Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Has Dolores Cahill been debunked?

Options
12346

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    I can see the logic in the point about vitamin D, the reduction in oxygen levels I don’t agree with Other than I expect it would be uncomfortable to wear and the hydroxi I know nothing about. What you’ve done, which is the norm with your generation, is to make the assumption that because I didn’t cancel her outright that I was in agreement with everything she said and in a few more posts I’ll be a Trump supporter and then Hitler.

    What I can also say is that DC knows a lot more about this subject than me and everyone else in this thread. So if everything she said is so wrong, how can she have worked as a professor in UCD as legitimate academic scientist in school of medicine for so long and with so much experience but now all of a sudden she’s considered a crazy person and needs to be cancelled?

    Still falling for the framing basis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 957 ✭✭✭80j2lc5y7u6qs9


    circadian wrote: »
    Would Computing Forever be willing to host a peer who will debunk or even debate her claims? Since it was his interview that got pulled that seems to have kicked this off.
    i wouldn't pay much attention to Computing Forever


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx



    Looks like a very scientific test in a controlled environment. As other posters have said “peer reviewed” please - one of the most over used terms in the internet mostly used by people who are scientists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Looks like a very scientific test in a controlled environment. As other posters have said “peer reviewed” please - one of the most over used terms in the internet mostly used by people who are scientists.
    Peer review really just means confirming the methodology is up to scratch, it doesn't validate the findings. Replication does that and that's a whole other can of worms!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Looks like a very scientific test in a controlled environment. As other posters have said “peer reviewed” please - one of the most over used terms in the internet mostly used by people who are scientists.
    *heads desk* OK let's break this down to really bloody basic terms. Filters, that is in this case masks, from a scarf across your face all the way up to respirators, filter particles and in some cases chemicals from the air. They don't nor can't filter oxygen in the air. To reduce oxygen getting to the wearer they would have to contain an oxygen aborbing chemical layer and they don't. Well because that would be bloody stupid as we need oxygen to live.

    In short: It is physically, chemically and biologically impossible for masks to reduce oxygen in the filtered air. And if anyone claims otherwise they're a bloody fool, or bloody gullible.

    In the case of really extreme filtration the oxygen is still not removed from the inhaled air, but because of the same extreme filtration it requires more from an individual's lungs to breathe through them. This does not apply to surgical masks. Hell I have a couple of P3 level respirators with both mechanical and chemical filtration and they're not particularly difficult at all to breathe in and I'm a smoker.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    I'm actually beginning to get a perverse satisfaction out of reading this at this stage.

    Oh, Tickers! However will you deny the obvious next!


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,171 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Looks like a very scientific test in a controlled environment. As other posters have said “peer reviewed” please - one of the most over used terms in the internet mostly used by people who are scientists.

    But she's a Professor, who in the hell would ask a GP any medical question?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 475 ✭✭Onesea


    Arghus wrote: »
    I'm actually beginning to get a perverse satisfaction out of reading this at this stage.

    Oh, Tickers! However will you deny the obvious next!

    Having the time of your life...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    So despite all the self proclaimed scientists on the thread who know more than D.C. because their families work in healthcare and they “read stuff”... no debunking


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    So despite all the self proclaimed scientists on the thread who know more than D.C. because their families work in healthcare and they “read stuff”... no debunking

    How about a 'real Scientist', Flora Teoh:
    Flora obtained a PhD in Biological Sciences from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. During her doctoral studies, she examined how a human-colonising microbe could evolve in response to changes within a mammalian host, and how this process could influence microbial virulence.

    She 'debunked' the entire Computing Forever Interview between Cahill and Cullen.

    I fully expect you not to read the linked article and continue claiming she wasn't debunked; but worth a shot anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    ronivek wrote: »
    How about a 'real Scientist', Flora Teoh:


    She 'debunked' the entire Computing Forever Interview between Cahill and Cullen.

    I fully expect you not to read the linked article and continue claiming she wasn't debunked; but worth a shot anyway.

    Is it peer reviewed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Is it peer reviewed?

    She has not published any papers on the topic; and thus there is nothing to peer review. I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you already. Moreover the article simply points to actual peer reviewed papers which in many cases directly contradict Dolores Cahill's claims; you don't even need to be a scientist to see that.

    However it's pretty clear you're not posting here in good faith; so I won't bother replying further.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,219 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    ronivek wrote: »
    How about a 'real Scientist', Flora Teoh:


    She 'debunked' the entire Computing Forever Interview between Cahill and Cullen.

    I fully expect you not to read the linked article and continue claiming she wasn't debunked; but worth a shot anyway.

    Can this link be added to the OP please by a mod?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,332 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Can this link be added to the OP please by a mod?

    It's already there


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    fritzelly wrote: »
    It's already there

    Yikes; I didn’t even notice that.

