Just a note to state that really correlation does not prove causation... until it's been "peer reviewed", published, referenced in other papers and accepted as scientific dogma regardless of validity... So correlation does in fact prove causation if it's favored Science™...
Just a note to state that really correlation does not prove causation... until it's been "peer reviewed", published, referenced in other papers and accepted as scientific dogma regardless of validity... So correlation does in fact prove causation if it's favored Science™...
Peer review is no guarantee of reliability. Early skeptic of the Covid narrative, Prof. John Ioannidis, has long been a critic, pointing out the huge fraction of published papers with 'irreproducible results'. James Corbett has a good article on use of AI nowadays to produce 'papers' which fool reviewers: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/trust-the-computer-generated-gobbledygook
All "peer-reviewed" means is that the published paper has passed conformity to the established scientific paradigm for that subject. IE, nothing new. I would also point out that science is mostly theory, very little of which is proven. Science is the process of postulating a theory to explain observed phenomenon until a new observation comes along that demonstrates that the theory is incorrect or incomplete leading to a new theory. But people being people, scientists are loath to recognize that the established paradigm no longer holds water.
That's why the leading Medical Journal in the world threw 175 of them in the bin 2 weeks ago, the peer reviewed papers were either flat out lies or plagerized. (John Hopkins, I think)
Just a note to state that really correlation does not prove causation... until it's been "peer reviewed", published, referenced in other papers and accepted as scientific dogma regardless of validity... So correlation does in fact prove causation if it's favored Science™...
Peer review is no guarantee of reliability. Early skeptic of the Covid narrative, Prof. John Ioannidis, has long been a critic, pointing out the huge fraction of published papers with 'irreproducible results'. James Corbett has a good article on use of AI nowadays to produce 'papers' which fool reviewers: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/trust-the-computer-generated-gobbledygook
All "peer-reviewed" means is that the published paper has passed conformity to the established scientific paradigm for that subject. IE, nothing new. I would also point out that science is mostly theory, very little of which is proven. Science is the process of postulating a theory to explain observed phenomenon until a new observation comes along that demonstrates that the theory is incorrect or incomplete leading to a new theory. But people being people, scientists are loath to recognize that the established paradigm no longer holds water.
That's why the leading Medical Journal in the world threw 175 of them in the bin 2 weeks ago, the peer reviewed papers were either flat out lies or plagerized. (John Hopkins, I think)
😆👍