(22-03-2022, 05:08 PM)Magoo Wrote: Quote:harm_less
If peer reviewed science papers don't qualify as research in your opinion then what does?
a peer review of his conclusions.
reading someone elses conclusions is not research, its reading research.
his conclusions are just that, his conclusions. based on what others have researched
how he comprehends or interprets other peoples research just makes it an opinion, his.
it deserves no more cognizance than any other internet 'researcher'
Except Dr. Campbell has around half a century of experience in the hospital environment. Experience often recognises gaps in clinical theory.
(22-03-2022, 05:19 PM)king1 Wrote: (22-03-2022, 04:43 PM)harm_less Wrote: I put more credence in a collection of scientific papers from reliable international organisations than a public service website whose primary purpose is to drive immunisation uptake. To paraphrase the weakness that Dr Campbell was struggling to describe 'follow the money'.
I can only see benefits in having the booster on top of any immunity a covid infection might provide...  where is the harm in doing so?  but are you sure that you should be recommending people to not have a booster?
I've had a booster but I'll definitely be putting a lot of thought into the wisdom of putting my immune system through another one, particularly so if I am infected with COVID before then.
(22-03-2022, 05:26 PM)Praktica Wrote: (22-03-2022, 01:37 PM)harm_less Wrote: And as usual it's not his say so, it's evidence based on the scientific studies he quotes and provides links to. 
You mean - he cherry picks studies he thinks support his ideas?
He provides full disclosure of his source material. Viewers are welcome to source their own research data.
