Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over the following weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses received.
Conclusion
Might as well get a placebo. The 4th booster is garbage, and worse than placebo. Boosted are at higher risk of infection and transmission
Peer reviewed means less than nothing. It's the eaxct same thing as "95% of doctors agree", absolutely meaningless. A bunch of bought and paid for shills agreeing with something does not the truth make.
This guy is so right it hurts and paints tuchodi perfectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkXZ3_ZmKzw&ab_channel=TonyHeller
The Cleveland study he quotes says quite clearly "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Yet there he is using it to provide medical advice..
WE can read this part, can't we folks? "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Obviously, a panel should not contain anyone who agrees in advance to give the paper favorable attention and help it get published. Yet a variety of journals have allowed or overlooked such practices.
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.
The peer review is funded by the same pharmaceutical giants who fund the drug research.
Speaking of understanding folks, what part of this do you think she's having trouble with: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Folks perhaps the problem is that she's unaware of the importance of the peer review process. Predatory academic publishing is a thing now (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers).As a result peer review is more important than ever. It hasn't been that long since I became aware of it myself.
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
scientific studies get published, followed by peer review. This is normal. You’re implying that it not being peer reviewed makes it useless. This is not true.
Until it has been peer reviewed a paper is both potentially useful and potentially useless. Given the arrival of predatory academic publishing (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers) peer reviews are more important than ever.
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
I understand this: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [emphasis added] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Step 1: Lie and Deny. Tuchodi claims the peer review is authoritative science*
Step 2: Admit and normalize. Tuchodi admits peer review process is corrupt and flawed (NYT article) and normalizes the corruption. ”Of course it’s flawed, totally normal to have studies that are not reproducible and it’s totally normal for Pharma to fund the studies with a preconceived outcome. Folks it’s normal, we simply need suggestions”
Communist tactics. Lie, deny, then admit and normalize.
Sad, the fat boomer is a science denier. The fat boomers loves the corrupt peer review racket.
Obviously, a panel should not contain anyone who agrees in advance to give the paper favorable attention and help it get published. Yet a variety of journals have allowed or overlooked such practices.
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.
The peer review is funded by the same pharmaceutical giants who fund the drug research.
AUTHORITATIVE?? Like your Facebook fact checkers Fat Boomer?
No thanks, I prefer reliable, reproducible and unbiased research. Your communist authoritarian streak sure got exposed eh. So to recap:
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible.
The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
The fat Boomer failed again. No wonder everyone mocks you and laughs at you. Get boosted! Get as many boosters as possible so we can keep laughing at you.
You seem to be conjoining peer review with truthfulness which any 4th graders afterschool special will tell you is not a good way to judge truth. Whats popular isnt always right whats right isnt always popular.
You even said one thing a non-PR study is is potentially useful, yet you dismiss because it doesnt have the outset approval of those who face no consequence for it being wrong or duplicitous. People who, its been mentioned many many times, have a vested interest in one particular course of action.
Interesting
Methods
Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over the following weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses received.
Conclusion Might as well get a placebo. The 4th booster is garbage, and worse than placebo. Boosted are at higher risk of infection and transmission
“Association of increase risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study of 51,011 employees was unexpected”
Wrong conclusion, a placebo would had been more safe.
Peer reviewed means less than nothing. It's the eaxct same thing as "95% of doctors agree", absolutely meaningless. A bunch of bought and paid for shills agreeing with something does not the truth make. This guy is so right it hurts and paints tuchodi perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkXZ3_ZmKzw&ab_channel=TonyHeller
100%
https://www.cpsbc.ca/news/hearing-notification-re-dr-charles-douglas-hoffe
The Cleveland study he quotes says quite clearly "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Yet there he is using it to provide medical advice..
TUCHIDIOT TRANSLATION:
“I’m too stupid to read or understand a clinical study that tested 51,000 health care workers before and after their booster.”
WE can read this part, can't we folks? "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Did you Google a POLITICO fact check yet?
I'm going to leave that to her folks. She's the one posting those: https://omegacanada.win/p/16Zqmvz1XB/far-leftist-rag-politico--meet-t/
TUCHIDIOT, you who googles POLITICO to know what medical experiment you should participate in. Only you.
Everyone else here makes fun of POLITICO.
https://omegacanada.win/p/16Zqmvz1XB/far-leftist-rag-politico--meet-t/
Only Fat boomers follow Politico for medical advice.
And yet she's the one posting Politico pages: https://omegacanada.win/p/16Zqmvz1XB/far-leftist-rag-politico--meet-t/
It's a mystery to me folks.
Do you think she's one of those "Fat boomer"s?
