As in Amyliod being the CAUSE has been found lacking. The Amyloid is def there just like Cholesterol is in Atherosclerosis but that doesn't mean it is the cause.
I haven't looked at this at all, but I have definitely, without a doubt, seen peer-reviewed actual genuine research be "retracted" - which is supposed to be a transparent process, so that you can understand the science that runs through it and where the errors supposedly took place - but, very recently, with less evidence than any thing that remains standing as valid.
So maybe it was all fraud "very recently" or maybe thats just super convenient, in light of obvious connections w what is going on now? I don't know and won't be looking at that specifically myself.
What I have observed is retraction as a tool of censorship. And if you consider that for a moment it is far more powerful than refusal to publish such work / findings in the first place - as it especially forces colleagues to choose "to trust" or to be excommunicated themselves, to be associated w someone targeted for scandal or to hold in ones mind that ones own work is far superior for the alternative is to consider that ones work/career could equally be targeted.
When the "peers" are controlled with such means, the scientific answers can be obscured indefinately.
I just read an article this week, that stated most of these so called studies are not to be trusted, some fraudulent and some even never done. Another article some weeks ago said that studies from Egypt, Japan and a few more countries are almost always never made. We can only trust our own brain. The medical journals are all sponsored by bigharma. Studies are fraudulent, undone, wrong, and scientists are being paid off. It is really hard to trust anybody anymore.
Sure, some is bad study design, some is clear fraud, others are older and science has moved forward making it obsolete. IMO if:
1) the study goes against the narrative,
2) soon after it is reported there appear multiple fact checkers and others "debunking it" and
3) pharma would lose money
Then it is likely true. Of course other studies in areas the narrative pushers have no interest in are more likely to be true especially if they have other related studies looking at the same thing. But always look at the date. Some good studies stand the test of time, other good studies are overtaken by new information.
thanks for the tip ! the one i went with against masking was somewhat older, from the Canadian dentist organization, and was taken down in spring 2020, forced by castreau and co, so I knew it was good !
Exactly. I've read a lot of studies with an increasingly jaundiced eye. For example, the study might include extraneous information not part of the study. I saw a lot of studies about the jab and its bad effects, yet at the bottom there was this catch all statement that the jab still protected most people. Of course there was no science or reference to any study that showed that. The authors just wanted to be published.
People will be surprised to discover that about 1/3 of the "research" cannot reciprocate/replicate/reproduce, including the hard science; 2/3 of the social science cannot replicate/reciprocate/reproduce. According to The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, which reviewed over 100 research papers, only 46% of the total had positive and null effects from the original studies. And, of course, the "gold standard" in RCT- is peer-reviewed; I read somewhere one time a group of people submitted a load of "verified zombie" studies and got 1/2 of them passed the peer-reviewed process, lol
I hate to break it to you, and I’m anti clot shot, but the whole amyloid Alzheimer’s study was very recently found to be fraudulent fyi
As in Amyliod being the CAUSE has been found lacking. The Amyloid is def there just like Cholesterol is in Atherosclerosis but that doesn't mean it is the cause.
Wakey - wakey...
I haven't looked at this at all, but I have definitely, without a doubt, seen peer-reviewed actual genuine research be "retracted" - which is supposed to be a transparent process, so that you can understand the science that runs through it and where the errors supposedly took place - but, very recently, with less evidence than any thing that remains standing as valid.
So maybe it was all fraud "very recently" or maybe thats just super convenient, in light of obvious connections w what is going on now? I don't know and won't be looking at that specifically myself.
What I have observed is retraction as a tool of censorship. And if you consider that for a moment it is far more powerful than refusal to publish such work / findings in the first place - as it especially forces colleagues to choose "to trust" or to be excommunicated themselves, to be associated w someone targeted for scandal or to hold in ones mind that ones own work is far superior for the alternative is to consider that ones work/career could equally be targeted.
When the "peers" are controlled with such means, the scientific answers can be obscured indefinately.
Minnesota, right? But I’m not sure that implies prions caused by messing with protein synthesis is not a very. bad. idea.
I just read an article this week, that stated most of these so called studies are not to be trusted, some fraudulent and some even never done. Another article some weeks ago said that studies from Egypt, Japan and a few more countries are almost always never made. We can only trust our own brain. The medical journals are all sponsored by bigharma. Studies are fraudulent, undone, wrong, and scientists are being paid off. It is really hard to trust anybody anymore.
Sure, some is bad study design, some is clear fraud, others are older and science has moved forward making it obsolete. IMO if:
1) the study goes against the narrative,
2) soon after it is reported there appear multiple fact checkers and others "debunking it" and
3) pharma would lose money
Then it is likely true. Of course other studies in areas the narrative pushers have no interest in are more likely to be true especially if they have other related studies looking at the same thing. But always look at the date. Some good studies stand the test of time, other good studies are overtaken by new information.
thanks for the tip ! the one i went with against masking was somewhat older, from the Canadian dentist organization, and was taken down in spring 2020, forced by castreau and co, so I knew it was good !
I read that one too!
Exactly. I've read a lot of studies with an increasingly jaundiced eye. For example, the study might include extraneous information not part of the study. I saw a lot of studies about the jab and its bad effects, yet at the bottom there was this catch all statement that the jab still protected most people. Of course there was no science or reference to any study that showed that. The authors just wanted to be published.
People will be surprised to discover that about 1/3 of the "research" cannot reciprocate/replicate/reproduce, including the hard science; 2/3 of the social science cannot replicate/reciprocate/reproduce. According to The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, which reviewed over 100 research papers, only 46% of the total had positive and null effects from the original studies. And, of course, the "gold standard" in RCT- is peer-reviewed; I read somewhere one time a group of people submitted a load of "verified zombie" studies and got 1/2 of them passed the peer-reviewed process, lol