Is she wrong? I don't think so at all - another scam in a very long list of money, control and power in the medical complex.
I have said it before and will say it again:
We are the most over examined, over drugged, over chemo'd, over x-rayed, over poked and prodded, over tested, over surgeried, scanned, MRI'd, x-rayed, blood tested country in the world and where has it gotten us?
Lets see... we are now also the fattest, softest, most diseased, chronic ill, mentally ill, arthritic, addicted, vaccinated, pilled up, creamed up, drugged up, injected, autoimmune and cancer ridden than we ever have been as a nation.
You need to take control of your health and not rely on the advice of the mainstream white coat gremlins who are merely prostitutes for the drug companies and who's number one goal is to keep you sick, scared, fat and dumb..
The pedo death cult used the lawyers to get the doctors in line and keep them there. For the last 50 years medical malpractice cases have risen dramatically as did the cost of malpractice insurance. The doctors best defense was to follow established "Rockefeller medicine" rules to a T. These cases forced doctors away from common sense medicine into the arms of "established" codes and procedures, in order to survive the legal battlefield.
How many times have we all heard that one of the leading causes of death is doctors mistakes?
In fact, this entire era of "get rich quick by lawsuit" is a contrived effort to destroy the fabric of Society. The lawyers really do deserve all the dirty names and memes created for them.
Agreed. John Hopkins did a study in 2016 that Medical Errors were the 3rd leading cause of death in this country. (easy search for that article)
Now some people won't accept this and some will, but if you add in Abortion & Covid numbers - "Healthcare" and the medical complex is the number ONE cause of death in this country.
If the cures for cancer are out there (and I truly believe they are), then the Medical Industrial Complex has been murdering cancer patients for decades now by refusing to consider "alternative" treatments besides chemo, surgery, and raising awareness with a 5k.
Same with heart disease. How many of those deaths were preventable by the patients ditching the Standard American Diet and the army of pills that doctors kept them on to keep them barely alive?
So yeah. I consider Medical "error" to be the leading cause of death in this country. But I don't consider many of those "errors" to be so.
They just have a very very good memory. Use this drug to cover up this symptom, and if you have this side effect, we'll give you this other drug.
Or you have holistic/naturopath doctors that look for the root cause of the problem, probably starting with diet. I'll take a clean diet over Rockefeller petroleum bullshit any day.
Mostly the shallowest, most focused, conforming, rule obeying, high IQ people make it through med school. They invest 12+ years in college and get on a gravy train income stream for life that they can't jeopardize by worrying about they truth, morals, right and wrong, or the patient.
Patient implies something wrong or sickness and how many times have we heard that word? Over and over and over and over, even if nothing is wrong.
They call will call you sick (a patient) even before you walk in the door for a supposed healthy check up. Thrown you in a gown(control), well something must be wrong if your in a gown..
The shit is all set up for a mind fuck and control.
One interesting thing is that if you live a healthy lifestyle - very little sugar, whole foods, exercise - your chances of getting cancer or anything else are very rare. But, if you chow down McD's and sit on your flabby ass all day, surprise surprise you get cancer.
I've always questioned this crap while in college years ago. Asked a classmate in a debate; "who's vetting the so called peers that review this shit? How do we know this publication is impartial?" Dude couldn't even compute or understand the question. FF to 2020 thru 2023 and that question presented ain't so stupid anymore.
and that question presented ain't so stupid anymore.
It's never a stupid question, no matter the time, year, decade, or millennia. Questioning what ANY Government says (including every subsidiary agency), does, or wants people to do is a DUTY and RIGHT to every Citizen that could be affected.
Keep asking good questions like this, as it shows Wisdom enough to do so.
If a “scientific study” took two years and cost several million dollars, how is that supposed to be “independently validated” by a group of volunteer peers? They would need another two years and an additional several million dollars to recreate the entire first study. And it would go right back to the bias of the corporation or organization paying for it. “Peer-review” doesn’t make any sense as a concept just looking at it on paper. You don’t even need any specific expertise to see through that.
Gauges in her ears, tatted up like some sort of Italian fresco, and with a thousand-cock stare. I'm not a fan of the messenger.
However, her facts are correct. Now, it's a 2 min video. It's incomplete.
