Dr. Francesco Nappi came back and challenged my academic credentials. Then, when it was clear I knew more than he did about the Hooker paper, he stopped replying likely to avoid embarrassing himself.
I have an idea, Steve -- let's apply these same "rigorous" methodological standards to every medical journal, & all of Pharma's trials. >90% would be retracted.
Vaccines, Amen. You are speaking blasphemy. Imagine if you said the earth rotated around the sun. Blasphemy! Excommunication! These techniques just show weakness, not strength.
Good job, Steve. Your effort here is well worth it.
As someone who debates pro-vaccine advocates regularly, I’ve come to believe that one of our biggest obstacles is the public’s reliance on the mainstream medical establishment as the sole authority on vaccines and medical advice.
Whether someone searches Google or asks an AI, the response is usually predictable: “That study has been refuted,” “The science is well established,” or “You’re not a doctor.” The people I debate then repeat those same answers because they are the first—and often only—perspective presented to them.
Constantly challenging the same institutional talking points becomes exhausting and makes productive discussion difficult. What we need is a brief, straightforward response along these lines:
“I don’t automatically accept the conclusions of the mainstream medical establishment because many of its institutions have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties. I rely instead on independent physicians, researchers, and organizations whose evidence and reasoning can be examined directly.”
The important question, Steve, is this: Who is the credible, independent organization or group of experts that we can confidently direct people to?
We need one central resource—a single link that clearly presents the evidence, identifies its experts and funding, addresses the common objections, and allows people to evaluate the competing claims for themselves. That would shorten these repetitive conversations and move the debate away from appeals to authority and toward the actual evidence.
Once people recognize that the mainstream position is not the only perspective available—and that every source should be examined for its methods, evidence, funding, and possible conflicts of interest—we may begin having more honest and productive discussions.
Excellent Steve! I forwarded your post to a self-proclaimed truth-interested person on Quoran, "Wurm", as I was intrigued by his "anti-antivacciner, anti-crank, autoblocker" bio, and here is his response. I.e. the Catch-22 epidemic of a priori certainty and close-mindedness pre-empting honest scientific enquiry of the "scientific". He blocked my ability to reply, but I got a response worth publishing:
"I have little interest in what looks like an online pissing contest.
This is usually the preferred means of cranks getting their ideas some exposure.
If you or whomever is responsible for the content on this link would like to further their ideas, I suggest attempting to get them published. This is how the scientific method works. Science is conducted through peer-reviewed publications, and is discussed and debated via colloquia and conferences, not online pissing contests.
Neither is the subject of your link related to the subject of this question, nor does it in any way interest me.
If you want to advance some idea of yours or that you support, choose an appropriate forum, because this is not it.
This is not a science debate forum, it is an educational forum, or at least it was designed to be, and should be, although it has been so polluted and diluted that it doesn't appear to be that any longer.
The safety of vaccines is so well established that the cranks who claim otherwise will need far more than internet arguments to prove otherwise.
The results speak for themselves, as does the scientific literature.
I don't waste my time bickering with anti-vaccine kooks, for the same reason I don't argue with pro-Sasquatch fools, flat Earth bumpkins, or people who swear on their children's lives they've been abducted by aliens and had things implanted in their anal cavity, and for the same reason.
I have no opinion or interest in this internet pissing contest, and to answer your question about whether my policy of automatically blocking pro-pathogen anti-vaccine cranks is universal, you will see that it is.
Not every idea is worth considering, and re-litigating the vaccine issue just makes cranks seem legitimate when their pseudoscientific beliefs simply are not.
My advice to my colleagues is to do likewise. Engaging with these fruitcakes just encourages them."
Lembit Tork— the letter you quote, that's a prime example of scientism. Scientism is to science as the fake fur leopard coat is to the leopard in his jungle.
Statistics is not teached and therefore not learned by medical students. What you learn at school is merely a joke. Greetings from an economist who realized the fake pandemic right from the get-go. 🙋🏼♂️
It's pretty obvious that this surgeon/academic Nappi guy does not live in the real world - which is really odd because he would have done lots of surgery on real people! He has his circle that he struts in, and anything outside of that is immaterial to him. He thinks he's in a special 'class' when he's just seemingly permanently quarantined himself in a bubble.
It's sad to see people spend so long in a career when they're just trapped in a self-directed bubble like that. He probably has lots of abilities, but I guess comprehending reality, let alone science, is not one of them!
Is the manuscript “Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations” published anywhere else? how many people in fields of science & medicine view Preprints? Is there another platform that could share this sort of science?
Looks like the turd is still in the "Nappies".
If no one listens to you Steve, what hope is there for the rest of the minions?
I have an idea, Steve -- let's apply these same "rigorous" methodological standards to every medical journal, & all of Pharma's trials. >90% would be retracted.
Thank you for your determined and relentless work during the pandemic and since. We deserve open honest dialogue. We have yet to get it about vaccines
Dr. Francesco Nappi is a pussy.
