Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. That would be a possible sign of overreaching. What could be his contribution? Some of these "authors" never read the paper.
    3
  2. 9:40 WHY this equivocation? What "negligible risk?" I would absolutely vaccinate a child, so don't misunderstand the question. It's not a rhetorical question. I assumed there was no evidence of a link at all. This is not like the incredibly tiny risk of brain tumors from overuse of cell phones. This is so small, and cell phones are so new, that it could not be confirmed until we had 20 years of data. We have the data on MMR vaccines.
    3
  3. Not only that, but THIS video is misleading. Gino's contract claims against Harvard weren't dismissed at all. When someone who isn't a lawyer talks about a case, look up the case.
    3
  4. Her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. That part of the case can proceed.
    3
  5.  @25Soupy  On the contrary, she was the Business School's leading example of succeeding in The Market. She wrote books that sold extremely well, too.
    3
  6. ​@johnsmith1953x Slander can only lead to civil liability, and is very hard to prove in any case where the person's conduct is a matter of legitimate public concern. Whoever told you that you can go to prison for slander?? Why did you believe it? And over a detail in a basically true story? Nothing short of systematic verbal abuse to persuade a person to harm themselves could possibly lead to prison, and those cases might not, either. It's the Amendment that comes First, remember?
    3
  7. Please read Carl Elliott's latest book. This is not the half of it -- not even close.
    3
  8. You should read The Occasional Human Sacrifice. In one case, a researcher was imprisoned, but that was in Sweden.
    3
  9. @charlesmanning3454   What do you think expert witness testimony is for? Who do you think is qualified to present it? If a court case is brought, and a factual matter in dispute rests on, say, immunology, then an immunologist will be qualified and called as a witness, and will present the necessary scientific facts to the jury. I don't see how that bears on this discussion. I'm not sure what you're talking about. You don't know about the 1986 law, the liability shield and the compensation program? Maybe find out, then. As for letting people know that out of x million doses, some small number y received compensation for injury -- yeah. That SHOULD be information that is shared. Or would you hide it?
    2
  10. @charlesmanning3454  When you fill a prescription, you get a printout stating side effects, even very rare one.
    2
  11. The null result here is very important. How could it not be?
    2
  12.  @ablebaker8664  Defamation counts were dismissed. "Duh"
    2
  13. @ablebaker8664  I don't know what you're talking about. The issue was the nature of the motion, not the substance. In motions to dismiss, courts do not adjudicate the facts alleged in a complaint, but presume them to be true to the extent that they are logically possible. Here's an idea: read the Memorandum Opinion, slowly. That will clarify all matters.
    2
  14. @hb1338  The court did not do that. At this stage, the court assumed that the allegations in her complaint are truthful. But if you like to think so, and people like you when you think so, by all means . . .
    2
  15. @ablebaker8664  Read the Complaint and the court's Memorandum Opinion. Too long to go into detail. The court said it all. Besides, one of my posts that went into detail disappeared. I'm not about to repeat myself.
    2
  16.  @ablebaker8664  Oh, and guess what else? If you sue on a contract, you must attach a copy of the contract. (If I say, "a copy of said contract," will you be more impressed?) But seriously, you could save time by . . . Reading the court's opinion. There. That does it for me. I'm out.
    2
  17. @RIbigDave  He sounds pretty good to me. Logic and literacy should be very common. Well . . . Anyway.
    2
  18. @PeteJudo1  No, it's not slight. It is a basic principle that when we are pointing out fraud, we should be extra careful to be accurate. Instead, as you can see, you've aroused a crowd, gotten a ton of clicks, and practically no one had the basic intellectual curiosity and integrity to read the case. This is why we are where we are. And you made more money on this video than you would have, had it been scrupulously accurate. Of course. Enjoy the haul. But don't pretend you're above it all. This is transparent, to me at least. (And in the natural world, there's never just one.)
    2
  19.  @RIbigDave  Read the case.
    2
  20. Remember when they said the Internet would make us all more honest? No one would dare do this, it would be so easy to find . . .
    2
  21. But data fraud, not so much.
    2
  22. @jvanek8512   Wow, you called it. This case has more twists than I thought. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms for tenured faculty, and then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino. And then Harvard had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed, she was just on "leave." You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂 The judge sounds like the one good guy in this sorry picture. (This is all from the opinion he filed.) As for defamation, she is a public figure for purposes of the "New York Times malice" standard. There is no way she could meet that. Nothing she could allege would make out "malice" (a term of art, not a feeling).
