I continually see memes quoting statistics that claim to show the ineffectiveness of vaccines.
Anybody with even middle school level math competency should be able to see through the misrepresentation of these statistics.
A recent example stated that 85.7% of deaths over a particular week in Scotland were vaccinated people. The conclusion drawn was that the vaccines don't work because the vast majority of people dying were vaccinated.
What was left out in the post was that 94% of Scotland has received at least 1 dose and 74% has received 3 doses. That leaves only less than 6% of the population unvaxxed accounting for 12% of the deaths. This data suggests (suggests, doesn't prove anything), just the opposite of the conclusion drawn.
Misuse of statistics makes people look either stupid or dishonest. If you see something posted like this, you should immediately question your source. Anybody passing off this kind of stuff isn't vetting their sources or their numbers either through actual intent to mislead or sheer stupidity. Either way, the source cannot be trusted. Trusting such a source is just allowing yourself to be duped (which makes you a dupe) or a liar yourself.
Hold yourself to higher standards of integrity, please, everybody. It doesn't help anybody to lie about facts or pass on lies about facts.
I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.
And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.
Do you know what is "peer review"? Peer review does not mean that research is valid. It does not even mean that it is really done. It just a check that there is no any obvious mistakes, and that's all. Peer rewievers do not replicate experiments, so they just can't confirm paper at all.
Moreover, none of that paper will pass a peer review of, say, physics scientists. The first their question to the paper will be - "how did you isolate effect of vaccine from other effects like natural immunity, medication, other substances in the vaccine and other stuff? You did not demonstrate that declared effect if exactly from vaccine active component only and not from other possible variables". Next will be - "how do you infect your test subjects with virus to enshure that it is really declared disease vaccine have to prevent". And so on.
Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.
If you don't have any clue about the deep black ass medicine drowned to, try to read something about replication crisis in medicine. Medicine is the worst among all other sciences. Somwhere near sociology and psychology.
Of course. That is the point. If you declare in your research that some treatment works, then this should be checked by an independent researches, that in no way have any connections to those who connected with you and those who interested in confirmation.
Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.
I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.
No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.
"Why don't you create your own Twitter (i.e. state, banks, money, networks, powerplants, etc.)?" :)
You see, people? That's all you need to know about propagandists. Final argument always fall to some kind of monopoly or "consensus". :)
Yes. Because I'm a scientist and engineer and doing science and engineering job nearly everyday. That thing, that is happening in medicine is not a science at all. "We made some device, we absolutely have no clue how it really works, but we give 100 devices to 100 people and ask them to shake device. Then we found that women have 20% more green LED activated than men. Few people died for unknown reasons. So this device could be used to safely and effectively detect women.". Every single paper you posted looks like that. That is how medical science look like today. That is why medical science is complete bullshit and garbage. That is why it should be deeply reformed and forcefully returned to the strict scientific methods.
That depends on your definition of "independent." Also, I don't believe you. What were the funding sources of each study?
That's not how it works. Replications aren't necessarily published unless they show the study wasn't replicated (as was the case with Wakefield or cold fusion).
Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you? Peer review is more than what you think it is. Will it catch everything? No, there have been peer reviewed studies that were later retracted after publication. But having experts in the field review your work before publication is not just formality. It's an important check on validating a study.
And certainly a study going through peer review is to be taken more serious than a study that does not.
Ooops. You let the facade slip there. Can't take you seriously. Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology. This is a meaningless, nonsense assertion. I really don't need to read on from this point. You pretty much discredited everything else you're going to say.
You don't understand science. Not even the basics.
But you don't believe any scientists are actually independent because they might be financed by the state. I'll let the "non-scientist" thing slide, but what you said was non-scientists.
It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist. You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.
You didn't read your own "arguments"?
Of course. :) Who need independent replications? Only insane conspiracy theorists need them. Every good science believer will be satisfied with study about BigPharma shit done for BigPharma money by BigPharma "scientists".
Multiple times. But for real science, not for pseudosciences like medicine or sociology. Had successful replications too.
It have absolutely nothing to do with validation of a study. For obvious reasons. Validation of the study could be only in a form of independently replicated experiment.
I don't even want to understand all that garbage you name "science".
You have no idea what real peer review is, how it is done and why it does not matter what speciality reviewer have. The purpose of peer review is to check for obvious errors and for compiance to scientific method. There can't be any difference in medicine math and physics math. So with scientific methods. If you insist that physicist can't peer review medical studies it just mean that your medical studies is not scientific.
There are no any World Physics Organisation whose authoritarian orders are absolutely obligatory to all states. Suddenly.
Of course, you have no any sane counter-arguments, only can go personal. :) Perfect. :)
LOL. If a thought about looking for differences between hypothesis and theory come to your interear ganglion, you are as retarded, as a person who decided to find differences between engines and cars. :)
You find a wrong forum for your meaningless propaganda. Try some mainstream social networks and similar shit.
I said they aren't necessarily published.
Haha. No you have not.
Not necessarily.
Congratulations, you are succeeding in that goal.
It does indeed matter. It's comments like this that tip me off that you're posing.
"Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers."
"For medical journals, peer review means asking experts from the same field as the authors to help editors decide whether to publish or reject a manuscript by providing a critique of the work."
Medical News Today
"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field." [emphasis added] Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Non sequitur.
I've countered everything you've thrown out. It's an observation based on your responses. It's clear that you are misrepresenting yourself as a scientist or engineer. You clearly are not. You've been wrong about peer review, you're wrong about the word "theory." Minor league mistakes.
What a surprising response. I like challenging the duped to question their dupedness. I know no one will say they've changed their minds, but at least some of them will think twice about using spurious arguments again.