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…
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 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