I've had the privilege of studying with professors who did peer review. I've seen the process in depth. I've never seen anyone be anything but exacting and unflappably professional about it. They go through the data. They check the methodology. Use the wrong statistical test with assumptions that aren't valid and your paper's rejected. Ever taken a grad-level stats class? Those who have know. These people see peer review a bit like challenging a PhD thesis. You drill the scientist putting forward the work, because their work is now your work. You're being asked to put your stamp of approval on it. What does it look like if you reviewed a paper and ultimately, it has to be retracted because it was critically flawed... and you missed the error? Peer review isn't the issue, IMO.
Group think is an issue.
Publish or perish is an issue.
Overworked, overeager students and interns trying to fluff their resumes doing the lion's share of the actual work on these projects is a HUGE issue. They either do poor quality work because they're inexperienced and overcommitted or they flat out lie and make up data. ESPECIALLY at prestigious programs. Ambitious people do what they feel they must and I've seen it too many times. The PIs often trust them and honestly don't know they're working with garbage data.
Gov't bias as the primary funding source of medical research is a problem. In fact, any funding source is a potential bias. If you want the grant money to keep coming, you give them the results they want. Publish the right things and build your career and wealth. Publish the wrong results and you burn a bridge with the people who pay your bills.
Publisher bias is an issue. So is their business model that relies on appeasing the university system, specifically the librarians who manage the subscriptions.
Cowardice is an issue, especially on politicized topics.
Cancel culture intruding on academic freedom is an issue.
It's more complex than just suggesting that scientists can't police other scientists. They sure as hell can and have for over a century. It took woke politics, activism, and rank cowardice to change that.
Did a quick dive into her Twitter history. Looks like she's in a long process of having some tattoos removed or covered up. She's also recently two years sober. She wears a shirt that says "unvaccinated and ready to talk politics." And also she was going to a party and was hoping random people would hopefully be in to talking about Jesus or Iran Contra... ha! Chick seems reformed/super based. She's a nurse, but even I would ask for someone else based on appearances alone. But good on her if she's corrected course.
Always thought when I was going through engineering school that the books we were using were NOT up-to-snuff due to the AMOUNT of wording that accompanied the topic...we always tried to "discern" WHAT the idiot author was saying...hasn't changed at all...
Cutting corners, fudging and selective editing of the data, unacknowledged ties between close family and/or friends to pharma and manufacturers, prior "reviews" for same companies that stand to make huge profits and the knowledge of more to come if the review turns out well....these are all problems that need addressed
I wonder how many of the peer reviewers would sign on if they were held personally responsible for the drugs and devices that will be reviewed? It's all a sham. Also, the way studies are designed can be manipulated to show results that they want to get. Studies of hydroxychloroquine were manipulated. It had been used to treat Covid to keep the disease from progressing to a point where hospitalization was needed. When used early it worked quite well. But studies were needed to show the public it did not work. So, it was given to patients that were already in the hospital and where the disease had gotten much worse and thus showed it to not work. This was a blatant manipulation that was purposeful. Had the same study been conducted when given to patients when symptom first appeared, the results would have been much different.
In saying that they “Sure as hell can be policed,” perhaps that’s true, but policing has its own issues. I think that’s the point. There are corrupt figures who “police” them into compliance of the agenda. I would estimate that 95% of actual police are good people with good intentions. It’s that pesky 5% that seem to always be in those key positions though.
Friends can look like enemies and enemies can look like friends. Her appearance is a good reminder of all who fight for Good. Look at Bill Gates, he looks like someone you'd invite over for dinner and maybe let watch your kids. First glance at this woman and you'd think the opposite. Yet she is fighting for Good and Bill Gates is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made an upcoming IPCC report can skew the science message that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some controversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were desperately trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved their paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prevents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.
"Peer reviewed" can basically mean a bunch of folks who think exactly the same was as the author read it (or oftentimes not bother) and rubber stamp it. You see this especially with hot button political issues like the 57 genders or global warming.
Peer reviewed pieces aren't always crap. At my alma mater it was a very rigorous process. But like others have said, scientific "consensus" often has more to do with the person writing the checks and their agenda and less to do with actual science.
It's sad. Science SHOULD mean something. It should help mankind shed light on life's mysteries, unlock new doors for everyone, and be for the betterment of all.
