Vaccinations thread.

[DG_Silva]

Yes I am suggesting that flu doesn't kill 1000's of people a year.

That hardly seems worth a response - one might say that that's an insane way of thinking.

I think he means that there are millions of people who do not die when they contract the flu virus, it just didn't come across like that.

 

[DaGiBUS]

They were a small minority in the US under a decade ago, and now measles is one again on the rise in the US.

A loss of herd immunity doesn't take long to occur and one it does those who have no choice are at risk because of the stupidity of those who believe that nonsense trumps knowledge.

According to the CDC, the majority of the people who got measles in the past year when it became news were unvaccinated. If the the large majority of people are vaccinated, you probably don't need to worry.

 

[Scaff]

According to the CDC, the majority of the people who got measles in the past year when it became news were unvaccinated. If the the large majority of people are vaccinated, you probably don't need to worry.

And what about those too young to be vaccinated, those who are allergic to the vaccine, those who can't have the vaccines because of other medical conditions, those whose immunisation is lowered due to being imuniocompromised?

What about the children of those who are anti-vax, who have no say in the risk they are exposed to?

Do they deserve to die to protect the vanity of the foolish?

 

[DaGiBUS]

And what about those too young to be vaccinated, those who are allergic to the vaccine, those who can't have the vaccines because of other medical conditions, those whose immunisation is lowered due to being imuniocompromised?

What about the children of those who are anti-vax, who have no say in the risk they are exposed to?

Do they deserve to die to protect the vanity of the foolish?

Of course not, nobody deserves to die for the foolishness of others, however they themselves are a small minority of a small minority. In Australia, they most likely outnumber those who are strictly anti-vax. An allergic reaction to a vaccination is rare itself.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't agree with vaccinations being slowly forced onto people like it is happening now.

They're not "being slowly forced onto people". They have been an established medical treatment supported by substantial scientific evidence of their effectiveness for decades.

And your angle is that if it appears to be good for you, then it is.

See the above - they are an established medical practice based on decades of research and data.

Any correlation between vaccinations and alzheimer's ?

So now you want us to prove your arguments for you? Or are you just trying to make a tenuous connection between vaccinations and every disease you can think of?

 

[Scaff]

Of course not, nobody deserves to die for the foolishness of others, however they themselves are a small minority of a small minority. In Australia, they most likely outnumber those who are strictly anti-vax. An allergic reaction to a vaccination is rare itself.

So what is the critical point at which they become significant enough to outweigh the vanity of the foolish?

 

[huskeR32]

According to the CDC, the majority of the people who got measles in the past year when it became news were unvaccinated.

Ya don't say...

 

[x3ra]

Numbers of people in the US dying from flu - thousands? I think not http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/Vaccines/Flu_Myth.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/047890_flu_vaccines_CDC_apology_medical_fraud.html

And anecdotally

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke

And for those who say pneumonia is caused by flu, only 1/3 (at worst) of cases of pneumonia could be caused by flu.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

anecdotally

That sound that you hear is the credibility of your argument going into a terminal flatspin.

 

[Scaff]

Numbers of people in the US dying from flu - thousands? I think not http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/Vaccines/Flu_Myth.html

Sorry who claimed 36,000?

A number they seem to have pulled out of thin air?

They then go on to fudge numbers as much as they can to try and reduce the final total, a rather typical approach taken by anti-vax sites (while going on about the 'toxins' in the flu shot - I seriously doubt that they understand exactly how stupid that sounds).

Once again I ask, was Spanish Flu a conspiracy?

http://www.naturalnews.com/047890_flu_vaccines_CDC_apology_medical_fraud.html

Of course discoraging people from using vaccines and buying alternate products (that they sell at huge prices) isn't part of Natural News business model is it?

Oh wait................

And anecdotally
And worth bugger all as a result. I mean Dr Oz, seriously!


Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke

And for those who say pneumonia is caused by flu, only 1/3 (at worst) of cases of pneumonia could be caused by flu.

Who said all pneumonia was caused by the flu?

