dontforgetaboutevil

I can confirm this. My lab recently finished a study proving that 100 % of patients who receive vaccines eventually die.

Extex

Bullshit

ardvarcus

That's my policy. I'm happy to allow the herd to take their shots. I have no intention of ever doing so. But the greater number of those fools that pump themselves up with poison that weakens their immune systems, the less likely there will be something to infect me.

BlueDrache

"Statistics" from a non-reputable site blogger anti-vaxxing site?

LOL. Come back with some peer-reviewed studies and I'll consider it.

turitelle

Peer Review is simply an editing technique where some person of the same competence level as the writer reads over the work and assesses whether it is possible or not.

Peer review is NOT real science where the work is actually replicated and shown to be valid.

Are you aware that vaccine trials involve very shady practices. For example they use the adjuvants without the vaccine compound as the placebo instead of saline. They never do health studies of unvaccinated vs vaccinated children.

What's "Peer Review" got to say about that?

scandalous-goat

What does peer-reviewed really mean?

ardvarcus

For the leftists, "peer-reviewed" is any study that they agree with.

BlueDrache

Not just leftists. Scientists. Those that value proven facts over political ideology, like the anti-vaxxing stupidity.

scandalous-goat

You are falling for Scienticism , the cult of Science, a contemporary replacement of Catholicism. For Scienticism, Science is the truth, complete with a genesis story, and behavior that followers should adopt, with the scientific populariser as the priests.

On the other hand, real science isn't about facts per se, but is rather about a process to get closer to the truth. Every study conclusion is open to be challenged by a new study. Saying that science is about truth is therefore a blasphemy.

The reason why I asked you to define peer-review is because it isn't what you think it is. Peer review is nothing more than a filter to weed out nonsensical papers, by a group of peers. A paper that has been peer-reviewed doesn't mean that its conclusion is right, but rather that the peers didn't see a flaw to prevent its publication. Peer-review doesn't mean that the experiment has been replicated. It also doesn't mean that there aren't any flaws in the methodologies used.

If you want examples of peer-review failures, just look at John Money's papers, who says that sexual reassignment surgery is an acceptable procedure for transsexual rehabilitation.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2063527468_John_Money

anamazonslittle

Unfortunately, that's where we're at. Several peer reviewed studies have shown that you can get anything peer reviewed just by concluding something the ivory tower academics agree with. Science got broken

scandalous-goat

You didn't answer my question. The adverb really is important in the sentence, bugman.

DeltaBravoTango

Well you actually have to get measles for it to kill you.

WereAllFucked

You have a bigger chance of dying from the flu than you do from Measles in 2019. It's literally a rash accompanied with a fever. The only reason why the death count is so high because it was prominent in the fucking 1800s and still prominent in 3rd world countries where people live in their own filth and don't have access to clean water.