Thanks for the link, TW. Just scanning and it seems that the guilty parties need to be identified and held accountable. Take #11, for example - "“A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” published on October 1, 2021 in Current Problems in Cardiology, temporarily retracted on October 15, 2021."
This was a Peter McCullough paper that someone had pulled. "Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation". Who was allowed to make these determinations? In this case it seems as if lawyers were involved and that can be traced back, through their connections, etc.
That was October 2021. If allowed to remain published and discussed, not censored, how many lives could have been saved?? If these types of matters were shown the light and allowed to be properly analyzed and debated in the public forums would the experimental drugs have been pulled from the market, the experiment halted, the perpetrators exposed?
She's spot on. "Peer reviewed" means nothing, especially with highly politicized issues like the gender nonbinary crap. All "peer reviewed" means is that a bunch of people who think exactly the same way as the originator of the study means just sign off on it.
Been going on for decades. I've seen stuff published that's in "Scientific" journals to be a total joke. Publishing gains notoriety for the school and person involved. A lot of big schools will hire TA's to basically teach the class while the prof publishes stuff. Notoriety translates into real dollars in terms of grant money, it's big business.
It's gotten so bad some based prof literally wrote satire pieces under the guise of "science", submitted them to be published, and they were! He kept doing this for a while. The "science" people had no idea they were even being punked until the prof later openly admitted it. Of course no changes were made to the system.
When I was in college "science" was basically some queer secular quasi religion just like in South Park. Many folks were crushed to find out science is often NOT objective, looks at all the evidence, goes where the evidence leads it, etc. Money, politics, and just plain ego play a huge role in it. Not always, I don't want to trash legit good scientists. But all too often scientific "consensus" has more to do with who is writing the checks and what their agenda is and less to do with actual science.
That’s why you should not feel too bad for using scihub as a lot of this research government already paid for it ie our taxes. And then publishers put it behind a paywall. Science publishing is such a scam.
Is she wrong? I don't think so at all - another scam in a very long list of money, control and power in the medical complex.
I have said it before and will say it again:
We are the most over examined, over drugged, over chemo'd, over x-rayed, over poked and prodded, over tested, over surgeried, scanned, MRI'd, x-rayed, blood tested country in the world and where has it gotten us?
Lets see... we are now also the fattest, softest, most diseased, chronic ill, mentally ill, arthritic, addicted, vaccinated, pilled up, creamed up, drugged up, injected, autoimmune and cancer ridden than we ever have been as a nation.
You need to take control of your health and not rely on the advice of the mainstream white coat gremlins who are merely prostitutes for the drug companies and who's number one goal is to keep you sick, scared, fat and dumb..
The pedo death cult used the lawyers to get the doctors in line and keep them there. For the last 50 years medical malpractice cases have risen dramatically as did the cost of malpractice insurance. The doctors best defense was to follow established "Rockefeller medicine" rules to a T. These cases forced doctors away from common sense medicine into the arms of "established" codes and procedures, in order to survive the legal battlefield.
How many times have we all heard that one of the leading causes of death is doctors mistakes?
In fact, this entire era of "get rich quick by lawsuit" is a contrived effort to destroy the fabric of Society. The lawyers really do deserve all the dirty names and memes created for them.
Agreed. John Hopkins did a study in 2016 that Medical Errors were the 3rd leading cause of death in this country. (easy search for that article)
Now some people won't accept this and some will, but if you add in Abortion & Covid numbers - "Healthcare" and the medical complex is the number ONE cause of death in this country.
Heart disease and Cancer outpace all of those easily.
If the cures for cancer are out there (and I truly believe they are), then the Medical Industrial Complex has been murdering cancer patients for decades now by refusing to consider "alternative" treatments besides chemo, surgery, and raising awareness with a 5k.
Same with heart disease. How many of those deaths were preventable by the patients ditching the Standard American Diet and the army of pills that doctors kept them on to keep them barely alive?
So yeah. I consider Medical "error" to be the leading cause of death in this country. But I don't consider many of those "errors" to be so.
So because you think there is a cancer cure and you don't understand how heart disease works you assume that. Cool.
Not a chance
lol ok
They just have a very very good memory. Use this drug to cover up this symptom, and if you have this side effect, we'll give you this other drug.
Or you have holistic/naturopath doctors that look for the root cause of the problem, probably starting with diet. I'll take a clean diet over Rockefeller petroleum bullshit any day.
