Montfort AJPM

"Global Time Bomb" First case of postmortem study of patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2; "viral …

The first-ever autopsy of a person vaccinated against COVID-19, who tested negative 18 days later upon hospital admission but at 24 days after the …
Ultraviolet
"You cannot quote me by name, I will get fired by the hospital if you do." Unnamed sources are unverifiable and thus worthless. While I'm not accusing Mr. Turner of deliberate falsehood, anyone can claim anything when they're anonymous.
alfred dunn
No, surely not worthless. If names can't be used for fear of reprisal we can look at the surrounding evidence and extrapolate.
V.R.S.
1. The source is verifiable for Mr. Turner but undisclosed to readers. It's quite a typical situation when it comes to investigative journalism.
2. The quoted statement of the source is based on the public document: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003647
thus it is verifiable.
3. According to the reasoning presented above: the whole above comment is anonymous thus "unverifiable …More
1. The source is verifiable for Mr. Turner but undisclosed to readers. It's quite a typical situation when it comes to investigative journalism.
2. The quoted statement of the source is based on the public document: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003647
thus it is verifiable.
3. According to the reasoning presented above: the whole above comment is anonymous thus "unverifiable and... worthless".
Ultraviolet
"1. The source is verifiable for Mr. Turner but undisclosed to readers. It's quite a typical situation when it comes to investigative journalism." @V.R.S.

...which means the original statements are correct. "Unnamed sources are unverifiable and thus worthless." Also, "anyone can claim anything when they're anonymous." Since Mr. Turner is presenting the findings of a source, (supposedly an …More
"1. The source is verifiable for Mr. Turner but undisclosed to readers. It's quite a typical situation when it comes to investigative journalism." @V.R.S.

...which means the original statements are correct. "Unnamed sources are unverifiable and thus worthless." Also, "anyone can claim anything when they're anonymous." Since Mr. Turner is presenting the findings of a source, (supposedly an expert in the field) to the public, the validity of his source is important and should be verifiable.

"2.) The quoted statement of the source is based on the public document.... thus it is verifiable."

Wrong.. Mr. Turner's big red bold scary quotations aren't quoted from the public document. Thus the unnamed source of them isn't verifiable at all.

"3.) According to the reasoning presented above: the whole above comment is anonymous thus "unverifiable and... worthless".

In your case, that's a given. :D You appear in the English-language section predominantly when you're seeking another argument with the user who beat you in the last one. Your appearance here is a typical example.

That notwithstanding, you're still wrong. Sloppy reasoning, in this case, a fallacy of composition. The value of a piece of writing, either a comment or an article, is not automatically the same as the value of a source it quotes.

Unnamed sources are unverifiable and thus worthless, but that does not presuppose a value on the writing containing that source. The writing might contain other information and other sources that are, in fact, valuable.

There's your mistake: An author and the anonymous source they quote are not one and the same.

So, no, it isn't "according to the reasoning presented above" at all. It's according to your inability to apply such reasoning.

Applying the reasoning presented above, to the example you gave here, you're not a source, i.e someone being cited/.quoted. You're an author, and you are citing a verifiable public document.

Back to the Polish-language section, V.R.S. Nothing else here for you today. :P
DEFENSA DE LA FE
Excellent information I hope when doctors see it will tell everyone donot vaccinate.