 

[x3ra]

First of all, I asked how many people die from Flu. The response was given by you and others was numerically unspecific. Kudos to the innumerate. So how many ?

@prisonermonkeys - is that all you got, sorry that you didn't enjoy Piers Morgan being injected with flu. I myself found it funny while at the same time sickening.

@Scaff - merely pre-empting your argument. Sorry. And there you go again. Not arguing with the figures but attacking the man/website. Quality showing through.

Spanish flu, caused by a bacteria, should have been treated with anti-biotics.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14458-bacteria-were-the-real-killers-in-1918-flu-pandemic/

8 minutes and 11 minutes for responses. You're slowing down.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Spanish flu, caused by a bacteria, should have been treated with anti-biotics.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14458-bacteria-were-the-real-killers-in-1918-flu-pandemic/

8 minutes and 11 minutes for responses. You're slowing down.

It seems you might have slowed to a stop, intellectually speaking. Your link doesn't show that a bacterium caused Spanish Flu - you're making a wholly incorrect claim with no source. Antibiotics don't kill flu but they do kill some of the bacteria that cause bacterial pneumonia.

Read your sources better before guessing what they claim?

 

[Scaff]

First of all, I asked how many people die from Flu. The response was given by you and others was numerically unspecific. Kudos to the innumerate. So how many ?

No you said....

"I don't suppose anyone actually has any evidence that measles vaccines, or that flu kills thousands of people a year?"

@Scaff - merely pre-empting your argument.

And you know that's my argument how?

Don't do that again, I really don't like people speaking for me and certainly don't need it.

Sorry. And there you go again. Not arguing with the figures but attacking the man/website. Quality showing through.

Which bit exactly would you like me to rebute given that Natural News provides no source other than itself, publishes no peer reviewed papers and clearly doesn't understand the difference in mercury compounds and how they interact with an organic system (people), nor that a 🤬 pear contains more formaldehyde that a vaccine does (or that your body actually produces formaldehyde naturally)?

Using 'toxin's' as a scare term (which both your sources do) is both inaccurate and massively misleading. Can you tell me why?

Spanish flu, caused by a bacteria, should have been treated with anti-biotics.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14458-bacteria-were-the-real-killers-in-1918-flu-pandemic/

Oh dear you either didn't actually read that or you didn't understand it.

8 minutes and 11 minutes for responses. You're slowing down.

And the quality of you posts isn't getting any better either, but neither of those has anything to do with the topic.

 

[x3ra]

Fair play, bacteria didn't cause the flue, but 'twas the bacteria that caused most of the deaths http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...ia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic.

Giving government the power to force someone be injected with something against their will, is a bigger danger than either vaccines or the disease itself.

How is forcibly making someone have their body injected with something against their will, any different to rape?

If you say it's for the greater good then, presumably a massive nuke attack on Syria would be justified? Forced sterilisations to reduce the birth rate. The ends do not justify the means, and it's the means that are the issue.
Would it be okay to force you to commit suicide, so we could use your organs for people less fortunate, but now more alive than yourself ?

What word would be better than toxin ?

Let me ask you @Scaff, if my daughter vaccinated and she is injured due to the vaccines, who is responsible?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

if my daughter vaccinated and she is injured due to the vaccines, who is responsible?

Where is your scientific evidence that vaccines cause injuries?

 

[Scaff]

Fair play, bacteria didn't cause the flue, but 'twas the bacteria that caused most of the deaths http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...ia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic.

Giving government the power to force someone be injected with something against their will, is a bigger danger than either vaccines or the disease itself.

How is forcibly making someone have their body injected with something against their will, any different to rape?

If you say it's for the greater good then, presumably a massive nuke attack on Syria would be justified? Forced sterilisations to reduce the birth rate. The ends do not justify the means, and it's the means that are the issue.
Would it be okay to force you to commit suicide, so we could use your organs for people less fortunate, but now more alive than yourself ?

A 'Slippery Slope' logical fallacy mixed with a 'Strawman'; not a great way to start a rebuttal.

No one has been forced to have a vaccine in anything close to the manner of rape, and as such your comparison is both wildly inaccurate and designed to try and win an argument via shock tactics.

