kwilco

You're right that the internet used to be a place where knowledge was shared among those who were genuinely curious and willing to learn. But the snake oil salesmen were never far behind — and the techniques are just about the same, they’ve just adapted. As it happens, I was the first person at my university in Australia to apply online, and the first in my hometown to buy a house with internet bundled in as a utility — and yes, it was fibre optic! So I’ve been watching this space for a long time too. What many of us didn’t fully appreciate back then was just how much media and mass influence would end up dominating the web — just like newspapers and television did before it. It’s not that the con has changed — it’s that the delivery system is now faster and louder. (although I was on of the first in my field to have a business “web site” on line). Back in the 19th century, a snake oil salesman with nothing but a bottle of alcohol and opium (and a well-rehearsed assistant) could roll into town and convince everyone he had a miracle cure. Now? They don’t even need a wagon — just a camera, a following, and a monetised platform. The internet was supposed to democratise knowledge. Instead, it’s been hijacked — not just by the "idiocracy," but by people who know exactly how to sell misinformation and make it look like truth.

The irony is that snake oil relies entirely on belief to have any effect. If you're rejecting what I’ve said outright, then by your own logic, it can’t be snake oil — because it clearly doesn’t “work” on you. Actually, if we’re talking about snake oil, it’s the ones you believe — the conspiracy peddlers and anti-vaxx grifters — who are the truly successful salesmen. They’ve sold fear, fake cures, and false certainty — and somehow convinced people to trust anonymous YouTube comments over medical science. Now that’s a sales job. sadly I don't think you'd recognise "snake oil" or even know what it actually is? - It's a fake cure sold with big promises but no real results — and by that standard, it’s the anti-vaxx influencers, not me, who’ve nailed the business model. They’ve sold fear, not facts — and you bought it.

Yes - it's very old - but still useful. THere are a load of publications that cover this these days and probably fit better in a modern context given the amount of conspiracy theories raging about the place as well as the floods of misinformation. Basically IT has re-released the snake oil salesman on society, and many people are totally unprepared for this.

exactly the same type of thinking you get from anti-vaxxers. Drawing conclusions from cherry-picked ideas - and a deliberate misinterpretation of my posts coupled with a naive use of evidence. "not thinking about vaccines"? - what is that supposed to mean a general slur on Thai people and false observations all round.

Yes, the T-shirt is right: “Science doesn’t care what you believe.” And no — science isn’t only what appears in The Lancet or NEJM. But let’s stop pretending that quoting disgruntled former editors somehow proves mainstream science is broken or that vaccines are deadly. That’s a leap so big it should have a parachute. Take the often-misused quotes from Marcia Angell and Richard Horton. They’re expressing frustration with corporate influence and the publication of low-quality or biased studies — a valid concern shared by many in the scientific community. But here’s the trick: anti-vaxxers rip these quotes out of context and spin them into a false syllogism: “Some science is flawed → All science is fake → Therefore my wild theory must be true.” It doesn’t follow. If half the literature is “untrue” — you still don’t get to assume your blog post, YouTube video, or Telegram meme is in the other half. And those wild claims like “All vaccines will kill you” or “mRNA shots are proven deadly”? That’s not evidence. That’s propaganda. Repeating it louder or wrapping it in stolen credibility doesn’t make it true. The actual data — from countries all over the world, across millions of doses — shows the opposite: COVID vaccines have saved lives, massively. So no, these editor quotes are not proof of anything except that science needs to be rigorous and constantly self-correcting — which is exactly what peer review, replication, and critical analysis are for. The real danger isn’t scientific debate — it’s the distortion of it by people who want to replace evidence with ideolog

In the clip above , Allan Savory launches into a tired attack on peer-reviewed science — claiming it “prevents” new ideas and that only outsiders can see the truth. This is the classic Galileo fallacy: “they laughed at Galileo, so I must be right too!” No — lots of people get laughed at because they’re just wrong and in this instance Savory is one of them. Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s there to test ideas with evidence. If your theories collapse under scrutiny, that’s not a sign of a broken system — it’s a sign that your work doesn't hold up. Savory’s ideas on grazing have been heavily criticised because they lack solid data. Not because he’s too visionary, but because he waves off actual science and replaces it with grand claims and anecdotes. That’s not science — it’s self-promotion. He wants scientific respect without doing the hard work. Rejecting peer review isn’t bold — it’s an excuse.

for those who don't understand critical thinking, here is an introduction...

Read my stuff on road safety in Thailand - same as the anti-vaxxers full of wooly thinking and anecdotal evidence by those who don't understand.

probably more a reflection of the Thai healthcare industry - which is a totally different tangent. Too many people have blind faith in healthcare in Thailand and often don't realise when they get bad advice.

...and what conclusion do you get from this ?

Yet another example of misuse of Google! "So you play Russian roulette every day and think you're invincible because the gun hasn’t fired yet? That’s not science, that’s luck and bad logic. Tetanus is rare because of widespread vaccination and basic hygiene — not because it's harmless. You're not proof it's safe; you're just one of the lucky ones… so far."

looks like a pretty good example of a poor assessment of sources I was talking about earlier.

