I think, the word you are looking for is: interpreted.
Why thank you, it was.
I'm sure you never typed a word incorrectly, or had spell correct do it's thing.
I'm sure if I was an IT guy, you'd be fine with it.
I think, the word you are looking for is: interpreted.
I'm not the one without any medical education, or experience, trying to come off as an expert.You are welcome. Was it sarcastic? Yes. Just matching tone of comment to tone of comments.
Have a nice day.
That depends upon what that "stuff" is. Links to peer-reviewed papers may not qualify one to be a professional, but they're basing their source of information on those who ARE professionals.However, that doesn't change the fact that someone who "reads stuff" on the internet is NOT a professional and needs to NOT present their information as if they are.
Did you miss the part where he said he has regular contact with those who are? Granted, that's one level below actually being a medical professional, but I'll trust his musings on the subject a lot more than a random talking head on TV, or a politician with an axe to grind.Just so that I'm sure I am correct in what you are saying, you'd prefer to take your medical advice from a guy on the internet, that's an IT guy, and no medical education or experience, over people that are actual medical professionals, with a medical education, and experience treating patients?
Actually, there is more to it then "just reading links to peer-reviewed" articles.That depends upon what that "stuff" is. Links to peer-reviewed papers may not qualify one to be a professional, but they're basing their source of information on those who ARE professionals.
Did you miss the part where he said he has regular contact with those who are? Granted, that's one level below actually being a medical professional, but I'll trust his musings on the subject a lot more than a random talking head on TV, or a politician with an axe to grind.
The "conclusions" of these types of articles are generally written in plain English, even if the research leading to those conclusions might be in technobabble which those out of the field may not be able to comprehend. My point here is I'll take using such articles as a basis for forming a viewpoint over other much more questionable sources.Actually, there is more to it then "just reading links to peer-reviewed" articles.
Fully/really understanding those peer-reviewed articles can be difficult without the correct base line knowledge and can be easily taken out of context.
Feel free to call it two steps below if you want. This is sort of like the pointless semantic argument earlier about vaccines versus shots. I don't take every word turbodog or any else posts as gospel. I'm always free to do my own research on any points I may find questionable. But in general most of what he says matches info I've gotten from other sources.If you really believe that an IT guy, with NO medical education or experience, is "one level below actually being a medical professional" because he knows/has regular contact with "medical professionals" and reads a few peer-reviewed articles, that is simply unbelievable!
So no, I didn't miss that at all.
That you think that makes him "one level below actually being a medical professional" is simply amazing, WOW!
RWT- Amused that you gave Byk's post, above, a thumbs up. By way of introduction in this thread, what's your relevant backround?
Given your background, I really wish you would continue to post regarding your personal experience, as opposed to trying to discredit what some others are posting. Experience always trumps "reading about it on the Internet", or "knowing so and so in the field".Again, I apologize to Byk, and this will be my last response in this thread.
My real point there was that it's easy to focus on minute details while getting lost on the major points of a discussion. Call it a vaccine or a shot. I don't really care which. I just wish more people would get it. And also follow other protective measures.In post #148 you make my earlier point jtr.
The one about varying viewpoints of facts and who cares what it's called.
They're both technically right but there are times when precision matters, and a response of "nearing 4:30" simply isn't good enough. So context matters as much as anything.When you ask someone what time it is and they respond "4:22"and you ask another who says "nearing 4:30" neither is wrong, are they?
Antagonistic I think is the adjective I would use.And again you make my earlier point.
I did not see a previous series of posts as belittling anyone. What I saw was one member asking another "so what makes you such an expert?" then others going "woah, woah waoh don't you dare argue".
I knew the background of the op and just waited to see how others would handle the question raised.