    Makes the original post look even more ridiculous.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    So despite all the self proclaimed scientists on the thread who know more than D.C. because their families work in healthcare and they “read stuff”... no debunking
    You're either on a wind up, or can't read, or haven't clicked the numerous links posted, or a true believer for some reason, because Cahills oft downright insane claims have been debunked repeatedly on this thread and elsewhere.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,399 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Does anyone else find it even more depressing when someone trained in the scientific method joins the loons?

    At some level they must know what they are spouting is nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,298 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Does anyone else find it even more depressing when someone trained in the scientific method joins the loons?

    At some level they must know what they are spouting is nonsense.

    Probably more money to be made appealing to the crackpots who didnt understand any type of science to begin with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Probably more money to be made appealing to the crackpots who didnt understand any type of science to begin with.

    She’s already on €120k a year.

    She’s involved in a tiny fringe political party there is no political or financial advantage in that. The reputation and financial risk of putting out false scientific claims is much greater than any political or financial gain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,569 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Is it peer reviewed?

    Is Dolores Cahill's rambling interview?
    Very early on in this thread it was explained to you why DC hadn't been debunked, i.e she had neither published or presented evidence for her stance.

    You are now taking the stance of a petulant child and arguing "but"...

    Again, I'll ask the very pertinent question that you have repeatedly ignored!
    Have you found any scientific evidence in support of DC?
    Rather than expecting to be spoon fed reasons she is wrong, have you done any research to show why she is right?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Is it peer reviewed?

    Absolutely!


  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭mc25


    Still not debunking

    Never said it was!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    banie01 wrote: »
    Is Dolores Cahill's rambling interview?
    Very early on in this thread it was explained to you why DC hadn't been debunked, i.e she had neither published or presented evidence for her stance.

    You are now taking the stance of a petulant child and arguing "but"...

    Again, I'll ask the very pertinent question that you have repeatedly ignored!
    Have you found any scientific evidence in support of DC?
    Rather than expecting to be spoon fed reasons she is wrong, have you done any research to show why she is right?

    What makes you think I'm here to answer your questions? DC is entitled as a professional who is more qualified than you to make those assertions. You haven't been able to debunk anything and keep asking me to prove a negative. I'm sorry but science doesn't work that way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    What I'm trying to understand is that we have a UCD professor who has made some claims that appear to go against the received message and mus now be cancelled.
    "The sky is made of bananas"

    Incorrect statement, or just going against the received message?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,569 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    What makes you think I'm here to answer your questions? DC is entitled as a professional who is more qualified than you to make those assertions. You haven't been able to debunk anything and keep asking me to prove a negative. I'm sorry but science doesn't work that way.

    I also keep asking you what negative you have been asked to disprove?
    Noone has asked you to do that, if indeed you think I have?
    Quote where please?

    Quite ironic that you aren't here to answer questions, yet assume that the internet owes you answers that quite rudimentary research would provide you?
    With the added benefit of not making you appear as if you suffer from comprehension issues!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    What makes you think I'm here to answer your questions? DC is entitled as a professional who is more qualified than you to make those assertions. You haven't been able to debunk anything and keep asking me to prove a negative. I'm sorry but science doesn't work that way.

    You are clearly here on a wind up, but it's ok, we don't have much else to do.

    What makes you believe Dolores, is it just that she is antiestablishment, that she has a PhD or are you just a contrarian?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    "The sky is made of bananas"

    Incorrect statement, or just going against the received message?

    Are clouds the Green bananas?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    banie01 wrote: »
    I also keep asking you what negative you have been asked to disprove?
    Noone has asked you to do that, if indeed you think I have?
    Quote where please?

    Quite ironic that you aren't here to answer questions, yet assume that the internet owes you answers that quite rudimentary research would provide you?
    With the added benefit of not making you appear as if you suffer from comprehension issues!

    I think he has a thing for frumpy old women ,


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    axer wrote: »
    I think you need to define what your understanding of debunking is...

    It's a statement made from a position of total authority, like when you were a kid and as the eldest could take the top bunk for yourself thereby debunking your brother.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Wibbs wrote: »
    *heads desk* OK let's break this down to really bloody basic terms. Filters, that is in this case masks, from a scarf across your face all the way up to respirators, filter particles and in some cases chemicals from the air. They don't nor can't filter oxygen in the air. To reduce oxygen getting to the wearer they would have to contain an oxygen aborbing chemical layer and they don't. Well because that would be bloody stupid as we need oxygen to live.

    In short: It is physically, chemically and biologically impossible for masks to reduce oxygen in the filtered air. And if anyone claims otherwise they're a bloody fool, or bloody gullible.

    In the case of really extreme filtration the oxygen is still not removed from the inhaled air, but because of the same extreme filtration it requires more from an individual's lungs to breathe through them. This does not apply to surgical masks. Hell I have a couple of P3 level respirators with both mechanical and chemical filtration and they're not particularly difficult at all to breathe in and I'm a smoker.



    Just buy him the bloody ice cream ffs


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement