Janet, and everyone, I recommend reading Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth. If you don't want to purchase it, you can ask your library to do so.
Janet, and everyone, I recommend reading Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth. If you don't want to purchase it, you can ask your library to do so.
Or you can read this long and thorough (10 part, i believe) review of it for free. Spares you time and money. (And the library, often having hard times already, maybe too..)
With all the corrections, additions, explanations and quite a lot of questions just answered (where possible) you will be better informed than without..
Their bias is mainly towards plausability, i think..
Plausability may not be the be all and end all in life, but it does have some advantages. (Definitely helped e.g. making this smartphone work, even exist. Whatever the disadvantages of smartphones, they're still quite something, wouldn't you agree..?)
RB I would have more respect for you if you had taken a tidbit from the book 'turtles all the way down" and shown, discussed, debated any part of where it is wrong, misleading, incorrect....etc...etc...
...but you did not do this, instead you just offered up a link as if it just settles the question no and ifs or butts as if everything is wrapped up all with a nice neat bow, but this is not to be.
I don't know about you but i do not read a book based on the notion that the prevailing narrative in the book is true or not. I read the book because it has information, facts, opinions, conclusions, deductions...etc....etc.... all that along with what I already know helps me deduce and conclude what is closer to the truth than not.
Don't know about you but i do not rely on strangers for truth, never have and never will and I certainly will not refused to read a book because some clown world deciple told me it is all lies. See even a book of lies is helpful because when you deduce what is in the book against what you already know you are able to concluder what is true and not.....this is how you spot a lie. Now if you only read the books you are told that are true you will NEVER spot the lie, the deception, the misinformation.....this is where you are at!
If i think the "prevailing narrative" or the information in a book is untrustworthy , i would not read a book without having sources of information at hand i do deem more trustworthy, to check it's content.
I admit i haven't read the book, and probably won't, even if it's just because there is too much to read.
(And originally i don't give much about all the pandemic and vaccine and disease-stuff and so. I'm more interested in all the things that people believe.)
But also because doing my own research led me to distrusting its source. Call it informed prejudice.
I just recently heard about the title, because i did read the review i link to. (Although i cannot follow everything, because i don't have the book at hand and didn't read it. So reading both would indeed be best, if one's interested! Makes one also learn some other things, maybe..)
In the articles behind the link, what you challenge me to do is done better than i could ever do (i probably couldn't at all, without studying the subject more), so why don't you follow the link?
(One will be even more informed, i think, when one also reads the comments overthere. Because some commenters go deeper into some stuff that according to them is not adressed in fully the right way by the reviewer.
(It all also has to do with the way science is done, i understand. What you can ask it, and what not. Not certainty, for instance..Well, better read it yourselve..))
If that settles the question for you or anyone else i don't know. Make it up for yourselve..i myselve are quite fine with it..
I do regret if i was rude or mean or wisenosy in my reaction. Certainly also should have left out the last part.
But because i was confronted with the title recently, i thought it was importish to make the comment, and i d├│ believe people will be better informed when they also read this review, and also the comments to it. Next to the book itselve.
Janet, and everyone, I recommend reading Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth. If you don't want to purchase it, you can ask your library to do so.
Or you can read this long and thorough (10 part, i believe) review of it for free. Spares you time and money. (And the library, often having hard times already, maybe too..)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/part-1-10-the-grand-debunk-of-the-antivaxxer-book-turtles-all-the-way-down/
This review is biased, just like SBM itself. I think people would be better served by actually reading the book.
Then at least read both.
With all the corrections, additions, explanations and quite a lot of questions just answered (where possible) you will be better informed than without..
Their bias is mainly towards plausability, i think..
Plausability may not be the be all and end all in life, but it does have some advantages. (Definitely helped e.g. making this smartphone work, even exist. Whatever the disadvantages of smartphones, they're still quite something, wouldn't you agree..?)
RB I would have more respect for you if you had taken a tidbit from the book 'turtles all the way down" and shown, discussed, debated any part of where it is wrong, misleading, incorrect....etc...etc...
...but you did not do this, instead you just offered up a link as if it just settles the question no and ifs or butts as if everything is wrapped up all with a nice neat bow, but this is not to be.
I don't know about you but i do not read a book based on the notion that the prevailing narrative in the book is true or not. I read the book because it has information, facts, opinions, conclusions, deductions...etc....etc.... all that along with what I already know helps me deduce and conclude what is closer to the truth than not.
Don't know about you but i do not rely on strangers for truth, never have and never will and I certainly will not refused to read a book because some clown world deciple told me it is all lies. See even a book of lies is helpful because when you deduce what is in the book against what you already know you are able to concluder what is true and not.....this is how you spot a lie. Now if you only read the books you are told that are true you will NEVER spot the lie, the deception, the misinformation.....this is where you are at!
If i think the "prevailing narrative" or the information in a book is untrustworthy , i would not read a book without having sources of information at hand i do deem more trustworthy, to check it's content.
I admit i haven't read the book, and probably won't, even if it's just because there is too much to read.
(And originally i don't give much about all the pandemic and vaccine and disease-stuff and so. I'm more interested in all the things that people believe.)
But also because doing my own research led me to distrusting its source. Call it informed prejudice.
I just recently heard about the title, because i did read the review i link to. (Although i cannot follow everything, because i don't have the book at hand and didn't read it. So reading both would indeed be best, if one's interested! Makes one also learn some other things, maybe..)
In the articles behind the link, what you challenge me to do is done better than i could ever do (i probably couldn't at all, without studying the subject more), so why don't you follow the link?
(One will be even more informed, i think, when one also reads the comments overthere. Because some commenters go deeper into some stuff that according to them is not adressed in fully the right way by the reviewer.
(It all also has to do with the way science is done, i understand. What you can ask it, and what not. Not certainty, for instance..Well, better read it yourselve..))
If that settles the question for you or anyone else i don't know. Make it up for yourselve..i myselve are quite fine with it..
I do regret if i was rude or mean or wisenosy in my reaction. Certainly also should have left out the last part.
But because i was confronted with the title recently, i thought it was importish to make the comment, and i d├│ believe people will be better informed when they also read this review, and also the comments to it. Next to the book itselve.