The level of arguments on this and other vaccine threads is appalling - so many arguments just fall apart. You’ll just see arguments with no foundation in reason or logic….. Quoting fake experts or assuming a qualification makes someone always right Using anecdotes and “I heard…” stories as if they’re solid evidence Attacking the person, not the argument (classic ad hominem) Misunderstanding science: “It’s just a theory” shows ignorance, not insight No grasp of how logic, evidence, or proper opinions work Cherry-picking info and misusing studies Thinking Google = research (it’s just a tool, not a source) If you want real debate, you need real standards. Not all opinions are equal — you need facts, logic, and critical thinking matter. Raise the bar — or stay in the comment section swamp.

deflection - don't be silly.

So… mRNA vaccines aren’t “real” vaccines because science moved on from the 1950s? And they’re secretly gene therapy because someone on YouTube said so? No, mRNA doesn’t edit your DNA. No, the FDA didn’t “hide” data for 70 years — it just takes time to process half a million pages. And no, VAERS isn’t proof of mass death; it’s a public report system, not a death registry. Calling it “my opinion” doesn’t make made-up stuff true. Facts still matter — even if Google, doctors, and actual scientists are inconvenient to your worldview. But hey, good luck curing viruses with vibes and vitamin D.

Old vaccines were fine — it’s just the new ones I don’t trust! - ???? This argument falls apart fast. Why? Because the principles behind vaccines haven’t changed: Safely train your immune system Build immunity before infection Prevent serious illness and the spread of it The only thing that’s changed is the technology — and that’s a useful thing. mRNA vaccines don’t replace your immunities. They teach it the same way older vaccines do, just more precisely and without using live or inactivated virus. Saying “I trust old vaccines, but not new ones” is like saying you trust horse-drawn carriages but not seat belts — it’s not logical, it’s just fear of the unfamiliar. Science evolves. That’s how we beat diseases faster and safer.

"Solidify" is not the word I'd use to thinking but like anything, you can't do it without the right tools.....and there are certainly some right tools on this thread

kind of shows why you aren't really fit to argue if you think comments like that have any value

For those of you who can't read for any reason here is a TED Talks vidoe by Ben Goldacre I should also add that if you have never heard of or watched TED talks - you shouldn't be commenting on any threads about science or health

By going through tertiary education, you learn how to educate yourself - this includes the skills of research and critical thinking - unfortunately you show all the signs of someone who can't do these things - and furthermore don't realise that either. You are the sort of person who under "qualifications" puts "University of life" - When people say they went to the "University of Life" as a way to dismiss formal education, they're usually revealing more than they intend. We've all been to the "University of Life" — it's called being alive. But that doesn’t replace structured learning, critical thinking, or expertise gained through formal education. Ironically, those who boast about their street smarts while rejecting academic knowledge often fall squarely into the Dunning–Kruger effect — overestimating their competence because they lack the very skills needed to recognize their own limitations.

There is a limit - endlessly refuting the rubbish you post is very tiresome. I think if you are going to enter a discussion you should have some knowledge of the topic - and this also involves how to cite references and critical thinking - you never went to tertiary education did you?

yes - read the book! I wasn't addressing you in particular - the problem is that inside every conspiracy theory is a germ of truth.... in this case they hear about the pharmacy industry which has a lot of problems, give it a soundbite nickname and then try and attach all their cockamamie to it. THe logic is indefensible. There is a lot written on this and Goldacre's book is the "gold standard" for getting the message across accurately to the general public book of the year for tboth Times and Independant and It reached the Top 10 bestseller list for Amazon Books. The book was also shortlisted for the 2009 Samuel Johnson Prize

Is available in Thailand try the name Venetoclax.

Many participants in this discussion seem to struggle with understanding the wealth of genuine, peer-reviewed medical research on this topic. Instead, the conversation often gets clouded by paranoia, catchy soundbites, and cognitive biases rather than clear facts. What’s more, there appears to be a lack of even the basic tools needed to grasp an accurate overview of the issues involved. It’s clear that very few have ventured beyond headlines and simplified snippets, which only adds to confusion. That’s why I strongly encourage everyone to push past any hesitation about tackling complex material and read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0). This book offers a clear, engaging, and well-informed guide to understanding how science really works — and how to spot misinformation in health and medicine. If you want to join this conversation from a place of knowledge rather than guesswork, Bad Science is a perfect place to start. Ben Goldacre—a doctor with a dry wit and a sharp scalpel, takes apart the nonsense we’re sold in the name of health. Bad Science exposes bogus claims from homeopaths, detox peddlers, nutrition “gurus,” and snake oil salesmen. But he doesn’t stop there. Goldacre also tears into Big Pharma, showing how drug companies can be just as guilty—burying negative trial results, distorting evidence, and gaming the system to boost profits. He argues that bad science isn’t just an alt-med problem—it’s systemic, and the only cure is transparency, proper trials, and public understanding of how science really works. Importantly, he rejects the flawed logic that says “because Big Pharma behaves badly, all mainstream medicine—including vaccines—must be fraudulent.” That’s not skepticism, he argues, it’s just bad reasoning. What you’ll find out is why homeopathy, detox, and miracle cures are a scam. How pharma firms distort clinical evidence. Why evidence-based medicine matters. How the media helps spread bad science. How to think critically and spot scientific BS – very little of this is shown on this thread If you care about real health, not hype, Bad Science is essential reading.

you quite simply don't understand your own quotes -