Its both poor and not even close to what is happening. As I said earlier in this thread, people still have a choice; you may not like or agree with the choice, but it still exists.

As for likening vaccine programs to genocide! A comparison that is so wide of the mark that quite frankly I seriously doubt that anyone will take it even remotely seriously.

What word would be better than toxin ?

Not what I asked, I asked

"Using 'toxin's' as a scare term (which both your sources do) is both inaccurate and massively misleading. Can you tell me why?"

Now if someone can't then the next logical question to be asking is why is it inaccurate and massively misleading, not can I have another word for one I clearly don't understand!

Please answer the question I asked.

Let me ask you @Scaff, if my daughter vaccinated and she is injured due to the vaccines, who is responsible?

If your daughter was vaccine injured (a term that has and is used out of all context - to the point of being almost worthless), and that had been determined via an independent medical review, who's findings were published and available for peer review (i.e. not because 'I say so' or my homeopath says so), then you would be both due compensation and the manufacturers and licencing bodies would review both the vaccine and protocols around it.

You know just as happens in the real world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...severely-disabled-by-narcolepsy-10312491.html

Where is your scientific evidence that vaccines cause injuries?

Oh they can, but the incident rates are far, far, far lower than the anti-vax community claim.

The swine flu example above had zero deaths from the vaccine and approx 1,000 cases of narcolepsy out of 2.5 million vaccines given across Europe (which is 0.04%). Contrast that with 250 people dying from it in the UK alone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How is forcibly making someone have their body injected with something against their will, any different to rape?

I think you mean injurious assault - the penetration needs to be sexual to qualify as rape. Sticking a knife into somebody's back, for example, isn't rape. Are we sure that people of sound mind are being forcibly vaccinated?

Let me ask you @Scaff, if my daughter vaccinated and she is injured due to the vaccines, who is responsible?

The compensation, were causation proved, would come from the drug manufacturer as usual. If she was hit by a moving vehicle the compensation would come from the vehicle's insurance company.

Guess which would be far, far more likely to happen?

 

[x3ra]

A 'Slippery Slope' logical fallacy mixed with a 'Strawman'; not a great way to start a rebuttal.

No one has been forced to have a vaccine in anything close to the manner of rape, and as such your comparison is both wildly inaccurate and designed to try and win an argument via shock tactics.


Its both poor and not even close to what is happening. As I said earlier in this thread, people still have a choice; you may not like or agree with the choice, but it still exists.

As for likening vaccine programs to genocide! A comparison that is so wide of the mark that quite frankly I seriously doubt that anyone will take it even remotely seriously.



Not what I asked, I asked

"Using 'toxin's' as a scare term (which both your sources do) is both inaccurate and massively misleading. Can you tell me why?"

Now if someone can't then the next logical question to be asking is why is it inaccurate and massively misleading, not can I have another word for one I clearly don't understand!

Please answer the question I asked.



If your daughter was vaccine injured (a term that has and is used out of all context - to the point of being almost worthless), and that had been determined via an independent medical review, who's findings were published and available for peer review (i.e. not because 'I say so' or my homeopath says so), then you would be both due compensation and the manufacturers and licencing bodies would review both the vaccine and protocols around it.

You know just as happens in the real world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...severely-disabled-by-narcolepsy-10312491.html


Oh they can, but the incident rates are far, far, far lower than the anti-vax community claim.

The swine flu example above had zero deaths from the vaccine and approx 1,000 cases of narcolepsy out of 2.5 million vaccines given across Europe (which is 0.04%). Contrast that with 250 people dying from it in the UK alone.

I think you mean injurious assault - the penetration needs to be sexual to qualify as rape. Sticking a knife into somebody's back, for example, isn't rape. Are we sure that people of sound mind are being forcibly vaccinated?



The compensation, were causation proved, would come from the drug manufacturer as usual. If she was hit by a moving vehicle the compensation would come from the vehicle's insurance company.

Guess which would be far, far more likely to happen?

Actually that article from the independent kind of proves my point, have you seen the crap the families have had to go through to get £120,000 for the injuries. Especially when you consider the massive wealth in the pharmaceutical industry - pathetic.

BTW Have you read the OP? Do you not consider that force ? http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/cc333d24-australia-s-health-minister-is-taking-a-stand.jpg

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/12December/Pages/H1N1-swine-flu-virus-death-rate.aspx

So 6 times lesser chance of dying from swine flu than getting narcolepsy from the vaccine. A fair trade-off ?

Question about toxins is a fair point, since it turns out that everything is toxic and it is merely the quantity that make it poisonous. Never thought of it like that. 👍 Question answered?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So 6 times lesser chance of dying from swine flu than getting narcolepsy from the vaccine. A fair trade-off ?

26 deaths per 100,000 cases for swine flu, 0.36 cases of narcolepsy per 100,000 vaccinations, that's according to the figures in your link and the linked Independent article. I don't know where you're getting your "6 times lesser chance" figure from - could you enlighten us?

Or... and this is a wild guess... you didn't read them thoroughly?

 

[Scaff]

Actually that article from the independent kind of proves my point, have you seen the crap the families have had to go through to get £120,000 for the injuries. Especially when you consider the massive wealth in the pharmaceutical industry - pathetic.

Do you ever fully read sources?

The delay came from the UK government disputing the level of disability not the evil of 'Big Pharma' (odd however that you seem to give Big Organic a pass).

However you seem to be under the impression that litigation (particularly a test case as this was) is something that should be quick and easy? Culpability first needs to be established (which is not quick), degree of damage then needs to be assessed and agreed (not quick again) before settlement can be agreed.

Now if you don't agree with this, then I only have one more thing to say on the subject.

The poor quality of your source material, the fundamental flaws in your approach and your bastardisation of the scientific method and critical thinking has resulted in the lowering of my IQ and as a result serious mental impairment. As such I demand that for loss of earning and just because I say so you need to pay me £10,000,000.

BTW Have you read the OP? Do you not consider that force ? http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/cc333d24-australia-s-health-minister-is-taking-a-stand.jpg

Yes I have and no I don't. I consider it a choice.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/12December/Pages/H1N1-swine-flu-virus-death-rate.aspx

So 6 times lesser chance of dying from swine flu than getting narcolepsy from the vaccine. A fair trade-off ?

Maths, its fun.

However, as has already been said, it does help when you do it right!

(That aside from the logical fallacy of comparing being dead to a life altering condition - hint, they are not the same and when you get the maths right being dead is the bigger risk)

Question about toxins is a fair point, since it turns out that everything is toxic and it is merely the quantity that make it poisonous. Never thought of it like that. 👍 Question answered?

Excellent.

So know I hope you can understand how inane a comment such as "toxic chemicals" (as used by your natural news source in reference to vaccines)! Everything (including you) is full of toxic chemicals, because everything is toxic and everything is made up of chemicals.

You see this is a properly researched and sourced (note that it cite and links to published peer reviewed material - not to itself) article on Formaldehyde:

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html

Note that a child of six would have a maximum dose of 1,824μg of it across all he vaccines they receive by that age, yet at six they have a naturally occurring level of 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood (produced by there own body). Note also that formaldehyde doesn't build up in the body, but rather is processed and expelled by the body. Note also that an average 100g pear contains 5,000μg of formaldehyde, which is significantly more than the total maximum does from vaccines for birth to six. Yet how many pears could a kid eat up to that age!

Now lets compare what your source said in this regard:

• Formaldehyde - A "pickling" chemical used to preserve cadavers. It's highly toxic to the nervous system, causing blindness, brain damage and seizures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer. You can see this yourself on the National Toxicology Program website, featuring its 12th Report on Carcinogens.

There, the formaldehyde Fact Sheet completely neglects to mention formaldehyde in vaccines. This is the "dirty little secret" of government and the vaccine industry. It does state, however, that "...formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer."

Source- http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html

Now please explain why they have never run an article on the dangers of fruit and its massively high levels of formaldehyde?

Now here's a challenge for you (should you be open to some critical thinking), what errors and/or deliberate omissions of fact exist in the section from the above link on Mercury in vaccines?

