I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.

I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.

bla-bla-bla

And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.

Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review.

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.

Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works.

Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.

How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published?

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.

So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists?

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.

Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable.

Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.

I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.

No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.

Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals?

"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". :)

You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.

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.

I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.

I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.

bla-bla-bla

And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.

Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review.

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.

Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works.

Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.

How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published?

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.

So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists?

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.

Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable.

Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.

I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.

No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.

Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals?

"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". :)

You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.

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 if 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.

I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.

I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.

bla-bla-bla

And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.

Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review.

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.

Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works.

Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.

How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published?

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.

So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists?

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.

Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable.

Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.

I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.

No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.

Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals?

"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". :)

You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.

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 if 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.

I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.

I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.

bla-bla-bla

And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.

Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review.

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.

Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works.

Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is bad, wrong theory.

How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published?

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.

So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists?

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.

Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable.

Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.

I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.

No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.

Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals?

"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". :)

You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.

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 if 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.