Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 50118
It didn't take them six decades. Scientists had the data. It was ignored. Just like you are ignoring the data.
And yes I see your links. They mean absolutely nothing. Big pharma is beholden to shareholders and in the US their marketing departments can do that but in Europe and most of the rest of the world you are protected from that.
But that's besides the point. When I'm talking about scientists I'm not talking about big pharma, I'm talking about independent academics and their groups that are under the scrutiny of peer review. They've all the information you need that the vaccines are safe and it's been peer reviewed.
1 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50118
I think you'll find that it was the peer review process that showed up that the papers funded by the tobacco industry were fraudulent and exposed them.
The rest of your comment shows you have no idea how independent scientific research is carried out. It's mostly small research groups in universities publishing their work and it's up to the regulatory bodies to form opinions based on the published data. The issues come when that data is suppressed, ignored or misunderstood by bad actors like corrupt governments or conspiracy theorists pushing a non evidence based agenda.
That's the thing with independent peer review. You can say what you want and try and publish what you want but unlike silly conspiracy theories what you try to publish is under scrutiny from dozens of independent academic groups and also under scrutiny for how repeatable experiments are or the legitimacy of the data under repeat analysis. It's why Andrew Wakefield's bullshit paper about the link between autism and vaccines was exposed for the fraud it was and the same process how the tobacco industries smoke screen papers were shown to be fraudulent.
3 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50118
Well that's absolute nonsense. It needs to be peer reviewed to be published and then is under constant peer review so how could it have been late on something already published. Lobby groups could only influence the papers and other media channels, not peer review and in this case the issue was the actual science being ignored.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 50118
Dude. It needs to be peer reviewed before it's published. The fact that it got published means it was peer reviewed.
The fact that you are asking for some peer review 'article' means that you have a complete lack of understanding of what peer review actually is. What it means is that the paper was studied by a group of independent experts in the field how looked over the paper and determined if the data was legit and also asked for corrects or more work if they weren't satisfied. If they are then satisfied that it all looks good it gets published. It's then under constant peer review from people working with this data to carry out their own tests and experiments that either back it up or find flaw in it.
So if you want back up of peer review then look at all the papers that reference this article in the 1940's by other scientists that back up the claims of the original paper. There's a huge amount of scientific peer reviewed work backing up the link.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50118
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.431.9749&rep=rep1&type=pdf
That link has a summary why. Secondly there were papers published that showed no like but the subsequent peer review process showed them to be fraudulent in the same way Andrew Wakefield's autism and vaccine link papers were shown to be fraudulent.
Independent science looks for the truth. It's the media and groups with ulterior motives that refuse to bring these findings to the people or choose to twist it to suit their agenda like the tobacco industry and antivaxxers.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
