![There is no such thing... [512x512 - 178KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/V6NPS8.png){kind=link}
There is no such thing as unbiased medical information. It's just information with an unspecified bias. There is no such thing as peer reviewed literature. It's just literature that doesn't oppose the majority opinion of powerful doctors in the field.
There is no such thing as peer reviewed literature. It's just literature that doesn't oppose the majority opinion of powerful doctors in the field.
This is incorrect. I've peer reviewed research that I definitely disagreed with but it passed scientific rigor (this is a minimum bar). The best I can I do is reject it with comments and the research team reworks or addresses it (and publishes my comments with their counters to address the problems). In the best case, the research is thrown out and redone.
I think he was making a finer point than the one you are making: the only statements that can ever be measure for truth values are in pure mathematics where you deal with clear and easily definable absolutes.
Our universe is messy and why the amount of peer reviewed papers that CANNOT be replicated is incredibly high. In some areas up to 50% of peer reviewed papers cannot be replicated.
While you are correct that scientific papers exist at various precision levels of truth value, the reality is that bey definition that not only do the authors have biases, so do you.
I agree with the larger point you are handwaving at which is that we can know stuff, things can be measured, there is an objective reality, useful ideas and processes are really useful if they have replicability, peer review can be useful and so forth. The problem is that over the last 3 years we have had a front seat to the demonstration that most of science is full of garbage people producing garbage results because science is full of garbage people just like every other profession.
We have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water on this one, but, all of science has been degraded by the very behaviour of scientists and experts in virtually all fields over the last 3 years.
As just one example, we have national boards of health in North America and elsewhere making official policy that trans women are women. Actually, I think that was what it was, I forgot the exact example. However, it was an absolutely ABSURD anti-science anti-human policy change that beggars belief that it can happen.
Thanks for the lengthy reply. I appreciate this type of intelligent and well-thought out input. It's tough to get folks on any place to put this much intelligence and thought into their replies because they want to just insult, post their old and tired memes, or troll.
Anyway...
the only statements that can ever be measure for truth values are in pure mathematics where you deal with clear and easily definable absolutes.
I can tell you from doing it myself, you can use statistics to lie, as well. In college, one of our assignments in the senior level stats class, was to use different modeling to come up with opposite conclusions. Pure statistical lying. We'd be given a set of data/observations and then have to use stats to create 2 or more conclusions (objective conclusions) based on that data.
And then, of course, there's the millions of times this exact thing is done in real research.
Not even the observed data is objective: how the data is collected can be subjective (the methodologies). It's subjectively on subjectivity. There's very little if any pure mathematics going on with empiricism.
I am not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you give these fuckers far more credit than they deserve. They lie using objective methods far more often than should be tolerated.
I agree with the larger point you are handwaving at which is that we can know stuff, things can be measured, there is an objective reality, useful ideas and processes are really useful if they have replicability, peer review can be useful and so forth.
You're giving me too much credit - I'm not really making all of those points. Just the part about peer reviews.
The problem is that over the last 3 years we have had a front seat to the demonstration that most of science is full of garbage people producing garbage results because science is full of garbage people just like every other profession.
Definitely far longer than 3 years, though. What's happened is a lot more people started paying attention to the science and the endemic problems with it became much more obvious.
My sister quit the pharmaceutical research industry because her bosses literally told her to fudge the numbers to push harmful or useless drugs through. She could not stand the unethical and even harmful greed. You have to live with yourself. This was 10+ years ago when she was just a wee lass, bright eyed, and green, ready to enter the work force after years of hard studying. Amazing that they jaded an intelligent, kind, and hard working person like her in less than a year, isn't it? Proud that she chose morals over money, though.
We have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water on this one, but, all of science has been degraded by the very behaviour of scientists and experts in virtually all fields over the last 3 years.
1,000,000% agree (see, this is clearly liar stats, lmao).
Peer review is dead. No double blinds. It's pal review. And journals that publish and remove publication based on political concerns
I think Dr. Robert Malone and others would agree with me. If all the med school deans and journal editors (often the same people) are convinced that Covid jabs are safe and effective AND worried that any dissent will discourage people from getting vaxxed, then they will deem any dissenting submission as sub-standard and find a way to keep it out of publication. They may never send it out for review so you would never see it. Or they may send it only to reviewers they know will bash it. There is always the excuse that print space is limited and there was no room for it even if it was scientifically rigorous. On the other hand, confirming submissions will only need to meet the minimum bar to get published even if the research is sloppy and the results are barely significant.
Of course Dr. Robert Malone would agree with you, he's an anti-vaxxer. Only nuts listen to anti-vaxxers. If you want to be taken seriously, find someone who supports the Covid vax 100% and says it isn't safe. Lol, you can't, retard. Only anti-vaxxers would say that, proving that it's safe.
Don't even try to argue, my logic has no gaps in it, like a perfect circle.
COVID-19 vaccinations ARE safe and effective. They are safer and more effective than most other vaccines, statistically, too.
For the Alpha variant.
By stating that the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe and effective, I would concede your overall point if you stated that most other vaccines were less safe and less effective. Then I would have not counter to your point.
(post is archived)