Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Can we at least realise that 'peer-reviewed' does not have some magical meaning. It can just mean that you have a couple of colleagues that hold similar views to yourself. That's why it's not hard to find peer-reviewed papers that draw opposing conclusions. Some logical argument in this discussion that displays at least some form of intelligence would be interesting to read, rather than more of this mind-numbing link posting of 'peer-reviewed' papers.
I have peer reviewed this post and formally note my agreement, subject to the standard conditions of review.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
that displays at least some form of intelligence would be interesting to read,
No way!
If you calling Macro to enter this discussion ,
It is not going to happen.
Macro may require intelligence to meet the same on receiving or opposing side, as a condition of every exchange. 
Ps some obviously indicate signs of such but according to latest Macro research it could be 5% or less in general population.
This is way Macro most recently call for intelli tyranny. Social system that is driven by intelligence rather then greed, money or stupidity. Intelli autocracy eventually may totally depend on AI since Macro regards humans too dumb to take care of themselves. But at first stage is could be cooperation between intellectuals and AI machines sharing the power over remaining mob.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Harrow said..
Yes, numbers matter..... lets do a few here.
I'm not doubting your numbers.
I personally know of two people who say they have long COVID, and don't know anyone who belive they suffered as a result of the vaccine.
Maybe you know a lot of fat people that struggle to get up the stairs or even get out of bed on a normal day so they probably wouldn't even notice an injury that has the same effect.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Can we at least realise that 'peer-reviewed' does not have some magical meaning. It can just mean that you have a couple of colleagues that hold similar views to yourself. That's why it's not hard to find peer-reviewed papers that draw opposing conclusions. Some logical argument in this discussion that displays at least some form of intelligence would be interesting to read, rather than more of this mind-numbing link posting of 'peer-reviewed' papers.
An editor of the journal, not the author, chooses up to four reviewers. The reviewer comments are forwarded to the corresponding author to consider without the reviewers being identified. Some publishers like MDPI now publish the reviewer comments along with the paper. It's a process that has served science well for over a hundred years.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
An editor of the journal, not the author, chooses up to four reviewers. The reviewer comments are forwarded to the corresponding author to consider without the reviewers being identified. Some publishers like MDPI now publish the reviewer comments along with the paper. It's a process that has served science well for over a hundred years.
In many circumstances it does work well. I've peer-reviewed papers in my area of expertise and it's a good opportunity to help the author polish their paper, suggest changes or additions to the text, make sure they haven't missed or misinterpreted something, made a mathematical miscalculation, or simply been factually wrong about something, etc. But editors are not immune to partiality, and when there are controversial and emotional issues being discussed, there is plenty of scope for opinion and bias to enter the process. Simply, something being 'peer-reviewed' does not mean it's proven; it's just another source of information that needs to be carefully interpreted, understanding the context of where it has come from and the views and agendas of the author, editor, and reviewers taken into account.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..remery said..
An editor of the journal, not the author, chooses up to four reviewers. The reviewer comments are forwarded to the corresponding author to consider without the reviewers being identified. Some publishers like MDPI now publish the reviewer comments along with the paper. It's a process that has served science well for over a hundred years.
In many circumstances it does work well. I've peer-reviewed plenty of papers in my area of expertise and it's a good opportunity to help the author polish their paper, suggest changes or additions to the text, make sure they haven't missed or misinterpreted something, made a mathematical miscalculation, or simply been factually wrong about something, etc. But editors are not immune to partiality, and when there are controversial and emotional issues being discussed, there is plenty of scope for opinion and bias to enter the process. Simply, something being 'peer-reviewed' does not mean it's proven, it is just another source of information that needs to be carefully interpreted, understanding the context of where it has come from and the views and agendas of the author, editor, and reviewers taken into account.
Love it , because it will be like clearing English grammar in Macro posts...
the only discrepancies most of readers found in Marco line of thinking is wrong punctuation, typing errors.Luckily science is not democracy. Even on vote against millions counts when is right and the rest are wrong.
MSM - "Wingfoil the hottest watersport"
Peer Reviewed - "Study shows kiters jump higher than windsurfers"
Anecdotal - "Windsurfing is the most fun"
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
MSM - "Wingfoil the hottest watersport"
Peer Reviewed - "Study shows kiters jump higher than windsurfers"
Anecdotal - "Windsurfing is the most fun"
yep but you didn't found or explain the reason behind.
