It's kinda unfortunate, both sides love to appeal to "peer reviewed study" like a child who just found a magic wand, even though peer reviewed status doesn't mean much. This approach is problematic because globalists have way more peer reviewed (crappy) studies on their side. One has to learn about the quality/type of study e.g. controlled? interventional? observational? sample size? P value? etc.
The silver lining here is researchers are not straight up faking the data, YET. You can read the paper and see what's going on even if the inference is rather weird. Also, there are still a few researchers who are willing to do the researches other shills avoid (e.g. RCT on subclinical myocarditis by mRNA shots).
It's kinda unfortunate, both sides love to appeal to "peer reviewed study" like a child who just found a magic wand, even though peer reviewed status doesn't mean much. This approach is problematic because globalists have way more peer reviewed (crappy) studies on their side. One has to learn about the quality/type of study e.g. controlled? interventional? observational? sample size? P value? etc.
The silver lining here is researchers are not straight up faking the data, YET. You can read the paper and see what's going on even if the inference is rather weird. Also, there are still a few researchers who are willing to do the researches other shills avoid (e.g. RCT on subclinical myocarditis by mRNA shots).