Vaccines, Amen. You are speaking blasphemy. Imagine if you said the earth rotated around the sun. Blasphemy! Excommunication! These techniques just show weakness, not strength.
Good job, Steve. Your effort here is well worth it.
As someone who debates pro-vaccine advocates regularly, I’ve come to believe that one of our biggest obstacles is the public’s reliance on the mainstream medical establishment as the sole authority on vaccines and medical advice.
Whether someone searches Google or asks an AI, the response is usually predictable: “That study has been refuted,” “The science is well established,” or “You’re not a doctor.” The people I debate then repeat those same answers because they are the first—and often only—perspective presented to them.
Constantly challenging the same institutional talking points becomes exhausting and makes productive discussion difficult. What we need is a brief, straightforward response along these lines:
“I don’t automatically accept the conclusions of the mainstream medical establishment because many of its institutions have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties. I rely instead on independent physicians, researchers, and organizations whose evidence and reasoning can be examined directly.”
The important question, Steve, is this: Who is the credible, independent organization or group of experts that we can confidently direct people to?
We need one central resource—a single link that clearly presents the evidence, identifies its experts and funding, addresses the common objections, and allows people to evaluate the competing claims for themselves. That would shorten these repetitive conversations and move the debate away from appeals to authority and toward the actual evidence.
Once people recognize that the mainstream position is not the only perspective available—and that every source should be examined for its methods, evidence, funding, and possible conflicts of interest—we may begin having more honest and productive discussions.
Keep at it Steve! Never give up. This is that important. 🙏🙏
Excellent Steve! I forwarded your post to a self-proclaimed truth-interested person on Quoran, "Wurm", as I was intrigued by his "anti-antivacciner, anti-crank, autoblocker" bio, and here is his response. I.e. the Catch-22 epidemic of a priori certainty and close-mindedness pre-empting honest scientific enquiry of the "scientific". He blocked my ability to reply, but I got a response worth publishing:
"I have little interest in what looks like an online pissing contest.
This is usually the preferred means of cranks getting their ideas some exposure.
If you or whomever is responsible for the content on this link would like to further their ideas, I suggest attempting to get them published. This is how the scientific method works. Science is conducted through peer-reviewed publications, and is discussed and debated via colloquia and conferences, not online pissing contests.
Neither is the subject of your link related to the subject of this question, nor does it in any way interest me.
If you want to advance some idea of yours or that you support, choose an appropriate forum, because this is not it.
This is not a science debate forum, it is an educational forum, or at least it was designed to be, and should be, although it has been so polluted and diluted that it doesn't appear to be that any longer.
The safety of vaccines is so well established that the cranks who claim otherwise will need far more than internet arguments to prove otherwise.
The results speak for themselves, as does the scientific literature.
I don't waste my time bickering with anti-vaccine kooks, for the same reason I don't argue with pro-Sasquatch fools, flat Earth bumpkins, or people who swear on their children's lives they've been abducted by aliens and had things implanted in their anal cavity, and for the same reason.
I have no opinion or interest in this internet pissing contest, and to answer your question about whether my policy of automatically blocking pro-pathogen anti-vaccine cranks is universal, you will see that it is.
Not every idea is worth considering, and re-litigating the vaccine issue just makes cranks seem legitimate when their pseudoscientific beliefs simply are not.
My advice to my colleagues is to do likewise. Engaging with these fruitcakes just encourages them."
Lembit Tork— the letter you quote, that's a prime example of scientism. Scientism is to science as the fake fur leopard coat is to the leopard in his jungle.
Sounds like Wurmtongue knows a lot about being "abducted by aliens."
Maybe we should add corruption to Einsteins list og things which are infinite.
Statistics is not teached and therefore not learned by medical students. What you learn at school is merely a joke. Greetings from an economist who realized the fake pandemic right from the get-go. 🙋🏼♂️
Ignatzius Turret— for me also one of the first big clues.
It's pretty obvious that this surgeon/academic Nappi guy does not live in the real world - which is really odd because he would have done lots of surgery on real people! He has his circle that he struts in, and anything outside of that is immaterial to him. He thinks he's in a special 'class' when he's just seemingly permanently quarantined himself in a bubble.
It's sad to see people spend so long in a career when they're just trapped in a self-directed bubble like that. He probably has lots of abilities, but I guess comprehending reality, let alone science, is not one of them!
Steve, I love it when you expose these "scientists." To me it rivals the effect of smearing feces in Satan's face.
What are they all being threatened with and how can they live with themselves?
Frightening.
Is the manuscript “Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations” published anywhere else? how many people in fields of science & medicine view Preprints? Is there another platform that could share this sort of science?
Thanks for getting all of this on the record, shining a light into how science works.
It's so obnoxious and stupid to suggest the robustness of your arguments is a function of your h-index.