3 ms·
> Neither the laboratory findings nor the mask-trial findings have been peer reviewed. Then why are Nature reporting on them in such conclusive language?
by suyula 5y ago
> Neither the laboratory findings nor the mask-trial findings have been peer reviewed.
Then why are Nature reporting on them in such conclusive language?
- angelzen 5y agoBecause they believe the best way to preserve their careers is to regurgitate official dogma. It becomes an absurd race of who's performing this ritual in the strongest possible terms. It's going to get worse, keep an eye for explicit adulation of the wisdom of the political authorities. If there is any Russian speaker around, would be instructive to take one of the old top Soviet science publications and translate the TOC.
- HWR_14 5y ago>> Neither the laboratory findings nor the mask-trial findings have been peer reviewed. > Then why are Nature reporting on them in such conclusive language? Given Nature has very well-regarded peer reviewers, it seems likely that this is an earlier report on something they expect to publish as peer reviewed. Why report it now? Because people are dying and this could help them. Are they arguing over comma locations? Waiting until the next publication date? Who knows.