Kiters jumps higher because they are non waxed ( or vice verse) but Faucci was completely wrong
when telling everybody Paddle Boarding is most fun.Beside, when I sporadically jump into my Time Machine into 2019
the main concern I see then and there is where to get enough Ventilators
for whole population.
Maybe thanks to dr Faucci and alike we dont' to worry about that ventilators today ?
Yep, I suspect that another opposition group in anti Fauci mobs comes from
-coffins manufacturers and crematoria's, that had prospectus business ruined
by Faucii and alike...
This was the response i received from my sister today after sending her the link to the N.Z video i posted on here yesterday.
There have been over 58 thousand reports to the Govt database in N.Z so far.
Thanks for that video. It's so sad. Govts have a lot to answer for. I'm convinced that Matti's heart problems started after he was vaccinated/ he had four shots.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
MSM - "Wingfoil the hottest watersport"
Peer Reviewed - "Study shows kiters jump higher than windsurfers"
Anecdotal - "Windsurfing is the most fun"
Kiters don't jump ,they're hoisted.
So windsurfers jump higher.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
In many circumstances it does work well. I've peer-reviewed papers in my area of expertise and it's a good opportunity to help the author polish their paper, suggest changes or additions to the text, make sure they haven't missed or misinterpreted something, made a mathematical miscalculation, or simply been factually wrong about something, etc. But editors are not immune to partiality, and when there are controversial and emotional issues being discussed, there is plenty of scope for opinion and bias to enter the process. Simply, something being 'peer-reviewed' does not mean it's proven; it's just another source of information that needs to be carefully interpreted, understanding the context of where it has come from and the views and agendas of the author, editor, and reviewers taken into account.
Scientists rarely claim something is "proven" in their publications. They normally say something along the lines of, "the data indicate". Reviewers consider if the manuscript is worthy of publication and generally suggest improvements. The editor will normally go with the majority decision of multiple reviewers. Then the rese?rxh is published for the scientific community to consider. Enough information should be included so that the experiments can be replicated. Follow-up research might elaborate or dissent. Science is not a brief system. Rarely a paper might be retracted, as I expect will happen to the Fraiman/Doshi serious adverse events paper, which has many problems to do with sample size, time frame, multiple counting of SAEs in a single person and more. Elsevier has a good reputation so I'm surprised they let that one through.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Flying Dutchman said..
MSM - "Wingfoil the hottest watersport"
Peer Reviewed - "Study shows kiters jump higher than windsurfers"
Anecdotal - "Windsurfing is the most fun"
yep but you didn't found or explain the reason behind.
Kiters jumps higher because they are non waxed ( or vice verse) but Faucci was completely wrong
when telling everybody Paddle Boarding is most fun.Beside, when I sporadically jump into my Time Machine into 2019
the main concern I see then and there is where to get enough Ventilators
for whole population.
Maybe thanks to dr Faucci and alike we dont' to worry about that ventilators today ?
Yep, I suspect that another opposition group in anti Fauci mobs comes from
-coffins manufacturers and crematoria's, that had prospectus business ruined
by Faucii and alike...
Ha! The ventilators may well have done as much harm as good. Medics fuss about oxygen saturation needing to be over 95% but the body doesn't notice until it's under 70%, breathing is equally if not more about argon clearing carbon dioxide as it is about oxygen. Doesn't matter either way because ventilators don't clear endogenous hyaluron coagulated alveolar which was the primary lung condition (more common in obese people because their bodies carry five times the volume of hyaluronic acid.
So a lot of ventilator recoveries were probably coincidence. And what about the rise in VAP (ventilator associated pneumonia), if you're going to intervene, how about starting with a little oral hygiene.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Kamikuza said..remery said..
"[..] There will always be breakthrough infections, but given the denominator of people who are vaccinated, that`s a very, very rare event."
So after proudly being informed that Australia is vaccinated in the high 90% or whatever it was.... now with surging case numbers perhaps someone would like to revise just how "rare" that event is in reality...?
Cos that'd make all new infections ... breakthrough infections ... I guess...?
Still waiting for the peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials on lockdowns, physical distancing, school closures, masking NPI state-mandated measures too.
boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-receipts-on-vaccine-efficacy
Can you show us where Fauci said, "When people are vaccinated they're not going to get infected"?
You're right he never said that.
What he actually said was "when people are vaccinated they can feel safe that they're not going to get infected"
twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1537430895702880256
Is that close enough for you?
Select to expand quoteremery said..Kamikuza said..
