We know.....but its nice to seen some confirmation about the bias towards science these "science" journals don't agree with.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/peer-reviewed-studies-on-ivermectin-retracted-without-explanation-dr-pierre-kory_4751836.html

"We saw peer reviewed articles that passed peer review by experts in their field, including my own retracted without explanation," Kory said on Sept. 10 at a "Reclaiming Medicine" conference hosted by the Australian Medical Professionals' Society (AMPS) in Melbourne, Australia.


"I have numerous colleagues whose papers that were supportive of ivermectin in reasonably high impact journals they were retracted. And then the only thing you'll ever see published in high impact journal are supposedly negative studies," he said.

samurai_science said:

---

We know.....but its nice to seen some confirmation about the bias towards science these "science" journals don't agree with.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/peer-reviewed-studies-on-ivermectin-retracted-without-explanation-dr-pierre-kory_4751836.html

"We saw peer reviewed articlesarticles that passed peer review by experts in their field, including my ownretracted without explanation," Kory said on Sept. 10 at a "Reclaiming Medicine" conference hosted by the Australian Medical Professionals' Society (AMPS) in Melbourne, Australia.


"I have numerous colleagues whose papers that were supportive of ivermectin in reasonably high impact journalsthey were retracted. And then the only thing you'll ever see published in high impact journal are supposedly negative studies," he said.

---

COVID destroyed the credibility of the medical industry. The greed and corruption that became apparent during this biological attack likely lead to the unnecessary deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

Yes money and power corrupts as we have seen, no going back I guess.

All of the Covid Vaxes and Drugs are being used under a Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The EUA is necessary because the vaxes and drugs are not tested nor met any of the FDA Requirements/Regulations for FDA Approval. They are also pricey and making Big Pharma and lots of other people billions of dollars because they are the only game in town.

Ivermectin has been fully tested and approved for decades, it is also cheap. If it is shown that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid then the gravy train ends for the EUA Vaxes & Drugs. They will continue to bury any good findings for Ivermectin or any other drugs as long as the money train is running for the EUA Vaxes & Drugs. Disgusting.

"Without explanation" means the WHO, Pfizer, or Fauci called and demanded it.

BuddysBud said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

We know.....but its nice to seen some confirmation about the bias towards science these "science" journals don't agree with.

Amen.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/peer-reviewed-studies-on-ivermectin-retracted-without-explanation-dr-pierre-kory_4751836.html

"We saw peer reviewed articlesarticles that passed peer review by experts in their field, including my ownretracted without explanation," Kory said on Sept. 10 at a "Reclaiming Medicine" conference hosted by the Australian Medical Professionals' Society (AMPS) in Melbourne, Australia.


"I have numerous colleagues whose papers that were supportive of ivermectin in reasonably high impact journalsthey were retracted. And then the only thing you'll ever see published in high impact journal are supposedly negative studies," he said.

---

COVID destroyed the credibility of the medical industry. The greed and corruption that became apparent during this biological attack likely lead to the unnecessary deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

---

I took 5 days of Ivermectin followed by 5 days of paxlovid and fared well in my Covid experience.

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

I bought some Ivermectin off of Amazon a few months ago and it's amazing how well it works. There have been a couple of times that my wife or myself felt like we were coming down with something, and one dose clears it up quick.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

I bought some Ivermectin off of Amazon a few months ago and it's amazing how well it works. There have been a couple of times that my wife or myself felt like we were coming down with something, and one dose clears it up quick.

---

Plus, your mane and tail is extra glossy.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

---

If course claiming "bad citations" would be an easy way to reject papers that don't agree with a political objective.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

---

I don't know how medical journals handle this, but this statement sort of reminds me of the deflate-gate deal with Brady and people who knew absolutely nothing about the entire process of NFL football checking (and wanted to blindly defend Brady) just pulling out of their ass an assertion that the officials didn't check the footballs. They just made up that the officials blew it off or forgot. Had they actually known what they were speaking of, they would have known that it is a pregame ritual for back judges on all crews (HS through the NFL) to check the air in footballs and on the crew in that game Brady was caught in particular, the crew chief double checks his back judge.

In the legal field, in law review, citations and references are pretty much what law review students do to submissions that come in. They review every word of the paper, but particularly the citation form. Law students are actually better at legal citations than those who are writing/researching because the students are actively doing it for assignments and have the most up to date familiarity with Blue Book and other citation forms. Whether that's true in the medical field with medical journals, I don't know, but I'd be interested in knowing if, like the the Brady/deflategate case, those making the allegations actually KNOW what they're talking about.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

---

If people like James Lindsay weren't regularly getting their trolls published, I'd lend the argument more credence.

BuddysBud said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

---

If course claiming "bad citations" would be an easy way to reject papers that don't agree with a political objective.

---

Doubtful. Whether or not a citation states what it is claimed to, is from an appropriately rigorous and verifiable source commensurate for what claim is made, and that the source study itself has not been found to be erroneous or fraudulent are all objectively verifiable things. This should not be he said she said if it's science.

I'd argue that poor scrutiny of cited material is a big part of why Lindsay was able to pull of his scam.

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

I bought some Ivermectin off of Amazon a few months ago and it's amazing how well it works. There have been a couple of times that my wife or myself felt like we were coming down with something, and one dose clears it up quick.

---

Plus, your mane and tail is extra glossy.

---

Neigh-Sayer

91AggieLawyer said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

The article seems to suggest the retractions were due to problems with references. You'd have to do a real deep dive into the papers to see if this holds water and I'm not believing anyone here has done this.

Bad citations are a big problem. They directly cause bad assumptions and poor research direction, then take a huge amount of effort and lots of time to get researchers to stop redistilling garbage. I'm not denying or defending anything with this allegation in particular, but I wish lots of papers would get retracted for this problem more regularly.

---

I don't know how medical journals handle this, but this statement sort of reminds me of the deflate-gate deal with Brady and people who knew absolutely nothing about the entire process of NFL football checking (and wanted to blindly defend Brady) just pulling out of their ass an assertion that the officials didn't check the footballs. They just made up that the officials blew it off or forgot. Had they actually known what they were speaking of, they would have known that it is a pregame ritual for back judges on all crews (HS through the NFL) to check the air in footballs and on the crew in that game Brady was caught in particular, the crew chief double checks his back judge.

In the legal field, in law review, citations and references are pretty much what law review students do to submissions that come in. They review every word of the paper, but particularly the citation form. Law students are actually better at legal citations than those who are writing/researching because the students are actively doing it for assignments and have the most up to date familiarity with Blue Book and other citation forms. Whether that's true in the medical field with medical journals, I don't know, but I'd be interested in knowing if, like the the Brady/deflategate case, those making the allegations actually KNOW what they're talking about.

---

It's been my experience that scientists calling out bad citations have dug real deep into what they are claiming, usually through multiple serious efforts to find what they're missing out of disbelief, then questioning whether making an issue of it is even worth the effort. I completely believe that legal review is far more rigorous on citations than any scientific journal and peer review process. The stakes are far higher for an individual when it comes to law.

And blue star post was not intended

Trust the science.

Unless the science is politicized.