    2
  23. How much money did Gino make before she got exposed? Does she still collect royalties on any books?
    2
  24. BTW, Court Listener has all the key documents posted online, available in pdf.
    2
  25. Why don't these people learn to write novels? No, I mean it.
    2
  26. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed? Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
    2
  27. ​ @noot-noot-pingu-noot-noot Wow, thanks!!
    2
  28. @blockyuniverseproductions6587  Odd that you would say the problem is yellow journalism, when this website carefully documents what it does, and how people get away with it for decades, and even win the Nobel or get tenure at Harvard. When I used clearer language, that didn't stay up.
    2
  29. @anon69_q  Well, I take it from a legal standpoint -- proximate cause, admissibility of expert witness testimony under the Daubert standard, and so forth. So I study this, too.
    2
  30. He noticed epigenetic phenomenon but had absolutely no idea what he was seeing or why, and set back genetics in the USSR for at least a generation. That's not Mengele level at all. He did observe something real that we finally understand now, but we understand it only because we pursued real genetics.
    2
  31. ​@ghostoflazlo Exactly. Narcissist or no, either the DATA is real or it is not. She might be a saint in a dozen ways, however unlikely that may be.
    2
  32. Their amorality comes as no surprise to me, but their absence of conceit does. She really doesn't think her own writing is The Best in the World, and that she's so much Smarter Than Everybody Else? 😅
    2
  33. @anna-tn8mg  You believe this? No, the President and Congress are approving money and weapons sales to a party in a conflict where the ICJ found a plausible case that genocide was being committed or was at imminent risk of occurring. That is who is arguably "supporting" genocide. (The American judge concurred in the ICJ ruling.) Do you grasp the meaning of RESEARCH FRAUD? That is more than copying someone's text.
    2
  34. Absolute nonsense. Even the SOVIETS banned it a generation before the West did.
    1
  35. I know, right?
    1
  36. It depends on the motive and the aftermath. Some fraud has involved serious material gain, and some has even led to deaths. It shouldn't be an automatic criminal offense.
    1
  37. I looked up the case. You are correct. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint against Harvard alone. So, this video is misleading as well. When someone who isn't a lawyer talks about a case, look up the case. Wikipedia happened to be correct this time.
    1
  38.  @jvanek8512  Exactly.
    1
  39.  @shadowflash8519  How do you know whether it's suspect? Did you read the case?
    1
  40. I would think one significant paper per year as lead author, or several related ones as lead author, is the maximum.
    1
  41. Her contract claims against Harvard weren't even dismissed.
    1
  42. Her breach of contract claims against Harvard weren't even dismissed.
    1
  43. This video is misleading. Her contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed.
    1
  44. @charlesmanning3454  So you would state that as a hypothetical: "if there were some as-yet undetected risk, it is negligible and we know it couldn't outweigh the proven benefits."
    1
  45. @charlesmanning3454  Also, you'd be surprised how many procedures performed on children have a risk of close to 1 per million. That's usually considered acceptable. A risk of 1 per 500 million could be a statistical artifact, not real. There are fewer than 150 million babies born per year in the whole world. No one should accept a 1 per million risk for kids without a very generous compensation system in place.
    1
  46. @mitsync  Well, measles can also cause severe cognitive impairment, and we knew kids who suffered it. That isn't how you calculate risk-benefit for vaccines, and if you think about it for a moment, you'll figure out why. But I support MMR vaccines. I said that loud and clear.
    1
  47.  @mitsync  You may not be able to SEE where I suggested a hypothetical statement of possible risk. I know about the difference between the empirical sciences and pure mathematics.
    1
  48.  @mitsync  I didn't say 1 in a million was the standard.
    1
  49. @charlesmanning3454  That may be exactly right. 9:40 was a stronger statement, though, and surprised me. If there are a handful of cases, among the tens of millions vaccinated, which received compensation from the 1986 fund, they should make that information available. That doesn't mean the vaccine did cause the injury, just that they met the legal burden of proof to get funds. I don't say broadcast the numbers as "Breaking News," just state them somewhere in the literature. To be honest, I also think individual shots for each illness should be available. I understand why they're not, and I understand that it's for good reasons, but I still believe it should be a matter of choice.
    1
  50. @charlesmanning3454  You know, all this could be a red herring. Autism appears to be increasing, and it's not just a matter of better detection. We could be running around worrying about MMR or whatnot when we should be looking at something entirely different. Or we should just be open minded and try to figure out why, starting with a blank slate! Crazy times. :/
    1