You can read the study for yourself: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
Double blind studies have their limitations as well.
You can read the study for yourself: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
Double blind studies have their limitations as well.
And peer reviewed is totally meaningless.
And peer reviewed is totally meaningless.
Pretty much, replication is what matters.
Pretty much, replication is what matters.
Yes, when your peers are getting the same soros money to say the same thing, peer review just shows who is also on the take.
Yes, when your peers are getting the same soros money to say the same thing, peer review just shows who is also on the take.
It's not even that. Peer review, even when done properly, is just someone looking over your paper for obvious errors, they never validate your data or challenge your conclusions. It's a glorified proof reading.
It's not even that. Peer review, even when done properly, is just someone looking over your paper for obvious errors, they never validate your data or challenge your conclusions. It's a glorified proof reading.
(post is archived)