CDC Unpublished Data Comparing Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Obtained via FOIA
@freemo
Also, since they were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC itself...
@freemo
[Almost] Every one of those studies is from PubMed, which IMO, necessarily means they're peer reviewed.
🇳🇱
@sda First off, link to the pubmed studies you feel were peer reviewed, in which case if they were we will see so. Not all studies on pubmed however are peer reviewed.
@freemo
If so, I then have to wonder what the criteria pubmed.gov has for publishing.
@freemo
sorry, it's not pubmed.gov, but
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
@sda That link does not go to an article related to the link you posted.
@freemo
No, it was a correction. The studies are not published on pubmed.gov, but on ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
The second level domain is nih.gov, not pubmed.gov
(National Institute of Health)
@freemo
So... PubMed is a branch of the National Library of Medicine which is a branch of National Institute of Health.
Are they disseminating wreckless propaganda when they publish studies showing the benefits of vaccination, or are they disseminating wreckless propaganda when they publish studies showing the dangers of vaccination?
Is it possible for a medical technology to be 100% "good" or 100% "bad" or do you suppose everything in the medical world has benefit/risk considerations?
@sda Can you please link to the actual study published in a peer reviewed paper then.
@freemo It is not a single study, but about 40 different studies.
"Good news! Most of the journals in Medline/PubMed are peer reviewed. Generally speaking, if you find a journal citation in Medline/PubMed you should be just fine."
@sda Again can you link me to the actual study that you posted in your original link as it appears on pubmed.
1) you have yet to show that your original link was ever posted on pubmed at all
2) if it was it does not garuntee it was peer reviewed (most journals all, but not all articles all, it is labeled as such)
3) even if it was peer reviewed before you draw any conclusions you should be reading the actual article including its conclusions. Do you really think a presentation that looks like it was done in paint is sufficient for this
@freemo
1) It was not. I thought I was clear. Most of the articles it uses were.
2) Believing that peer review adds any validity whatsoever is akin to believing the bible adds validity.
3) What conclusions do you think I have drawn?
@sda You miss the point. I never claimed peer-reivew makes it valid. Peer review is a process which explains the criticisims of a group of educated people against any paper, which then eithe rpasses or fails.
What matters is **not** simply if a paper passes for fails peer review, that is nonsense. What matters is if when reading the peer review and what those criticisms are you can determine if the conclusion of the peer review is warranted or not.
@freemo
Who sees the reviews? The Journal editor certainly. Who else?
@sda Anyone who wishes to, it is part of the public record usually. On most journals any scientist interested can subscribe to the peer review process and read it as it takes place. This is usually archived somewhere.
> Anyone who wishes to
I wish to. Where do I find this public record of peer reviews?
> This is usually archived somewhere.
"Somewhere." I guess that's the mystery.
@sda Depends on the journal in question. I am on the lists for JACM peer review myself but that doesnt apply here. One reason i asked for the link to thestudy itself is so i could find the peer-review status of it if there is one.
I am on zero journal lists for peer review, so I'm sure you're much more adept at finding it than am I.
@sda yea but point is the list is different for every journal. They usually mention in the publication of the paper what journal group it was posted through
> Again can you link me to the actual study that you posted in your original link as it appears on pubmed.
Well, the FIRST pubmed link points to
https://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(00)90072-1/fulltext
@freemo
The slide following that doesn't point to Pubmed, but
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02772240701806501
@sda Sharing unpublished non-peer-reviewed studies in opposition to much higher quality studies that show the opposite is **not** science.
Moreover sharing this sort of wreckless propaganda puts children and people in danger. It is reckless and irresponsible of you IMO.