There are several levels of immorality to such bad science, including
1. The authors are likely aware of the flaws of their study, yet go forward seeking publication anyway, so this is the immorality of deception -- pretending they are bringing forth good science when they know they are not.
2. The editors are authorizing publication of bad science, knowing it is poorly done, indicating that they are corrupt and knowingly failing to do their job.
3. Those who ally with science journals are quick to call out those who publish, produce or cite quality science as "conspiracy theorists" or "spreaders of misinformation". Nonetheless, they are willing to reference poor science such as is seen in this study. This is the immorality of hypocrisy.
4. While those involved in publishing science may conceive their roles as disseminators of science, in fact the lives of many people hang in the balance of whether the science backs up medical products as safe and effective or not. Knowing their studies are of poor quality, it is reasonable to expect that they are contributing to the unnecessary sickening or killing of innocent people whose doctors relied on the science being published. This is the immorality of complicity with the crime of murder or assault and battery.
5. Many of those involved in the dissemination of bad science are probably motivated by the four B's: bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshitting, by powerful interest groups. The failure to blow the whistle on these criminal activities consists of yet another crime of complicity -- allowing immoral at best and illegal at worst activities to taint the information field.
The people behind this pseudo-science, which has been outed by many great physicians, Marcia Angell and Richard Horton among them, may seem to be just unfortunate. It is not. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as one. The ethics underlying science and medicine has been thrown to the dogs. We need honest souls such as Dr. Prasad, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Cole, Dr. Malone, Dr. Kory, and many others to keep morality alive in what used to be a noble profession.
Never assume malice when incompetence is a perfectly good explanation. Absolutely true, and we need to remember that when we talk about politicians and Covid policy. They’re a bunch of dumb lawyers with no scientific background, and they didn’t know any better than to trust
Fauci, et al. Most of them STILL don’t know any better, because they’ve been told that anyone who disagrees with Fauci and friends, is an anti-vax Trump supporter, and it’s not so. It’s not easy being an anti-mask, anti-mandate Democrat, even at this late date. I’m just glad that elections these days haven’t been about pandemic policy at all.
Yes but if pandemic signals reappear, those policies will be back front and center again, and one team will be happy to implement them, with poor evidence being enough to convince them.
In addition to the author's observations, the biological plausibility of the correlation is dubious. Also, the randomized controlled trials of the mRNA vaccines showed numerically higher rate of MI in the vaccine arm (though numbers were very small in the young healthy populations that they chose to study). There was no signal of cardiovascular benefit in the RCTs.
Nope, that's a tautological definition. The idea that facts can be easily agreed upon is deeply naive. Information that is not factually true can still have partial truths that can be illuminating, or point to truths or perspectives, or even be used as evidence.
It's a stupid word. It has no more value than something like "fake news" because of how it is employed; as a blunt weapon to end conversations and/or operationalize/validate censorship.
BRAVO. Great take down of this paper. Wouldn't it be awesome if EVERYONE in the medical community would post this type of critique instead of just ONE guy? The lack of any falsification tests is a red flag. And wouldn't it be great if the data was publicly available? I've never seen this for any study like this.
The vast majority of my followers, if forced to choose between the shots vs. the virus would choose the virus.
The reason is very simple: there are simply a LOT more side effects from the COVID shots than from the virus.
Yet, I've not seen a single research paper ever published in the peer-reviewed literature make that observation. Did I miss it?
I'm an oncologist much older, definitely not wiser than VP. I can confirm that incompetence in my profession is rampant. I also believe that higher levels of incompetence gets very close to malice. Both are bad and lead to unnecessary suffering for patients and families.
This paper finally shows what I've suspected all along: The clear answer to increasing life expectancy is a daily Covid booster! We could end Covid *and* prevent almost all cardiological related mortality.
Never underestimate just how incompetent ANY correspondents for MSNBC are.
There are several levels of immorality to such bad science, including
1. The authors are likely aware of the flaws of their study, yet go forward seeking publication anyway, so this is the immorality of deception -- pretending they are bringing forth good science when they know they are not.
2. The editors are authorizing publication of bad science, knowing it is poorly done, indicating that they are corrupt and knowingly failing to do their job.
3. Those who ally with science journals are quick to call out those who publish, produce or cite quality science as "conspiracy theorists" or "spreaders of misinformation". Nonetheless, they are willing to reference poor science such as is seen in this study. This is the immorality of hypocrisy.
