
|
As I opined, it's hard to find the truth about these heavily politicized topics where big $$$ are at stake. Hence why I tread extra cautiously and don't accept any appeals to authority.