Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

In terms of academia, a source like Nature is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box.

The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of the master race then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then get gud scrub.

So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

In terms of academia, a source like **Nature** is considered La Creme de la Creme. If you can pick apart an academics argument using Nature as a reference then you've pretty much knocked a leg off of their 3 legged soap box. The second exercise is understanding the terminology. Nature is good with terminology and reading it can sometimes be an exercise in understanding technobabble. You've got time, read it carefully and any expressions you don't understand look them up. If you are part of `the master race` then this is not above your intellect, but you may have to break down the expressions to make them more digestible. If you're finding it too hard to read then `get gud scrub`. So, pop quiz: Based on current events and reading this review, tell me what issue you can spot from it. (Hint, it's mentioned in the introduction and and based around time periods.)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (55).
[–] • 0 pt

I hope it's a good reason for people to start being more critical and look into the shit and not be reliant on the news to tell them what to think.

Everyone here is potentially 100 times smarter than any news presenter that just reads a paper in front of a camera and doesn't care if its true or not - they just have to sit there and look 'pretty'.

If people can find a good source and use it to discredit the point being made, find the flaws and point out the kikery, understand good methodology and not just accept what they're reading at face value it could add a lot to this community.

[–] • 0 pt

I spent quite a bit of time knocking down Hydroxychloroquine studies last year. Im like a hydroxychloroquine expert now. I will know exactly what to do if malaria breaks out in the northeast US.

So many of these studies are just retrospective studies and meta-analyses with terrifically biased data and so many unknowns. They just wave a bit of propensity scoring in your face and call it a day.

[–] • 0 pt

One thing I really dislike is that they're not objective. I can understand that people need to song and dance their ideas, touting them as the best thing since sliced bread for funding reasons - but it means they focus on the potential pros too much and maybe dedicate a short abridged line to the consequences, not properly philosophising the reason why there in a discussion.

[–] • 1 pt

Alot of this reads like an advertisement. They’re practically jerking off toward the end there.

But I did catch this:

However, recent human trials have demonstrated moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions for different mRNA platforms22,91. Potential safety concerns that are likely to be evaluated in future preclinical and clinical studies include local and systemic inflammation, the biodistribution and persistence of expressed immunogen, stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and potential toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms54,166 induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity167,168. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. Another potential safety issue could derive from the presence of extracellular RNA during mRNA vaccination. Extracellular naked RNA has been shown to increase the permeability of tightly packed endothelial cells and may thus contribute to oedema169. Another study showed that extracellular RNA promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation

Gee I didn’t see “let’s inject pregnant women and twelve year olds in there, eh? Also, I wonder if that extracellular RNA thrombus formation is going to be a thing? Has anyone heard anything about thrombus formation lately?