Homesteading Forum banner
81 - 100 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
Is there a prestigious medical journal that champions peer review by people who aren't politically or financially aligned with huge pharmaceutical companies or political figures? That would be worth reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: no really

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
Would you expect them to say, nah, our vaccines are garbage, and largely work as a placebo for the affluent, and the gross mistrust we have fostered amongst the poor huddled masses ensures that their low vaccine uptake will ensure our continued marketing schemes in a feedback loop of self fulfilling prophecy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,925 Posts
An interesting article.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). `But,' the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it? (I told my friend that it had not been peer reviewed, but it was too late to pull the story from the front page.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hiro

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
Nine out of nine inner city gang members didn't see nothing. That is peer review.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
An interesting article.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). `But,' the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it? (I told my friend that it had not been peer reviewed, but it was too late to pull the story from the front page.)
The sanctification of peer reviewed for those of that aren't getting grants that know what science is and are educated, or just have common sense, has lost its shine. Particularly when the authors of this tragedy are still wondering about and lying about everything despite documented evidence to the contrary.

When Baric, Fauci and the whole crowd at EcoHealth are still not in chains or what they should be the "peer reviewed" scientific community involved in this are still free or breathing, the war still goes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,925 Posts
This is an older report.


ACCORDING TO THE NEW GOVERNMENT DATA, BELOW ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF COMPANIES AND THE AMOUNTS THEY PAID OUT IN 2016 IN GENERAL AND RESEARCH PAYMENTS:
COMPANYGENERAL PAYMENTSRESEARCH PAYMENTS
Merck$39.8 million$261.9 million
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.$34.9 million$436.58 million
Roche Diagnostics Corp.$1.17 million$6.86 million
Pfizer International$501,766$2.44 million
AbbVie Inc.$34.9 million$136 million
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc.$3 million$11.1 million
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc.$121,1146$0
GlaxoSmithKline$30.5 million$94 million
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals$11 million$28.5 million
Gilead Sciences Inc.$43.42 million$59.44 million
 
  • Angry
Reactions: HDRider

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
I agree that there are problems with peer review, with government funding, and all of the issues y'all point out.

Doesn't change the fact that vaccinations reduce severe disease.

The sun will come up tomorrow, the earth is round, and being vaccinated reduces the chance of severe disease. These are facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
I agree that there are problems with peer review, with government funding, and all of the issues y'all point out.

Doesn't change the fact that vaccinations reduce severe disease.

The sun will come up tomorrow, the earth is round, and being vaccinated reduces the chance of severe disease. These are facts.
The sun will come up tomorrow, the earth is an oblate spheroid, and mandating a leaky vaccine to those not at risk to disease is counterproductive to reducing mortality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
I believe the vaccine reduces severe reaction to the disease. I have not questioned that aspect. My question is why was that information supressed in favor of the unfounded claims that the vaccine would stop the spread? If TPTB lied about the most important reason for getting the shot, what else have they lied about?
I figured the vaccine would greatly reduce the spread, at least for a while (until the vaccinated lost infection which is common for coronavirus' after infection). Every other vaccine does this, so I think it was reasonable to think this would happen. Turns out I was wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,047 Posts
I read as much of the research as I could find as it was first being tested. I recall posting on here somewhere that from my understanding the mRNA treatment would still allow people to become infected, but they would not have symptoms so they would not know they had covid. I was even more convinced of that after testing of the vaccinated was stopped. I remember several posters getting quite nasty and basically calling me "stupid" for not understanding how this therapy works.

I can see how mRNA can be successfully used against cancer cells. I hope there is continued research in using mRNA against cancers. But the consideration of using mRNA against viruses that are more virulent and dangerous than covid scares me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,686 Posts
Calling people names diminishes your professional credibility.
Exactly. I only get paid to call my subs idiots. I dont get paid on here so everyone here to me is a genius.

I can fill out a resume though if there is an idiot calling position available?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
Exactly. I only get paid to call my subs idiots. I dont get paid on here so everyone here to me is a genius.

I can fill out a resume though if there is an idiot calling position available?
Not sure if you are a general contractor or a dominatrix. Either way you crack the whip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mreynolds

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,370 Posts
Exactly. I only get paid to call my subs idiots. I dont get paid on here so everyone here to me is a genius.

I can fill out a resume though if there is an idiot calling position available?
No positions but any good county fair should have a contest next summer next to the husband calling and pig calling booths.
 
Joined
·
348 Posts
I agree that there are problems with peer review, with government funding, and all of the issues y'all point out.

Doesn't change the fact that vaccinations reduce severe disease.

The sun will come up tomorrow, the earth is round, and being vaccinated reduces the chance of severe disease. These are facts.

Too bad we do not have a vaxx for covid.
 
81 - 100 of 101 Posts
Top