To be fair thats not a scientific journal saying that and PHS doesnt conduct peer review. Thats a government health agency.
In scientific papers the source of the data is always cited. But you may need to go off and fet h it from a third party aometimes. You can also usually email the authors and get the raw data
@icedquinn
In the case of data aquired during the research of the paper the raw data is almost always availible on request. I jave never been denied the raw data even once when i inquired.
@crunklord420
@crunklord420
Well there are other sources for raw data, but yes i agree obscuring the data is a bad move.
That said there is no dpubt that conspiracy theorists were abusing data they didnt understand. The VARES data in the usa was misrepresented by most of the nutters countless times. Personally im ok with that since freedom of information means idiots will abuse it and thats a fine tradeoff to make. But i do understand the reaction. People were so dumb thry were actually vares was an indication of death counts and other complete nonsense
I agree, blocking the data is unexcusable, and very counter to the intention of stopping conspiracy theorists, however absurd those conspiracy theorists happened to be.
@icedquinn
Please link to this letter, ill be happy to review.
@crunklord420
Sort of, thry are **not** lists of everyone who died or had injury from the vaccine. They are a list of anyone who had any disease, regardless of if it is related to the vaccine, within a month or so of getting the vaccine. So on its own it provides no value as a list of people with adverse effects. Its purpose is only as a starting point tonfind case studies which, upon review, might lead to concerns.
Taking the list and going "look everyone on this list had an adverse reactionto the vaccine" is incorrect and idiotic. The vast majority of people on the list do not have reactions.
@crunklord420
>it's only the raw data source
yeah we need a meta study where the real data can be buried under layers of P-hacking