discussing whether or not vaccines are safe or not is not allowed on reddit.

submitted by humancorpse from (self.MeanwhileOnReddit)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would agree it's bad if 12 steps are required, as in a person has no choice, I feel you have to want to overcome addiction if one is to actually overcome it. I would caution trusting cochrane though, they exist to shill for main stream medicine. And I think common sense would say that talking to someone about problems would help. Though again I agree 12 steps shouldn't be the only thing nor should it be a requirement for people.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I would caution trusting cochrane though, they exist to shill for main stream medicine.

On the contrary. They're independent, and nearly the only body holding pharmaceutical products to account.

They have then running scared for some products. I recall in particular during the swine flu, governments were stockpiling Tamiflu, and Hoffmann-La Roche were making an absolute (and plausibly a literal) killing.

The refused to supply the data from the trials to cochrane, which is fucking incredible. And cochrane eventually determined that buying it was a dead waste of money.

They're rightly respected.

And I think common sense would say that talking to someone about problems would help.

The 12 steps isn't "talking to someone".

Step 2 is: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Step 3 is: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

It's complete religious bullshit. the reason that it doesn't work is because it's not derived by finding the things that work.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

nah cochrane is paid shills sorry

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They regularly find that an intervention isn't supported or isn't as good as another.

So they're not shilling for pharma.

Who are they shilling for?

And what do you be this claim on?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I used to try to edit wikipedia, stupid I know, didn't realize how shilled it was. For all medical articles on wikipedia they use cochrane. So therefore it can't be trusted.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

For all medical articles on wikipedia they use cochrane.

Sensible. Cochrane are often the best authority on any particular treatment, because they go and get all the data from all the studies on the treatment.

So therefore it can't be trusted.

I think you're missing a step in the logic here. How did you get from they are cited often by wikipedia to they cannot be trusted?