What were the funding sources of each study?

You didn't read your own "arguments"?

Replications aren't necessarily published

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".

Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you?

Multiple times. But for real science, not for pseudosciences like medicine or sociology. Had successful replications too.

It's an important check on validating a study.

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.

You don't understand science.

I don't even want to understand all that garbage you name "science".

Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology.

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.

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.

There are no any World Physics Organisation whose authoritarian orders are absolutely obligatory to all states. Suddenly.

It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist.

Of course, you have no any sane counter-arguments, only can go personal. :) Perfect. :)

You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.

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.

What were the funding sources of each study?

You didn't read your own "arguments"?

Replications aren't necessarily published

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".

Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you?

Multiple times. But for real science, not for pseudosciences like medicine or sociology. Had successful replications too.

It's an important check on validating a study.

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.

You don't understand science.

I don't even want to understand all that garbage you name "science".

Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology.

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.

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.

There are no any World Physics Organisation whose authoritarian orders are absolutely obligatory to all states. Suddenly.

It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist.

Of course, you have no any sane counter-arguments, only can go personal. :) Perfect. :)

You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.

LOL. If a thought about looking for differences between hypothesis and theory come appeared in 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.

What were the funding sources of each study?

You didn't read your own "arguments"?

Replications aren't necessarily published

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.

Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you?

Multiple times. But for real science, not for pseudosciences like medicine or sociology. Had successful replications too.

It's an important check on validating a study.

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.

You don't understand science.

I don't even want to understand all that garbage you name "science".

Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology.

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.

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.

There are no any World Physics Organisation whose authoritarian orders are absolutely obligatory to all states. Suddenly.

It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist.

Of course, you have no any sane counter-arguments, only can go personal. :) Perfect. :)

You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.

LOL. If a thought about looking for differences between hypothesis and theory come appeared in 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.