Maybe she's trying to tell us something.
The fat Boomer failed at the Google Politico fact checking.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
Exactly.
You didn’t read or understand the study.
Speaking of understanding folks, what part of this do you think she's having trouble with: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Thank you for confirming you are stupid to understand a clinic study!
Warning
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible.
The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/ https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/ https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
Folks perhaps the problem is that she's unaware of the importance of the peer review process. Predatory academic publishing is a thing now (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers).As a result peer review is more important than ever. It hasn't been that long since I became aware of it myself.
Here is a paper that would help her if she read it: http://eprints.rclis.org/39332/1/26964-465493240-1-PB.pdf
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
Your opinion as a Covid Super Spreader is noted.
Thank you.
You’re old and you’re fat.
Get Boosted Covid Nazi. Your survival rate for the common cold is very low. Better get all the boosters you can. Get your sudden death booster juice.
scientific studies get published, followed by peer review. This is normal. You’re implying that it not being peer reviewed makes it useless. This is not true.
Until it has been peer reviewed a paper is both potentially useful and potentially useless. Given the arrival of predatory academic publishing (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers) peer reviews are more important than ever.
Here's a list of almost 300 papers about covid that have been retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/
Here's an overview of the process: http://eprints.rclis.org/39332/1/26964-465493240-1-PB.pdf
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
The TUCHIDIOT Super Spreader is so stupid, she can’t even understand a clinical study.
Stupidly gets downvoted on this forum.
I understand this: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [emphasis added] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
The fat boomer endorses peer reviewed studies that are not reproducible. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
The fat boomer posts POLITICO fact checks and pretends it is medical advice. (Then lies and denies it) https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
The fat boomer likes peer reviewed corrupt research that has preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma. https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
She has no suggestions for improving the peer review process folks, and her own link says it's the best process we have. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
And apparently she approves of the MSM that she agrees with.
Step 1: Lie and Deny. Tuchodi claims the peer review is authoritative science*
Step 2: Admit and normalize. Tuchodi admits peer review process is corrupt and flawed (NYT article) and normalizes the corruption. ”Of course it’s flawed, totally normal to have studies that are not reproducible and it’s totally normal for Pharma to fund the studies with a preconceived outcome. Folks it’s normal, we simply need suggestions”
Communist tactics. Lie, deny, then admit and normalize.
Sad, the fat boomer is a science denier. The fat boomers loves the corrupt peer review racket.
The fat boomer endorses peer reviewed studies that are not reproducible. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
The fat boomer posts POLITICO fact checks and pretends it is medical advice. (Then lies and denies it) https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
The fat boomer likes peer reviewed corrupt research that has preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma. https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
The fat Boomer failed again. Never rely on Google Politico fact check, fat boomer.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
Folks, apparently V&C1 is arguing that this means any published paper should be taken at face value.
Or something.
Warning
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible.
The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
She's avoiding the question, isn't she folks?
I'll re-phrase it: should any published scientific paper be automatically taken at face value, without being examined by other experts in the field?
She can't answer directly, of course, because there are so many of them that support vaccination, masking up in crowded places, and so forth.
I know how peer review works. I’m still don’t think you do.
Which is more authoritative - a paper that has been published after peer review, or a paper that has been published before peer review?
AUTHORITATIVE?? Like your Facebook fact checkers Fat Boomer?
No thanks, I prefer reliable, reproducible and unbiased research. Your communist authoritarian streak sure got exposed eh. So to recap:
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible. The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
The fat Boomer failed again. No wonder everyone mocks you and laughs at you. Get boosted! Get as many boosters as possible so we can keep laughing at you.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
V&C1 doesn't want to talk about the paper under discussion (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2)
A paper which clearly states it "should not be used to guide medical practice". Follow the link and read it yourself.
She wants to talk about Facebook instead, for some reason.
Stupid question. Majority of scientific studies get published first, followed by peer review.
It's a pretty straightforward question folks, and quite relevant since the paper in question has not been peer reviewed.
It's a shame ScoobyDoo has to duck and weave.
Straight forward stupid question.
You seem to be conjoining peer review with truthfulness which any 4th graders afterschool special will tell you is not a good way to judge truth. Whats popular isnt always right whats right isnt always popular.
You even said one thing a non-PR study is is potentially useful, yet you dismiss because it doesnt have the outset approval of those who face no consequence for it being wrong or duplicitous. People who, its been mentioned many many times, have a vested interest in one particular course of action.
Dont forget to get your booster.
Please tell the folks why all non-peer-reviewed papers are just as valid as peer-reviewed.