tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7911215728998126551..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Undermining 50 years of gains. Wild claims from @wattsupwiththatSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83523176078023163332015-07-01T20:20:04.561+10:002015-07-01T20:20:04.561+10:00My granddaughter calls sweetcorn yellow peas, thus...My granddaughter calls sweetcorn yellow peas, thus opening a whole new area for confusion.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72732240417204046412015-07-01T18:11:53.350+10:002015-07-01T18:11:53.350+10:00When I was a child, Australia was still mostly inf...When I was a child, Australia was still mostly influenced by the British, so corn = wheat and maize=corn (US). When Australia became Americanised it became confusing, given that corn suddenly meant maize and sometimes people even ate the stuff (ie sweetcorn). :DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83371792268041029392015-07-01T17:03:15.277+10:002015-07-01T17:03:15.277+10:00I think we're all scarred Bill. For me it sta...I think we're all scarred Bill. For me it started young with Enid Blyton and then later with British traditional folk songs.<br /><br />It was a relief to finally crack an encyclopaedia and figure out what was acually being said...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53096691097778433312015-07-01T16:08:59.778+10:002015-07-01T16:08:59.778+10:00Any reader of 19th century English literature has ...Any reader of 19th century English literature has likely been thrown by references to 'waving fields of corn'; I could never work out how characters could just stroll through it admiring the sweeping view! (I'm Australian.) Took a while to figure out that corn = wheat, as well as corn = sweetcorn = maize... <br /><br />It's all just grass seed, folks! It's not always easy to remember that.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5244120631853814422015-07-01T13:59:31.215+10:002015-07-01T13:59:31.215+10:00MSW, it's great to see someone after my own pe...MSW, it's great to see someone after my own pedantic heart!<br /><br />It helps to know that "corn" derives from linguistic roots for "seed" or "grain", and it is in this sense that I always try to read it, except in obviously American contexts.<br /><br />Of course it makes me grit my teeth when I see the tautology "grains of corn"...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49317725452179160042015-07-01T12:46:15.544+10:002015-07-01T12:46:15.544+10:00"Corn" merely means the dominant grain c..."Corn" merely means the dominant grain crop - so in England, "corn" before (and after 1490's) usually referred to wheat, but oats in Scotland. Its use to refer to maize probably came about because maize was the dominant grain crop in the Americas.<br /><br />The British "Corn Laws" regulated any grain crop, showing that the definition of corn to mean other cereals than maize was current in the 19th century.<br /><br />To avoid ambiguity, "maize" should be used instead of "corn," assuming that is the cereal crop meant.MWSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18495570029291365852015-07-01T09:54:08.176+10:002015-07-01T09:54:08.176+10:00And ATheoK points out a serious error by an earlie...And ATheoK points out a serious error by an earlier poster,<br /><br />“Europe did not grow corn till long after corn was brought to Spain inn the 1490s.”jrkrideauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04869979887929067657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38703964153727737902015-06-28T06:18:17.512+10:002015-06-28T06:18:17.512+10:00I had a look at the Deer report and it is not the ...I had a look at the Deer report and it is not the same paper I remember reading (several years ago). <br /><br />However I think the point I was making is, as Marco says, that peer review would not have been easily able to pick up the problems. So that is not the issue.<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55092628323994947032015-06-28T01:47:28.269+10:002015-06-28T01:47:28.269+10:00To add to Alexander's comment and rebut metzom...To add to Alexander's comment and rebut metzomagic's comment, the peer review process could not have found the problems in the paper, because the problems were in the falsified records. In addition, Wakefield significantly overinflated the results of the paper in press releases and interviews. Add the Conflict of Interest of Wakefield himself and of the recruited patients (read: their parents), and you have loads of problems that amount to wholesale fraudulent research that no peer review will be able to detect.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44554323576223513482015-06-27T23:43:20.478+10:002015-06-27T23:43:20.478+10:00The best place to go to for the true jaw dropping ...The best place to go to for the true jaw dropping story of Wakefield's fraudulent paper is Brian Deer's own site. He did brilliant research to uncover the sorry saga. Ironically, he also uncovered wrongdoings by the pharmaceutical industry yet still gets called a pharma shill.<br /><br />http://briandeer.com/Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74623219286265456652015-06-27T20:54:50.505+10:002015-06-27T20:54:50.505+10:00The disease test results reported in the paper wer...The disease test results reported in the paper were falsified and changed from their actual findings during the clinical trials. It is not the method in question (setting aside the pediatric ethics violations), it is that the paper was simply fraudulent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02320395147911342848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11512538008130518202015-06-27T20:33:55.021+10:002015-06-27T20:33:55.021+10:00"... for failing to spot the problems in Wake...<i>"... for failing to spot the problems in Wakefield's original Lancet paper. "</i><br /><br />What problems were there in the paper? From what I remember it was a fairly straightforward description of something he did. That is, analyse DNA samples from the bowel from children with autism and who had the MMR vaccine(?) and detecting vaccine DNA. Publishing the paper may have been part of a bigger problem but I do not think there were any specific issues with the paper. <br /><br />Willing to be corrected if I am wrong.