The ridiculous thing nowadays is folks throwing around “peer reviewed” as if that provides validity and credibility. Peer review means very little in the sense of all views weighed equally. With C19 peer review, it’s all but worthless.
Let’s say we have a professional journal called “C19 News” and the publication is interested in providing useful information on vaccines, masks, distancing, attributed deaths, etc. And imagine that this journal employs scientists (peers) who also promote information about the responsible need for people to get vaccinated.
And imagine this is the go-to journal for C19 information, widely accepted as the authority on C19, perhaps because Fauci is on the peer review board (this happens a lot in every scientific field).
If I submitted a paper warning of data-backed hazards with vaccines, will this go-to journal publish my paper? Will the peer review award me a space in their publication? Absolutely not. Their review board believes vaccines are good and logically won’t publish contrary professional papers.
This is called publication bias and every publication has it. If I submitted an article on S&M occurrences in Disneyland bathrooms, will Better Homes and Gardens publish it? Nope. In this case, publication bias occurs because S&M doesn’t fit the theme of BH&G.
Thus is publication bias.
This reminds me of how climate doomsayers tout “leading scientists all agree the Earth is getting hotter.” How are “leading scientists” chosen? What is the official accreditation board, and who is on it to license these nebulous annointed “scientists” to the ranks of “leading”? And if not that, it’s told that at “The Earth Is Too Hot” professional symposium those invited speakers all agree the Earth is too hot. Being invited to this symposium makes you a “leading scientist.” That’s a front-loaded criterion because the only scientists invited are those supporting climate doomsaying. Would scientists who understand axial progression, O16/O18 stable isotope, and paleo climatology be invited to provide solid dissenting presentations? No way. That makes no logical sense.
What does this all mean? All of the science speakers agreed before they got to the convention center. Hence, all leading scientists agree. This is a built-in bias exactly like publication bias.
So, these types of “leading scientist professional symposiums” are no better than a Trump rally preaching to the already true believers.
And if you are doubtful of publication bias, and if you want a truly obvious example of publication bias, compare and contrast in every way CNN and Newsmax.
Peer review, leading scientists, and scientific authority is biased and predetermined, and necessarily so to an extent. The failing is when the bias is used as promoted propaganda disguised as scientific expertise, agreeably selective on review, and prejudiced on exclusion. And people who proclaim “This information is peer reviewed so it’s true science” have never been involved in scientific professional paper selection, acceptance, and rejection of submissions.
I have and I know. Ask me any questions you have to determine my expertise on this subject of “peer review.”
Peer review means NOTHING in the world of C19 because the publication bias is 100% employed in promoting a predetermined selective narrative that is akin to a high school pep rally. That’s really all “peer review” is with C19 information distribution.
One last time:
C19 peer reviewed science means NOTHING for all the obvious reasons I’ve detailed here. We’re best served as a free country to recognize this swiftly and accept this willfully … with a healthy amount of scientific skepticism, of course.
PS – If I’ve neglected to tag you in this stuff, it’s only because FB doesn’t keep a “tag contact list.” I try to remember everyone.