 

[x3ra]

The swine flu example above had zero deaths from the vaccine and approx 1,000 cases of narcolepsy out of 2.5 million vaccines given across Europe (which is 0.04%). Contrast that with 250 people dying from it in the UK alone.

1 out of 55,000 associated with narcolepsy. That gives 50,000,000 divided by 55,000 giving 900 people with narcolepsy.

The figures for deaths tell us that 2/3 of the people who died from swine-flu were already ill, not from swine-flu. So that means that 80 previously-healthy people died of swine-flu, and 900 previously-healthy people now have narcolepsy.

So what did I get wrong?

EDIT
All this weight you put on Peer-reviewed papers. No guarantee they are correct just because they are peer-reviewed, yet you assume them to be fact.

EDIT 2
Will check out formaldehyde , and look at the mercury stuff later.

 

[TenEightyOne]

1 out of 55,000 associated with narcolepsy. That gives 50,000,000 divided by 55,000 giving 900 people with narcolepsy.

The figures for deaths tell us that 2/3 of the people who died from swine-flu were already ill, not from swine-flu. So that means that 80 previously-healthy people died of swine-flu, and 900 previously-healthy people now have narcolepsy.

So what did I get wrong?

Where are you getting "1 out of 55,000 associated with narcolepsy"?

By January 2010, swine flu had caused around 250 deaths in the UK and 2.5 million people had taken the vaccine. Around 1,000 people across Europe are thought to be suffering from narcolepsy as a result of the swine flu vaccine of which about 80 have been identified in the UK.

 

[x3ra]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...cine-the-girl-who-falls-asleep-40-times-a-day

1 out of 55,000.

Question . You should all know these numbers, you should have done all the research. Why because you are telling me that the research says it's safe.

I may have missed something blindingly obvious with the input numbers, or put a decimal place a couple out. But that's how the numbers look to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...cine-the-girl-who-falls-asleep-40-times-a-day

1 out of 55,000.

Question . You should all know these numbers, you should have done all the research. Why because you are telling me that the research says it's safe.

I may have missed something blindingly obvious with the input numbers, or put a decimal place a couple out. But that's how the numbers look to me.

Careful on that high horse, it's a long drop.

Let's look at the figures they're (mis)quoting... the numbers say nothing of the sort. Check out the summary graph on p35. The peak is at 3.2 people per 100,000 in total. Look at the earlier peak (non-vaccination causable), it's higher. Narcolepsy already occurs with-or-without a vaccination cause.

 

[Scaff]

EDIT
All this weight you put on Peer-reviewed papers. No guarantee they are correct just because they are peer-reviewed, yet you assume them to be fact.

You don't know or understand what peer review (or for that matter the scientific method) means do you?

If you did then you would already know full well that it ensures that you don't assume something as fact. It means that all of the data associated with the testing carried out is made publicly available and opened up for review and criticism. If it doesn't stand up it will get ripped apart (you know like happened to the anti-vax poster boy Wakefield when he tried to pass off a fraudulent study).

EDIT 2
Will check out formaldehyde , and look at the mercury stuff later.

I look forward to your reply, and please ensure you use valid sources (not ones that cite themselves and don't open data up for review).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Oh they can, but the incident rates are far, far, far lower than the anti-vax community claim.

I'm aware of that - I'm just trying to get x3ra to properly construct a debate.

 

[x3ra]

You don't know or understand what peer review (or for that matter the scientific method) means do you?

No.

If you did then you would already know full well that it ensures that you don't assume something as fact. It means that all of the data associated with the testing carried out is made publicly available and opened up for review and criticism. If it doesn't stand up it will get ripped apart (you know like happened to the anti-vax poster boy Wakefield when he tried to pass off a fraudulent study).

That's very good. Except that what you're saying is that you take it as good until it is proved/demonstrated to be false.

I look forward to your reply, and please ensure you use valid sources (not ones that cite themselves and don't open data up for review).

