rationalia.com

Can you outline your background in clinical biology, or statistical epidemiology?

I do at least have a Bachelors degree...

Edit: Bringing this up not as an argument from authority, but because what you wrote above is utter rubbish, and maybe intellectual humility would be good for you.

Male circumcision is an intervention that can never be subject to a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Is that clear to you, and is it clear to you why randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials are the gold standard? Can you find me an example of any other proposed interve...

For the health care costs folks - http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/if-circumcision-rates-keep-falling-health-costs-and-infections-will-spike/ If circumcision rates were to drop from the current 55% to 10%, urinary tract infections in baby boys may rise a whopping 212%, and in men, HIV infectio...

The issue is, Forty Two, that there are people with vested interests - religious, cultural and financial - in promoting and continuing male circumcision of minors, and the standard of evidence produced in favour of male circumcision is incredibly shaky, and I contend that no other proposed medical i...

I know the answers to the questions above (other than the actual answers to the sums), by the way, I'm just playing Socratic...

How many randomised controlled trials are the claims regarding HIV based on? Can the trials truly be reliable when they can't be blind, never mind double blind, or placebo controlled? What was the ABSOLUTE risk reduction reported in each case? Were the trials completed? Were there criticisms raised ...

This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.

What surprises me most about Rum's reaction is his apparent eagerness to see past both the obvious need for RDF to be vetted, and my intended clemency in giving Richard one last opportunity to run RDF properly - which is an opportunity that Richard seems very reluctant to take, without serious press...

Rum wrote:I feel dirty just reading the last couple of pages. Wish I hadn't now.

Thank you for your insightful contribution. You are more than welcome to desist from reading and commenting.

Yes, but rich people can use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits, not to actually win damages, but to make people STFU. Indeed, if they're wealthy, they might not even care about winning monetary damages. On the flipside, if anyone wanted to sue Dawkins for defamation, they'd have to get good lawyer...

Thanks.

I want to add a small caveat to what I said earlier, about Richard badmouthing me behind my back, while never saying anything openly, where I could have the opportunity to respond. The reasons for this kind of behaviour ultimately boil down to fear of the consequences of speaking directly or publicl...

The lady is not for turning!

(Ugh, I feel dirty now...)

He doesn't believe I'm crazy. He believes that I cause him real trouble and inconvenience - and he is so emotionally immature that smearing me in private is the only tool he knows how to use to "deal" with me. And I am saying all of this publicly so he doesn't think he'll get an easy ride if he play...

One day I will write the essay: "A Brief History of Richard Dawkins Calling Me Nuts Behind My Back, Before Talking To Me Exactly Like He Believes I'm Sane And Reasonable" Be under no illusions, Richard, undoing the dishonest way that you have smeared me behind my back - using the same tired old tric...

rationalia.com

Search found 1650 matches

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?

Re: For Reason and Science?