Still waiting for the peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials on lockdowns, physical distancing, school closures, masking NPI state-mandated measures too.
scholar.google.com/
Do point out the "randomized controlled trials" and not the "models" that are just so much bull****... I'll wait.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Based on the pooled incidence and the inclusion criteria taken into account in the present study, the results are <0.002%. So, mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has a low incidence of myocarditis."Article in Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacognosy Research ? December 2022 DOI: 10.56499/jppres22.1524_11.1.76
So basically, that study you posted on page 8 or so was insufficiently powered to pick up any safety signal in the data 
You should really stop cherry picking studies that confirm your bias.
A meta-analysis: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35830976/
Given that the vaccines are supposed to be a net benefit... if you vaccinate a group, and more of them are at risk of heart damage from that vaccine than they are at risk from death of the disease they're being vaccinated against -- maybe that medical intervention isn't a net benefit after all...?
These are the calculations that public health is supposed to be making... and why they were banging on about personalized medical treatment OH what a revolution! right up until all this kicked off.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
^^^ Remember that you have about a 1% chance of ending your life in a road accident, but I'll bet you still cheerfully take that risk most days.
I was looking at this the other day... according to the source:
Odds are any driver will have 3 car accidents in their lifetime... and your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 16.
Which is why we all risk it, I guess.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Do we have a choice in catching Covid?
No you don't.
As I've said before, it's now a part of the 5 or 6 other coronavirus that do the rounds of mankind, and we're all going to meet it sooner or later because it's rather good at its job. It's not going anywhere, at least not for the next several millennia.
So given the risk profile, the conclusion has to be the sooner the better.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
We are generally lucky that more benign virus variants are more likely to spread
Funny, when I said this ages ago I'm pretty sure it was you pooh-poohed that notion...
Select to expand quoteremery said..
An editor of the journal, not the author, chooses up to four reviewers.
The reviewer comments are forwarded to the corresponding author to consider without the reviewers being identified. Some publishers like MDPI now publish the reviewer comments along with the paper.
It's a process that has served science well for over a hundred years.
No, they throw out invitations to review papers and take whoever they can get.
Yes. But if you'd bothered to look further, MDPI has a poor reputation as a service and there are many complaints from academics not being given enough time to review properly. To say nothing of being predatory...
Yes...
...but it's a beginning, not the end of knowledge. Science is a method of applying tools, not a destination.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Kamikuza said..
Six (6) posts in a row.
Four pages to catch up on. Would have been seven if you hadn't interrupted.
Sorry if that's upsetting for you, but I've better things to do than hang out here waiting for the next comment so I can comment right after it...
Perhaps you could give me a shout out every time there's a post you think I should reply to...?
Select to expand quoteRango said..
Kiters don't jump ,they're hoisted.
So windsurfers jump higher.
Thanks to you Rango, this video now exists.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..remery said..Kamikuza said..remery said..
"[..] There will always be breakthrough infections, but given the denominator of people who are vaccinated, that`s a very, very rare event."
So after proudly being informed that Australia is vaccinated in the high 90% or whatever it was.... now with surging case numbers perhaps someone would like to revise just how "rare" that event is in reality...?
Cos that'd make all new infections ... breakthrough infections ... I guess...?
Still waiting for the peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials on lockdowns, physical distancing, school closures, masking NPI state-mandated measures too.
boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-receipts-on-vaccine-efficacy
Can you show us where Fauci said, "When people are vaccinated they're not going to get infected"?
You're right he never said that.
What he actually said was "when people are vaccinated they can feel safe that they're not going to get infected"
twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1537430895702880256
Is that close enough for you?
No it's not. Please show the transcript of what Fauci said.
Select to expand quote
"Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right user base. Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon, Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms."
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said.
No, they throw out invitations to review papers and take whoever they can get.
Yes. But if you'd bothered to look further, MDPI has a poor reputation as a service and there are many complaints from academics not being given enough time to review properly. To say nothing of being predatory...
Yes...
...but it's a beginning, not the end of knowledge. Science is a method of applying tools, not a destination.
Yes, I have had some experience with MDPI, Elsevier and other scientific publishers, both as reviewer and author.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Kamikuza said..
Six (6) posts in a row.
Yeah he lives for this CT stuff.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Scientists rarely claim something is "proven" in their publications.
Yep, I never said they do. My point is that certain members of this group have a propensity to post links to peer-reviewed papers, without adding any of their own original and useful discussion or debate, as if that is proof of something.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..Kamikuza said..
Six (6) posts in a row.
Yeah he lives for this CT stuff.
I've had a chance to peer-review this and have come to the conclusion that your hypothesis is 100% correct.
