@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?
"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."
I've read several articles lately on the uselessness of peer review.
From 2006, from the editor of BMJ:
"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
@freemo It is not a single study, but about 40 different studies.
@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?
@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
sorry, it's not pubmed.gov, but
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
@freemo
If so, I then have to wonder what the criteria pubmed.gov has for publishing.
@freemo
[Almost] Every one of those studies is from PubMed, which IMO, necessarily means they're peer reviewed.
@freemo
Also, since they were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC itself...
CDC Unpublished Data Comparing Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Obtained via FOIA
"and there are abundant hypersaline and hyperacid pools, with pH values that are even negative."
One of those wrong things you learn... pH value of 1 is as acid as it gets.
@immistermanager
Yeaaaah... not so much from this angle.
Microphone with that response, or antenna transmitting that pattern? Bizarre! ;-)
re: time spent on phones
@_lunawinters
Humans forgot how to be offline
https://www.patreon.com/posts/31698321
Current mind meandering...
What is "science?"
In ancient times, there were seven sciences: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy.
When I hear "science" without any context, my mind jumps first to hard sciences like Physics and Chemistry; fields that weren't even conceived back then.
It's hard to think of Music as a science today. I mean, everyone knows Music is an art, right?
Then there's medicine. Science or art? On the one hand, you have people in lab coats doing research that's undeniably science. On the other, you have "the healing arts" or even "the art of medicine." I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to "the science of medicine."
Are the healing arts separate from the scientific aspect of medicine? Once I put it like that, it's obvious. Of course they are!
@freemo
My Pet Peeve: People who don't know how to spell peeve or electoral.
;-)
@immistermanager
If it were a Rorschack test, I'd say it looks like a brain.
@_lunawinters
Easy. Flip-phones are for talking, not the internet. ;-)
@_lunawinters
My phone stays on my desk... so, like 10 minutes a day. ;-)
@design_RG @freemo
Matter of fact, that charter may give an idea or two you hadn't thought of. Obviously, usenet was a different animal, but still...
Joined May 2019