Not me. Had a run in this am with a surgeon. I am not afraid anymore to voice an opinion on patient safety.
Mostly the shallowest, most focused, conforming, rule obeying, high IQ people make it through med school. They invest 12+ years in college and get on a gravy train income stream for life that they can't jeopardize by worrying about they truth, morals, right and wrong, or the patient.
Customers.
Patient implies something wrong or sickness and how many times have we heard that word? Over and over and over and over, even if nothing is wrong.
They call will call you sick (a patient) even before you walk in the door for a supposed healthy check up. Thrown you in a gown(control), well something must be wrong if your in a gown..
The shit is all set up for a mind fuck and control.
Extraordinary!!! This should be signed, sealed, and delivered to every household.
Holy shit where's the Tylenol?
Great descriptor of MSM tv ad medical professionals!! "White coat gremlin...prostitutes...to keep you sick, scared, fat and dumb."
Need to add (NASCAR version of corporate drug sponsorship emblazened)
"White coated gremlins with corporate drug emblazoned sponsorship..."
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
One interesting thing is that if you live a healthy lifestyle - very little sugar, whole foods, exercise - your chances of getting cancer or anything else are very rare. But, if you chow down McD's and sit on your flabby ass all day, surprise surprise you get cancer.
I've always questioned this crap while in college years ago. Asked a classmate in a debate; "who's vetting the so called peers that review this shit? How do we know this publication is impartial?" Dude couldn't even compute or understand the question. FF to 2020 thru 2023 and that question presented ain't so stupid anymore.
It's never a stupid question, no matter the time, year, decade, or millennia. Questioning what ANY Government says (including every subsidiary agency), does, or wants people to do is a DUTY and RIGHT to every Citizen that could be affected.
Keep asking good questions like this, as it shows Wisdom enough to do so.
I hope your comment becomes the most up voted, because it's the most important question.
If a “scientific study” took two years and cost several million dollars, how is that supposed to be “independently validated” by a group of volunteer peers? They would need another two years and an additional several million dollars to recreate the entire first study. And it would go right back to the bias of the corporation or organization paying for it. “Peer-review” doesn’t make any sense as a concept just looking at it on paper. You don’t even need any specific expertise to see through that.
Gauges in her ears, tatted up like some sort of Italian fresco, and with a thousand-cock stare. I'm not a fan of the messenger.
However, her facts are correct. Now, it's a 2 min video. It's incomplete.
I've had the privilege of studying with professors who did peer review. I've seen the process in depth. I've never seen anyone be anything but exacting and unflappably professional about it. They go through the data. They check the methodology. Use the wrong statistical test with assumptions that aren't valid and your paper's rejected. Ever taken a grad-level stats class? Those who have know. These people see peer review a bit like challenging a PhD thesis. You drill the scientist putting forward the work, because their work is now your work. You're being asked to put your stamp of approval on it. What does it look like if you reviewed a paper and ultimately, it has to be retracted because it was critically flawed... and you missed the error? Peer review isn't the issue, IMO.
It's more complex than just suggesting that scientists can't police other scientists. They sure as hell can and have for over a century. It took woke politics, activism, and rank cowardice to change that.
Did a quick dive into her Twitter history. Looks like she's in a long process of having some tattoos removed or covered up. She's also recently two years sober. She wears a shirt that says "unvaccinated and ready to talk politics." And also she was going to a party and was hoping random people would hopefully be in to talking about Jesus or Iran Contra... ha! Chick seems reformed/super based. She's a nurse, but even I would ask for someone else based on appearances alone. But good on her if she's corrected course.
It's really a shame that Hanks is a pedovore, he was a great actor.
He was a decent actor in an age of really shitty actors.
Always thought when I was going through engineering school that the books we were using were NOT up-to-snuff due to the AMOUNT of wording that accompanied the topic...we always tried to "discern" WHAT the idiot author was saying...hasn't changed at all...
Cutting corners, fudging and selective editing of the data, unacknowledged ties between close family and/or friends to pharma and manufacturers, prior "reviews" for same companies that stand to make huge profits and the knowledge of more to come if the review turns out well....these are all problems that need addressed
I wonder how many of the peer reviewers would sign on if they were held personally responsible for the drugs and devices that will be reviewed? It's all a sham. Also, the way studies are designed can be manipulated to show results that they want to get. Studies of hydroxychloroquine were manipulated. It had been used to treat Covid to keep the disease from progressing to a point where hospitalization was needed. When used early it worked quite well. But studies were needed to show the public it did not work. So, it was given to patients that were already in the hospital and where the disease had gotten much worse and thus showed it to not work. This was a blatant manipulation that was purposeful. Had the same study been conducted when given to patients when symptom first appeared, the results would have been much different.
