4 ms·
Peer review is not a magic spell that reveals the truth. “Most-reviewed” is meaningless here if the underlying data was not collected or reported properly.
by avalys 3y ago
Peer review is not a magic spell that reveals the truth. “Most-reviewed” is meaningless here if the underlying data was not collected or reported properly.
- strken 3y agoPeer review, no. Review by a substantial percentage of world-wide immunologists along with everyone who's even remotely interested and a bunch of people who believe your work is killing people, still not a magic spell, but it's a hell of a lot better.
- throwoutway 3y agoDid they review the raw data or did they just read the paper? AFAIK, Pfizer did not release the "summaries" of the data until March 2022 (forced by the FDA if i recall), long after these debates reached critical mass. I don't believe they released the data itself still. Google makes this hard to search for because it's still censoring...
- fer 3y agoYeah, because hundreds of health authorities simultaneously collecting their own data (often with larger groups of each cohort) wouldn't be able to replicate or disprove the outcome of the original research.
- mharig 3y agoYou trust health authorities? Come on.
- fer 3y agoYou on the other hand believe that, somehow, absolutely independent (and often confronted) authorities, both governmental and private, would magically agree on something false instead of calling each other out. That's the-moon-landing-was-fake tier denial-ism.
- mharig 3y agoIf the political pressure is big enough, yes. You cannot compare the moon landing to the COVID circus.