Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:10 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

   in reply to

   • Caek Islove ? ❤️
   • Sir Shawn ✅?
   • DeadDrudge
   • Quentel
   • Mark :verified:
   > A glownigger writes a study
   
   > Another glownigger "peer reviews" it
   
   Many such cases.
   • Embed this notice
     DeadDrudge (jeddrudge@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:11 JST DeadDrudge

     in reply to

     • Caek Islove ? ❤️
     • Sir Shawn ✅?
     • Quentel
     • Mark :verified:
     And here we are...
   • Embed this notice
     Quentel (quentel@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:12 JST Quentel

     in reply to

     • Caek Islove ? ❤️
     • Sir Shawn ✅?
     • Mark :verified:

     The scientific peer review process is often nothing more than selective politics managed by the journal editor.

   • Embed this notice
     Sir Shawn ✅? (knight_of_the_first_state@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:13 JST Sir Shawn ✅?

     in reply to

     • Caek Islove ? ❤️
     • Mark :verified:

     @caekislove @mhjohnson Peer review was supposed to be the safeguard. But even that has been exploited.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

   • Embed this notice
     Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:13 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

     in reply to

     • Sir Shawn ✅?
     • Mark :verified:
     @Knight_of_the_First_State @mhjohnson Peer Review wasn't really a big thing until the 60's, and I'm firmly convinced that it was created solely as a marketing tool for scientific journals.
     
     Obviously, having some labcoat with the same biases and conflicts of interest read over your paper and say "welp, looks good to me!" does nothing to validate any claims made in that paper. However, godless savages have taken up "peer review" as the latest and greatest state-sponsored religion.
   • Embed this notice
     Mark :verified: (mhjohnson@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:14 JST Mark :verified:

     in reply to

     • Sir Shawn ✅?

     @Knight_of_the_First_State
     Yeah - a quick look at the paper
     https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
     scroll down to the limitations section to see stuff like this

     "First, there are plausible alternative explanations for the difference in excess death rates by political party affiliation beyond the explanatory role of vaccines discussed herein."
     (and they are??)

     There are five of those - all pretty serious.

     PS: The draft of this was released at least 10 months ago - was debunked then too.

   • Embed this notice
     Sir Shawn ✅? (knight_of_the_first_state@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:14 JST Sir Shawn ✅?

     in reply to

     • Mark :verified:

     @mhjohnson It's amazing that nonsense like this is allowed to propagate. Even if it's "debunked", it's still in the minds of those who read it beforehand.

     And then there's other COVID studies that are immediately admonished without explanation. Like Genevieve Briand pointing out no excess deaths after pandemic started. Cited sources from government data. I saved the PDF and a video presentation before it was promptly scrubbed from the Interwebs.
     https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/flawed-analysis-leads-to-false-claim-of-no-excess-deaths-in-2020/

   • Embed this notice
     Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:14 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

     in reply to

     • Sir Shawn ✅?
     • Mark :verified:
     @Knight_of_the_First_State @mhjohnson The dirty little secret of statistics is that it's garbage that can be manipulated to say whatever the fuck you want it to say. The dirty little secret of the scientific method is that in practice it's utterly reliant on the supposed accuracy of statistical analysis.
   • Embed this notice
     Sir Shawn ✅? (knight_of_the_first_state@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Thursday, 03-Aug-2023 07:35:15 JST Sir Shawn ✅?

     Debunking the study that claims that right wingers died more from COVID because they were too stupid to get the 💉.
     Of all the problems with the study, I'd add that death tracking has been fast and loose. They're quick to stay "died with COVID" and call that a COVID death, and hardly ever classify anything as vaccine related even when it's really obvious. So could we be honest and do the same study to show Democrats dying of the 💉 in much higher rates?
     https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/did-republicans-die-more-during-the