In saying that they “Sure as hell can be policed,” perhaps that’s true, but policing has its own issues. I think that’s the point. There are corrupt figures who “police” them into compliance of the agenda. I would estimate that 95% of actual police are good people with good intentions. It’s that pesky 5% that seem to always be in those key positions though.
Friends can look like enemies and enemies can look like friends. Her appearance is a good reminder of all who fight for Good. Look at Bill Gates, he looks like someone you'd invite over for dinner and maybe let watch your kids. First glance at this woman and you'd think the opposite. Yet she is fighting for Good and Bill Gates is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Bill Gates has never looked like someone I would allow around children.
True, he does have a pedo haircut 😂
Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made an upcoming IPCC report can skew the science message that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some controversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were desperately trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved their paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prevents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.
"Peer reviewed" can basically mean a bunch of folks who think exactly the same was as the author read it (or oftentimes not bother) and rubber stamp it. You see this especially with hot button political issues like the 57 genders or global warming.
Peer reviewed pieces aren't always crap. At my alma mater it was a very rigorous process. But like others have said, scientific "consensus" often has more to do with the person writing the checks and their agenda and less to do with actual science.
It's sad. Science SHOULD mean something. It should help mankind shed light on life's mysteries, unlock new doors for everyone, and be for the betterment of all.
Thanks for the link, TW. Just scanning and it seems that the guilty parties need to be identified and held accountable. Take #11, for example - "“A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” published on October 1, 2021 in Current Problems in Cardiology, temporarily retracted on October 15, 2021."
This was a Peter McCullough paper that someone had pulled. "Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation". Who was allowed to make these determinations? In this case it seems as if lawyers were involved and that can be traced back, through their connections, etc.
That was October 2021. If allowed to remain published and discussed, not censored, how many lives could have been saved?? If these types of matters were shown the light and allowed to be properly analyzed and debated in the public forums would the experimental drugs have been pulled from the market, the experiment halted, the perpetrators exposed?
She's spot on. "Peer reviewed" means nothing, especially with highly politicized issues like the gender nonbinary crap. All "peer reviewed" means is that a bunch of people who think exactly the same way as the originator of the study means just sign off on it.
Been going on for decades. I've seen stuff published that's in "Scientific" journals to be a total joke. Publishing gains notoriety for the school and person involved. A lot of big schools will hire TA's to basically teach the class while the prof publishes stuff. Notoriety translates into real dollars in terms of grant money, it's big business.
It's gotten so bad some based prof literally wrote satire pieces under the guise of "science", submitted them to be published, and they were! He kept doing this for a while. The "science" people had no idea they were even being punked until the prof later openly admitted it. Of course no changes were made to the system.
When I was in college "science" was basically some queer secular quasi religion just like in South Park. Many folks were crushed to find out science is often NOT objective, looks at all the evidence, goes where the evidence leads it, etc. Money, politics, and just plain ego play a huge role in it. Not always, I don't want to trash legit good scientists. But all too often scientific "consensus" has more to do with who is writing the checks and what their agenda is and less to do with actual science.
Worth the click. She explains "peer review" well. As for those tattoos...
Trust the science = trust me bro
Interesting stuff. Why should I be surprised with all the other rigged frauds?
I'll tell you this though, with black hair Dana would look like a spitting image of 'Lily' on the 1960s 'The Munsters' starring Yvonne De Carlo.
This tweet shows the connection of Maxwell and Scientific Publishing.
She sounds like a flight attendant, with the requisite pop when saying a word that starts with 'p'.
I wonder if she listens to metal...
Wow 😯
That’s why you should not feel too bad for using scihub as a lot of this research government already paid for it ie our taxes. And then publishers put it behind a paywall. Science publishing is such a scam.
There is a book called Science for Sale.... probably still on Amazon.
Thanks, will look it up
Why not link the fucking article? What even is this?
Yeah this is exactly the deal.
And if you don't believe me, just ask me.