Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (65059)	5/16/2013 6:42:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The context doesn't change the nature of the statement... Did he say "germs don't cause disease"? If yes - Dalmia's right. If no - Dalmia is either misinformed or lying. If he said something ambiguous, then a clarification of what he said would be most important when evaluating his statement. If he made a statement along the lines of "germs don't cause disease unless the circumstances are right", then the answer to the above question is no. ----- Researching the statement, I see that he claims vaccines don't prevent disease, not the same thing as "germs don't cause disease", but it would fall under ignoring or disagreeing (without apparent good cause) reasonably solid science (if not as strongly as "germs don't cause disease" does). I haven't yet found "germs don't cause disease" (OTOH I only searched for a few minutes). If he only made the statement about vaccines and not the statement about germs, then Dalmia did distort what he said, but your context wouldn't tell us that. Assuming the only remotely relevant statement by Maher was the one about vaccines, then a better response to my post would have been "he didn't say that". The truth would still be an example of what Dalmia is trying to illustrate, but a weaker one, but if the weaker example is true and the stronger claim is not, you have to go with the weaker one.