Posted by: KenN
Posted by: syncro
a family meal at Christmas time that included my bro-in-law's brother/wife who were here from Florida.
I'm interested to hear more about this brother-in-law's brother/wife. This really does sound like a 'Florida Man' story ...
Brother and wife. He's originally from the UK and unsurprisingly fits in quite well in Florida.
Any objections if I was to attach a recent MIT paper about the mrna vax?
Non peer reviewed mind you as it's frush off the press.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Any objections if I was to attach a recent MIT paper about the mrna vax?
Non peer reviewed mind you as it's frush off the press.
It’s not the one being peddled around on Facebook right now is it? Apparently if you have a bad reaction to the vaccine you can make the people around you sick. Where do people come up with this shit?
Posted by: FLATCH
It’s not the one being peddled around on Facebook right now is it? Apparently if you have a bad reaction to the vaccine you can make the people around you sick. Where do people come up with this shit?
It'll be some debunked garbage. It always is.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Any objections if I was to attach a recent MIT paper about the mrna vax?
Non peer reviewed mind you as it's frush off the press.
Most legitimate journals will not publish any paper until it is peer reviewed. The whole point of peer reviewal is that your 'peers' in the same field/area of expertise can weigh in with their informed opinions on the research, before it is published. What is the point of peer review AFTER you have published something? By that point, your information (or disinformation in most cases with non peer reviewed articles) has already been disseminated to the public. It is much more difficult to retract spurious information (and get people to believe that it was spurious) than it is to get the correct information out in the beginning.
exactly ^^ if it isnt legitimate peer reviewed journals and legitimate scientists don't bother
these academics go to school a lot, do research, get money to do more research to work on projects eventualy lead their own projects, go to confrences to present papers on those projects, to other academics who do research on their own projects, not everbody always agrees but eventualy it becomes accepted science
I've hung out with PHD's at the research center and worked confrences, its natural resources but i can usually somewhat understand what they are talking about in a very broad sense but on another site where i hang out a real epidemiologist posted something and I could not understand even one sentance of it
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Any objections if I was to attach a recent MIT paper about the mrna vax?
Non peer reviewed mind you as it's frush off the press.
Around the same time you post this I was hanging out with my arch nemesis KenN and we were having some great discussion on all sorts of things - including NSMB and this thread. One thing that came up was the idea of peer review and KenN brought up a story of just how savage the peer review process is. I didn't think to mention it at the time but it's akin defending your dissertation. The point of the peer review is basically to rip your work to shreds to see if there are any faults with your work, if you missed anything or if you could have done anything differently. It's done by people that are as expert or more expert than you. It's brutal on purpose to make sure it's not faulty. That's why people ask if research is peer reviewed or based on peer reviewed work, because the peer review label tells you that the info contained in the work is deemed to be good. Think of it like crash testing for cars. The cars that fail crash testing don't get sold to the public, they go back to the drawing board to be redesigned.
I have always say that science is not about DNA or bit n bites its really about money,no money = no science unless of course you can afford to do it for free ?
keep in mind these people go to school A LOT and there isnt money in that, in fact i was the only person at the center who was retired cuz i didnt go to uni
And some wanker telling me he did his research with the google is all bulshit,
I have actualy done research which was presented in a paper for peer review ,
running around in the forest killing trees, measuring them and freezing my ass off
a real scientist wrote the paper and presented
Posted by: shoreboy
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Any objections if I was to attach a recent MIT paper about the mrna vax?
Non peer reviewed mind you as it's frush off the press.
Most legitimate journals will not publish any paper until it is peer reviewed. The whole point of peer reviewal is that your 'peers' in the same field/area of expertise can weigh in with their informed opinions on the research, before it is published. What is the point of peer review AFTER you have published something? By that point, your information (or disinformation in most cases with non peer reviewed articles) has already been disseminated to the public. It is much more difficult to retract spurious information (and get people to believe that it was spurious) than it is to get the correct information out in the beginning.
This the crux of the problem. Studies come out with a controversial finding and get disseminated by alternative media. Then later when the study gets retracted none of them say oh hey that study we told you about a couple months ago? Yeah it was bullshit sorry about that.
Posted by: tashi
You think scholarly journals don’t issue retractions or that the media doesn’t report on them?
He did specify alternative media. And in that context, no they don’t.
Posted by: Couch_Surfer
Posted by: tashi
You think scholarly journals don’t issue retractions or that the media doesn’t report on them?
He did specify alternative media. And in that context, no they don’t.
Yes, that is the reporting media he is referring to but the statement is phrased as if journals don’t issue corrections.
well the ones banking on antivax misinformation to stuff their coffers certainly dont wanna backtrack on their bullshit.
I don't have very good words sorry haha.
What I meant to express is the algorithims seem to boost the faulty studies in everyone's faces making them easy to find but it takes effort to check if a study was later retracted. That information isn't supplied to people as automatically.
Think about how much damage the Wakefield paper in the Lancet has done. Eventhough it has been retracted, some people still believe that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. This is one of those papers that has done enormous damage to the vaccine objectives and principles.
Forum jump:
