They did publish. Just not to journals. Probably because the journals are complete lock-step with those managing the cull and wouldn't publish them.
Publishing to a blog is a reasonable second alternative in the face of censorship.
And they are now getting reviewed. Not optimally. But they are. As your post demonstrates. Would you prefer their paper never have been released at all? Not even to have its flaws pointed out?
The "process of science" is a distant second to the quest for truth.
Daddude is a known glowniger who works for the fbi
He is here to spread disinformation.
He is paid to see you dead.
They did publish. Just not to journals. Probably because the journals are complete lock-step with those managing the cull and wouldn't publish them.
I thoroughly enjoyed your well-reasoned and intelligent reply. It's a breath of fresh air. Most people who disagree with my points just resort to "faggot/kike/nigger/glowie/fed/etc."
You bring up great points. I have no rebuttal that's legit. Let me show you why the rebuttal is not legit - here's mine:
Because reputable medical journals have a higher quality of standard to get published.
That's subjective. I do not have data to prove my statement is objectively true. It's intuitive to me, of course. But I have no real rebuttal beyond that.
In the scientific community, we trust them because they do have standards that have to be followed. The peer review process is very good/solid when the journal editors know what they are doing. Shitty research gets through the cracks, still.
Check out this comic that supports your perspective:
https://nautil.us/blog/you-want-to-see-my-data-i-thought-we-were-friends
In a normal world I would agree with you that what the journals offer a higher level of credibility. From what I've observed in the last 2 years (ex: Lancet retraction; refusal to accept new papers re HCQ and IVM; complete hit jobs resulting in conclusions that HCQ and IVM are dangerous) I'm no longer sure.
Beyond the on-going cull, the complete destruction of the credibility of "experts", medical or otherwise, ... Well, I was going to say its tragic collateral damage. But maybe not. Maybe its time we start to take a good hard look at "experts" and the concept of iatragenics in medicine.
Fair enough, then. I did see that retraction. But the Lancet also kept a pretty large study that damned all the lockdowns countries were doing and those researchers shit all over all the other studies that were trying to shill for it:
Let me find it...it's pretty good.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
So about that specific study that was retracted? Man, I don't know. Could have been corruption. Could have been legit. Perhaps the editor assigned to the research was feeling buttmad that day? No idea.
But maybe not. Maybe its time we start to take a good hard look at "experts" and the concept of iatragenics in medicine.
Oh, there are DEFINITELY agendas and corruption (you don't need me to tell you this). Buddy deals, back door deals, fudging data, issues with results duplication, etc.
BTW, I didn't bother to reply about people acting like trolls because I try not to spend a lot of energy thinking about such things. But then I had to come back and thank you in return for reflecting the same behavior you attributed to me.
I have been known to call people faggots around here. But only when they are faggots. ;)
(post is archived)