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

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] • 6 pts

Weird he follows exactly 666 people

[–] • 6 pts

SSssshhhhhh!!

Don't notice those things! He was on Joe Rogan's podcast and now the MSM "isn't talking about him"

Joe Rogan totally isn't controlled. So the fact we know about this specific doctor is 100% legit. Nothing to notice.

[–] • 3 pts

NAME LITERALLY RHYMES WITH BOLOGNA!

I'll stop yelling now.

[–] • 5 pts

This is why "peer review" is so dangerous. It very quickly just becomes "group think and dogma".

Anyone that thinks peer review is the scientific process is a commie. The real scientific process is QUESTIONING and making correct predictions.

[–] • 0 pt

You are conflating problems.

Nothing wrong with peer review. It's healthy to hold the burden of proof on those making the scientific claims. This is a key part of the questioning that is so important. Peer reviewing is as old as the scientific process itself. No scientists work in a vacuum. Example: the Royal Society has been around for 350+ years, bringing scientists and ideas together for debate and discussion.

The problem, today, is when you can't find a half dozen scientists who are experts in the field and aren't overtly biased by their paycheck that they can't act without bias. Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Examples: Most immunologists have long term relationships with the vaccine manufacturers. Most geologists have long term relationships with the natural resource producers. Most food scientists have long term relationships with the largest agricultural producers. Etc.

Fix the money problem and you will fix the scientific community.

[–] • 0 pt

Nothing wrong with peer review.

I notice you have a Jew tag for whatever reason.

It's healthy to hold the burden of proof on those making the scientific claims.

One's claims are proven by their predictions, not peer review.

The problem, today, is when you can't find a half dozen scientists who are experts in the field and aren't overtly biased

Everyone is biased, that is WHY science is based on measurable PREDICTIONS. NOT peer review.

Peer review is literally just for checking spelling, obvious mistakes and such.

[–] • 3 pts

Remember when they had commercials that said things like “Four out of Five Dentist recommends this toothpaste”? Now it’s “If you don’t use this toothpaste you’re going to give your grandparents cavities and also lose your job.”

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Is this true? (ibb.co) I haven't seen it trending in my social media feed. So I'm not sure what to think or be outraged about yet.

[–] • 2 pts

Did this MD do original research into the vaccines and then he tweeted about it? Was his research peer reviewed and published?

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 1 pt

The more I see the Malone marketing team pushing this shit, the more I'm convinced he is controlled opposition. I think this one pushed me over the line.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

How can it be settled when we are continually told it's fluid and ever changing?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

They did the same thing with vaccine acceptance in some workplaces. Basically "Tell us who to fire" and then poof, you have over 90% vaccine compliance.