It devolves into scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll peer review your stuff, could you peer review mine?
Also peer reviewed...yes, and what were the results of the peer review? Critical criticism or a big thumbs up? That never seems to go along with peoples claim of credibility due to something being "peer reviewed".
Someone recently made a good point about peer reviews that most of the quality people in many professions are busy doing work so you get a lower tier of people/scientists that take the time to peer review papers. Peer reviewed today likely just means some intern in the industry took a look at a paper.
That's pretty standard. He's the supervising author and the contact person for the project. That's the last name on any paper such as this. Usually it's some professor with hundreds of publications to his name because his name gets appended to all the work his students do because he consults on the projects.
Most of the dipshits that say it have no idea what it means. The entire peer review process is corrupted too.
Like a circlejerk of yes men...
That's because at one time it did mean something.
Yeah, it means as much as “New York Times bestseller”
It never did. Bribes and pay offs since day one.
These are the same people that think a HS drop out ‘tard is a climate expert 🤷♂️
Or a medical expert?
It devolves into scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll peer review your stuff, could you peer review mine?
Also peer reviewed...yes, and what were the results of the peer review? Critical criticism or a big thumbs up? That never seems to go along with peoples claim of credibility due to something being "peer reviewed".
Someone recently made a good point about peer reviews that most of the quality people in many professions are busy doing work so you get a lower tier of people/scientists that take the time to peer review papers. Peer reviewed today likely just means some intern in the industry took a look at a paper.
Ideally, it does. It is a supposed to offer an opportunity for your peers to criticize your process or use your process to verify your conclusion.
In practice, however, it's extremely incestuous and it ends up just being "sound good? Good, approve".
Pfizer, whose employees are EXEMPT from the jab…
Link to full text. https://jpharmsci.org/article/S0022-3549(23)00009-6/fulltext
Nice of Pfizer to conduct their own study! KEK
[email protected]
He published an email. How sweet of him.
That's pretty standard. He's the supervising author and the contact person for the project. That's the last name on any paper such as this. Usually it's some professor with hundreds of publications to his name because his name gets appended to all the work his students do because he consults on the projects.
And he can stand in line behind Fauci.
Pfizer said huh? That’s the same as Biden saying there’s no problem at the border…
The ol' Peer Reviewed trick. Been going on since the AMA came into a national presence,
"Doc" Simmons started this racket in 1899, the along came Morris Fishbein
Even the Huff Pots knows this.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-ama-got-rich-powe_b_6103720
https://drjasonfung.medium.com/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704
Lol that declaration of competing interest at the end is hilarious.
pfraudulent pfucking pfucksticks
Now look at who ‘peer reviewed’ it……
WWG1WGA
I feel so relieved.
That figures.