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.
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.