This one makes me cry. 30+ years in science and I'm the one that's stupid. I know nothing and I've learned nothing. (Heavy sigh, sniffle.)
BUT! I did learn one thing from you today! Peer Reviewed = The S.W.A.G Principle. (Although, I must admit, I did have an inkling that that may have been true for some things. Now, I know for sure.)
I had to look up SWAG - but yes, that seems about right.
Don't get me wrong - there is lots of great scientific work being done - it's just that peer review isn't, in itself, any guarantee of correctness at all.
I've spent too many happy hours dissecting published papers with colleagues - a sort of round-table hatchet job (we picked interesting looking papers - and the dissection was about trying to get a detailed understanding - not about tearing something down) - where quite a lot were just wrong. More than a few were essentially OK but with some errors - and some papers were just amazing pieces of work.
Getting past the hurdle of publication is the start of a process - and re-writing something to get past editors and reviewers is a bit of an art form. That's just in physics. In subjects like medicine it's not like you can work out the equations and prove where the errors are. What's happened post-covid is a lot more pressure to publish "narrative congruent" work. There are many examples where authors have either had their work pulled or had to severely water-down their conclusions to appear pro-narrative.
I hoped you would know SWAG. Maybe it's a chemistry thing.
Thank-you for the clarification. Not being in research, it helps me see where I was mistaken in regards to "peer reviewed" papers. I thought what you and your friends do, was different people doing that to the papers they were reviewing. Maybe, because if I were in a position to review papers, that's what I'd try and do.
I have read about how some of the well researched papers that have been submitted concerning "the virus" have been pulled before publishing, or right after initial publishing. The articles even sounded like it was a, "That's not what you're allowed to say.", type of situation.
I believe that, "A disgraceful and shameful state of affairs," is a gross understatement. Sadly though, language doesn't always give you nice words to express what you really think about a situation. My language tends to the colorful, "expletive deleted," type. 😏
It is unfortunate that before the shots, we knew asymptomatic transmission was a crock. But now, with the shots being relatively good at masking MILD symptoms until people are definitely infectious, we now have a bunch of jabbed Typhoid Mary's walking around infecting people, who don't even realize they are sick. Your thoughts?
I think this is a strong possibility - but I only have a naïve understanding of immunology. I'm still trying to figure out how someone could simultaneously have no symptoms, yet enough viral replication in their bodies to pose a significant risk to others.
Not at all certain how vaccination changes that picture - but it might well do. I think Geert Vanden Bossche has some thoughts on this - and he's infinitely more likely to be correct on this than I am. I'm still trying to understand the following piece of his :
I just read the link. Excuse my language, but if true, oh crap! I do wish they had listened to Geert. Me, I don't know immunology either, but I do know that what I don't know is huge. I suspect there is more to immune response than antibodies and T cells though...and that worries me. Coupled with the end points of the Pfizer trial, which was not transmission, but "attenuate mild symptoms" ....well, why would you want to do that?
This one makes me cry. 30+ years in science and I'm the one that's stupid. I know nothing and I've learned nothing. (Heavy sigh, sniffle.)
BUT! I did learn one thing from you today! Peer Reviewed = The S.W.A.G Principle. (Although, I must admit, I did have an inkling that that may have been true for some things. Now, I know for sure.)
I had to look up SWAG - but yes, that seems about right.
Don't get me wrong - there is lots of great scientific work being done - it's just that peer review isn't, in itself, any guarantee of correctness at all.
I've spent too many happy hours dissecting published papers with colleagues - a sort of round-table hatchet job (we picked interesting looking papers - and the dissection was about trying to get a detailed understanding - not about tearing something down) - where quite a lot were just wrong. More than a few were essentially OK but with some errors - and some papers were just amazing pieces of work.
Getting past the hurdle of publication is the start of a process - and re-writing something to get past editors and reviewers is a bit of an art form. That's just in physics. In subjects like medicine it's not like you can work out the equations and prove where the errors are. What's happened post-covid is a lot more pressure to publish "narrative congruent" work. There are many examples where authors have either had their work pulled or had to severely water-down their conclusions to appear pro-narrative.
A disgraceful and shameful state of affairs.
I hoped you would know SWAG. Maybe it's a chemistry thing.
Thank-you for the clarification. Not being in research, it helps me see where I was mistaken in regards to "peer reviewed" papers. I thought what you and your friends do, was different people doing that to the papers they were reviewing. Maybe, because if I were in a position to review papers, that's what I'd try and do.
I have read about how some of the well researched papers that have been submitted concerning "the virus" have been pulled before publishing, or right after initial publishing. The articles even sounded like it was a, "That's not what you're allowed to say.", type of situation.
I believe that, "A disgraceful and shameful state of affairs," is a gross understatement. Sadly though, language doesn't always give you nice words to express what you really think about a situation. My language tends to the colorful, "expletive deleted," type. 😏
Some reflections by John P. A. Ioannidis that I think tie into your concerns (I hope I don't mangle the links to badly):
A) Lown 2016 - Dr. John Ioannidis Keynote: Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked (FULL SPEECH): https://youtu.be/N63skNtYaJw
B) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf
C) Wiley Online Library / Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13222
Thank-you! I look forward to watching and reading your selected works. They sound quite interesting.
It is unfortunate that before the shots, we knew asymptomatic transmission was a crock. But now, with the shots being relatively good at masking MILD symptoms until people are definitely infectious, we now have a bunch of jabbed Typhoid Mary's walking around infecting people, who don't even realize they are sick. Your thoughts?
I think this is a strong possibility - but I only have a naïve understanding of immunology. I'm still trying to figure out how someone could simultaneously have no symptoms, yet enough viral replication in their bodies to pose a significant risk to others.
Not at all certain how vaccination changes that picture - but it might well do. I think Geert Vanden Bossche has some thoughts on this - and he's infinitely more likely to be correct on this than I am. I'm still trying to understand the following piece of his :
https://voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com/p/to-all-those-who-believe-omicron
I just read the link. Excuse my language, but if true, oh crap! I do wish they had listened to Geert. Me, I don't know immunology either, but I do know that what I don't know is huge. I suspect there is more to immune response than antibodies and T cells though...and that worries me. Coupled with the end points of the Pfizer trial, which was not transmission, but "attenuate mild symptoms" ....well, why would you want to do that?
Yes. Prof Desmet's interviews on this are excellent. It does explain so much.