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
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.
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.