<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46016566301054811062015-06-27T19:41:10.744+10:002015-06-27T19:41:10.744+10:00Perhaps Alan is trying to be ironic. Its the Wake...Perhaps Alan is trying to be ironic. Its the Wakefields of climate science that the fanboys over at WUWT worship. The papers the Wutters accept (and which don't get Anthony's 'claim' treatment) are frequently debunked within days of publishing. Editors have resigned over some of them.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49979607964392889702015-06-27T00:19:17.842+10:002015-06-27T00:19:17.842+10:00Yes. And the same people who diss the Lancet for o...Yes. And the same people who diss the Lancet for one or two bad papers out of thousands top quality papers over decades, and ignore all the medical advances published there that have probably saved countless lives, will not bat an eye while their favourite denier blogs makes one wacky and wildly wrong claim after another, several times a day - with no consistency and not a scrap of science to back them up.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/an-economist-should-know-better-maybe.html<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79645634388925165192015-06-27T00:09:15.386+10:002015-06-27T00:09:15.386+10:00metzomagic, good response. Let us not forget that...metzomagic, good response. Let us not forget that Deer found real, verifiable evidence of Wakefield's dishonesty, with a paper trail that made him look very guilty indeed. Let us not also forget the climate change denier journalists who made a whole mountain out of a couple of comments in 5000 emails. If climate change was a fraud, why haven't all those journalists who claim to be looking found a smoking gun? Can't be doing their jobs well.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37913296865239103362015-06-26T21:52:17.117+10:002015-06-26T21:52:17.117+10:00Only in your apparently twisted worldview was the ...Only in your apparently twisted worldview was the Lancet responsible for the MMR/autism link, Alan. It was Andrew Wakefield's shoddy and conflict-of-interest driven research that was to blame. There's a very good explanation of the whole affair here:<br /><br />http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html<br /><br />If anything, you could blame the peer review process for failing to spot the problems in Wakefield's original Lancet paper. But that's hardly the fault of the Lancet, as Wakefield wasn't being honest. It was largely through the tireless efforts of investigative journalist Brian Deer that the whole sordid tale was eventually unravelled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39275706897482313182015-06-26T21:38:40.943+10:002015-06-26T21:38:40.943+10:00Oh really now? If you think that's something t...Oh really now? If you think that's something to carp about, you should visit the thread just below this one, where they're trouting out all kinds of nonsense. For the birds, they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59997445254335632002015-06-26T16:37:45.350+10:002015-06-26T16:37:45.350+10:00ah yes....bought to you by the same people who ...ah yes....bought to you by the same people who 'discovered' the MMR/Autism link. And wasn't that a boon for child-kind?<br /><br />Still, it's saying the things we want to hear so let's all, as usual, accept it as Gospel.<br />Alan Rossiternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52461292154667079192015-06-26T03:34:33.378+10:002015-06-26T03:34:33.378+10:00Scottish sceptic thinks it's all rather fishy....Scottish sceptic thinks it's all rather fishy...<br /><br />"I woke up to very much the same carp!! And wrote this as a response:"<br />Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28617419526082839422015-06-25T03:00:39.531+10:002015-06-25T03:00:39.531+10:00Good. It took a day or more plus multiple complain...Good. It took a day or more plus multiple complaints. Still, better late than never. Would have been better still if it had never been there in the first place.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15910828498768956282015-06-25T01:38:00.759+10:002015-06-25T01:38:00.759+10:00Sou, *that* comment has been snipped now at WUWT.Sou, *that* comment has been snipped now at WUWT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38677063142038625702015-06-24T21:51:00.697+10:002015-06-24T21:51:00.697+10:00It is the equivalent of the passengers in an airli...It is the equivalent of the passengers in an airliner telling the flight crew what to do. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17812150905326008352015-06-24T21:10:03.411+10:002015-06-24T21:10:03.411+10:00There's been some amusing sniping at Lief Sval...There's been some amusing sniping at Lief Svalgaard on WUWT re sunspots. I've weighed in and defended him.<br />Apparently it's OK to alter historical SS records ... well according to some (AW included).<br />BTW: I'm not 100% but I've been getting a lot of adware/redirection type viruses lately and the only place I've been to more often is WUWT.<br />I knew it was a bad habit - but it is such a source of fun.Tony Bantonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44317166243004899652015-06-24T14:33:12.687+10:002015-06-24T14:33:12.687+10:00The WUWT article and comments are equally appallin...The WUWT article and comments are equally appalling. But I do wonder if the majority of people in the western world are any better. Because even if they accept the science, they continue to live their planet destroying slob lifestyles in the knowledge that they are participating in ecocide.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88478928644355300092015-06-24T09:43:08.946+10:002015-06-24T09:43:08.946+10:00Says ladylifegrows:
" *sigh* and another one ...Says ladylifegrows:<br />" *sigh* and another one bites the dust. Lancet was once a high quality journal."<br /><br />Another major journal added to the vast list of institutions and scientists comprising the conspiracy to trick her(?). It never occurs to deniers that there might be the tiniest thing wrong with the notion that the whole rational world keeps lining up against them.<br />-<br />Adam R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com