Peer-review is fine, assuming integrity amongst the scientists.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam

Last year, science reporter John Bohannon conducted a similar stunt, with the cooperation of the prestigious journal Science. He submitted a less absurd, but deeply flawed paper about the cancer-fighting properties of a chemical extracted from lichen to 340 of these journals, and got it accepted by 60 percent of them. Using IP addresses, Bohannon discovered that the journals that accepted his paper were disproportionately located in India and Nigeria.

Is the Journal Science prestigious? Who says? Who does the peer-reviewing? How are they selected? How difficult is it for a peer-reviewer to dismiss a study ? And how is the study seen to be dismissed?

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html

I particularly like this

In scientific debates, we often hear sneers like "Does your criticism appear in a peer-reviewed journal?" before it will be taken seriously. It's hypocritical when scientists push their views upon the public through non-peer reviewed venues like the media, but then try to shut down critics for responding in non-peer-reviewed venues.

 

[Barra333]

Peer-review is fine, assuming integrity amongst the scientists.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam

And the journals, which is what that article is pointing out.

Is the Journal Science prestigious? Who says? Who does the peer-reviewing? How are they selected? How difficult is it for a peer-reviewer to dismiss a study ? And how is the study seen to be dismissed?

Yes. Pretty much every scientist out there. Fellow scientists. By the editor of the journal. If the peer-reviewer(s) point(s) out flaws in the study, then the editor will take a close look at them and decide what to do. The prestigious journals like Science, Nature and PNAS reject more papers than they accept. If a study is rejected (dismissed) from a journal, then the authors have the opportunity to either rectify the problems and resubmit it, or send the flawed study to one of the shady journals like the one in the vox article above.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html

I particularly like this

Peer review is not perfect, and you will have trouble finding a scholar to say that it is, but it is much more reliable than believing a blog on vaccinationisevil.com

 

[Scaff]

No.

Then perhaps you should make sure you do so before you attempt to dismiss it.

That's very good. Except that what you're saying is that you take it as good until it is proved/demonstrated to be false.

No I don't and more importantly nor do those who publish via respected journals. However you make that assumption because you don't understand how the Scientific Method or peer review works.

Peer-review is fine, assuming integrity amongst the scientists.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam

You didn't actually read that at all did you?

The piece is not about a lack of integrity among scientists, but among pay-to-publish publishing houses (which interestingly are used a lot by anti-vax and anti-GMO groups).

Which is exactly why acedemic publishing houses are independently ranked and the details of such made public.

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

Is the Journal Science prestigious? Who says? Who does the peer-reviewing? How are they selected? How difficult is it for a peer-reviewer to dismiss a study ? And how is the study seen to be dismissed?

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html

I particularly like this

So your first link is about scientists acknowledging that issue exist even with the most robust methods we have and looking at how that can be resolved. That's a problem for what reason exactly?

You second link (and the one you quoted, which I must say raised a smile) is from an anti-evolution, young earth, creationist web-site that has a theological interest in using any method they can to discredit anything (and I do mean anything) that doesn't fit a very narrow interpretation of the Bible.

The irony of attempting to dismiss peer-review because it doesn't have a 100% success rate, while quoting a source that claims that the world in 6,000 years old (and uses a bunch of ages from a single text to 'prove' so) has utterly made my day.

A source that also attempts to dismiss peer review by claiming that Darwin's origin wasn't peer-reviewed, given that peer review as we know it today didn't exist at the time, that claim is simply missleading. Now if they are saying that Darwin's peer's didn't review, discuss, debate, support and attempt to refute his work, then they are outright lying.

Not only do you fail to see that even if they can be flawed; published, independently peer reviewed material is still the best option, you then go on and prove it 100% by failing to actually understand a source you use to try and support your point (and in doing so utter undermine your own credibility).

 

[Barra333]

The irony of attempting to dismiss peer-review because it doesn't have a 100% success rate, while quoting a source that claims that the world in 6,000 years old (and uses a bunch of ages from a single text to 'prove' so) has utterly made my day.

I didn't even bother looking at the name of the website before. I just assumed they were pulling garbage out of their ass, now I realise that they were doing it with a creationist agenda, which makes it even funnier.