4. While those involved in publishing science may conceive their roles as disseminators of science, in fact the lives of many people hang in the balance of whether the science backs up medical products as safe and effective or not. Knowing their studies are of poor quality, it is reasonable to expect that they are contributing to the unnecessary sickening or killing of innocent people whose doctors relied on the science being published. This is the immorality of complicity with the crime of murder or assault and battery.
5. Many of those involved in the dissemination of bad science are probably motivated by the four B's: bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshitting, by powerful interest groups. The failure to blow the whistle on these criminal activities consists of yet another crime of complicity -- allowing immoral at best and illegal at worst activities to taint the information field.
The people behind this pseudo-science, which has been outed by many great physicians, Marcia Angell and Richard Horton among them, may seem to be just unfortunate. It is not. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as one. The ethics underlying science and medicine has been thrown to the dogs. We need honest souls such as Dr. Prasad, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Cole, Dr. Malone, Dr. Kory, and many others to keep morality alive in what used to be a noble profession.
Never assume malice when incompetence is a perfectly good explanation. Absolutely true, and we need to remember that when we talk about politicians and Covid policy. They’re a bunch of dumb lawyers with no scientific background, and they didn’t know any better than to trust
Fauci, et al. Most of them STILL don’t know any better, because they’ve been told that anyone who disagrees with Fauci and friends, is an anti-vax Trump supporter, and it’s not so. It’s not easy being an anti-mask, anti-mandate Democrat, even at this late date. I’m just glad that elections these days haven’t been about pandemic policy at all.
Yes but if pandemic signals reappear, those policies will be back front and center again, and one team will be happy to implement them, with poor evidence being enough to convince them.
I agree, but it won’t be because of malice. They religiously believe in all the wrong things.
In addition to the author's observations, the biological plausibility of the correlation is dubious. Also, the randomized controlled trials of the mRNA vaccines showed numerically higher rate of MI in the vaccine arm (though numbers were very small in the young healthy populations that they chose to study). There was no signal of cardiovascular benefit in the RCTs.
Why is all scientific dialog immediately, unthinkingly forced into "misinformation"?
The word is just a proxy for saying you disagree with something.
There is no such thing as 'misinformation'. Even something incorrect is still information.
mis information is information that is not factually true. Disagreeing is an opinion, based on a value set.
Nope, that's a tautological definition. The idea that facts can be easily agreed upon is deeply naive. Information that is not factually true can still have partial truths that can be illuminating, or point to truths or perspectives, or even be used as evidence.
It's a stupid word. It has no more value than something like "fake news" because of how it is employed; as a blunt weapon to end conversations and/or operationalize/validate censorship.
Right. We've gotten to the point where Newtonian physics is misinformation.
BRAVO. Great take down of this paper. Wouldn't it be awesome if EVERYONE in the medical community would post this type of critique instead of just ONE guy? The lack of any falsification tests is a red flag. And wouldn't it be great if the data was publicly available? I've never seen this for any study like this.
The vast majority of my followers, if forced to choose between the shots vs. the virus would choose the virus.
The reason is very simple: there are simply a LOT more side effects from the COVID shots than from the virus.
Yet, I've not seen a single research paper ever published in the peer-reviewed literature make that observation. Did I miss it?
I'm an oncologist much older, definitely not wiser than VP. I can confirm that incompetence in my profession is rampant. I also believe that higher levels of incompetence gets very close to malice. Both are bad and lead to unnecessary suffering for patients and families.
This paper finally shows what I've suspected all along: The clear answer to increasing life expectancy is a daily Covid booster! We could end Covid *and* prevent almost all cardiological related mortality.
Not only that, if you compare vaccinated vs. unvaxxed ACM, it's always lower in the vaccine group.
If we vaccinated people every month, they'd literally live forever and would be invulnerable to accidents, being shot, cancer, heart disease, etc.
Well if it's the elixir of life, I guess I don't mind the royalties and profiteering. ;)
I think probably nowadays Sensible Medicine is more cited and readed than "Nature Communications".
Not to mention the obvious: more prestigious of course :)
What was problem #3?
A B.S. is a Bachelor's of Science. And also BULL SHI. M.S. is more of the same. Phd is PILED HIGHER & Deeper.