Radio Show Number 29, November 21

Tonight’s Guest:  Dr. Tim O’shea – Vaccine Knowledge Campaigner




6 thoughts on “Radio Show Number 29, November 21

  1. When you take charlatan/quacks like this one hold forth about that which he isn’t trained in, it really takes away from any valuable work you may do. There are many reasons ppl become chiroquackters–one of them have to with not being quite good enough to make it into medical school. I’d love to see this simple-minded chiroquackter try to get a PhD in real science–that would make his head explode.

    1. The Archive is run from Canada. Here a Chiropractor has exactly the same amount of time in school as a Medical Doctor, exactly. When you subtract the complete waste of time that a Medical Doctor spends learning about Pharmaceuticals… The Chiropractor emerges from school knowing much more about the human body, and radiology than a normal MD. Most Chiropractors here don’t wear white coats.. so people don’t see them as Authority Figures. There are many more Quacks in the Medical Profession than in the Chiropractic, in my experience. Are there any facts that Dr. O’Shea brought up that you would like to disagree with, or would you like to continue with the Ad hominem Attacks?

      1. Coursework is nothing, although that is all a chiroquackter has to fool morons like you (since YOU started the ad hominems, I’ll send one back). BTW, there were so very few “facts” that it would take years to disagree w/it all. But, to the simpleminded, quacks “sound” smart so to you, they are. Thankfully I don’t have to perform like a charlatan to make a living (like Mr. oshea has to do)

  2. Tim has an open Invitation for anyone to Debate Him… so far No-One has accepted that invitation.

    Are you man enough to debate him?

    If you’re not too busy prescribing poison?

    If you are I’m sure we could arrange to have it broadcast.

  3. Also Real Doc: Since you have no idea what Ad Hominem means:
    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A’s claim is false.

    I hope you paid better attention in Logic Class than in Medical School…. Oh what was I thinking.. they don’t teach Doctors Logic. Sorry..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s