The Cleveland study he quotes says quite clearly "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?].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 "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?].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
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of understanding folks, what part of this do you think she's having trouble with: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?].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
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.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I understand this: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?].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
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.
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.
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/
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
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 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.
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?
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.