The tone of this article (“fooled America”, “heroic nurses”, “censored by big tech”) is emotionally provocative, for no reason. Sounds like two more academics with an axe to grind.
Perhaps the tone is justified given the treatment received by "conspiracy theorists" (including SMEs) who have been repeating the data backed assertions documented in this article for months?
Tone aside, aren't you just cherry picking? You have two conflicting studies, and you're simply ignoring (without any attempt at a critical discussion) the study that does not support the "consensus" for a rapidly evolving current event. Here's a scathing review which suggests there may be holes in the CDC's analysis [0] - and let's not forget that the CDC has effectively committed to vaccination at this point, so there is the weight of political pressure to justify certain conclusions.
In any case there are other valid, data-supported points raised in the article - which have been published for many months, mind you. At what point are we going to acknowledge that the science regarding this new disease and an accompanying novel medical technology is actually not as settled as certain political and pharmaceutical interests are incentivised to have you believe?
And that experts are hesitant to come forward with criticism, does that sound like a healthy scientific process? Suppression of dissent is equivalent to wearing blinders - and it is totally possible to conduct seemingly valid research but deliberately steer an entire field toward the wrong direction. Just look at how many decades we've wasted chasing the amyloid plaque hypothesis.
I would have an axe to grind too if my coworkers shamed and alienated me for doing my job (practicing research). If you don't let scientists ask certain questions or make certain conjectures, you are poisoning the scientific process, and a pandemic is no excuse; in fact such dogmatic, socially enforced groupthink is counterproductive to any pandemic response.
0. https://trialsitenews.com/cdc-vision-network-study-showcases.... --- the source is questionable but the points it raises appear to be valid. At the very least it appears that the CDC has made the same mistake here as they did together with pfizer in choosing, let's say, optimistic effectiveness values for approval of vaccines in children. Numbers which are blatantly contradicted by real world data from numerous highly vaccinated nations.
3 comments
[ 1084 ms ] story [ 1121 ms ] threadhttps://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/covid-19...
The tone of this article (“fooled America”, “heroic nurses”, “censored by big tech”) is emotionally provocative, for no reason. Sounds like two more academics with an axe to grind.
Tone aside, aren't you just cherry picking? You have two conflicting studies, and you're simply ignoring (without any attempt at a critical discussion) the study that does not support the "consensus" for a rapidly evolving current event. Here's a scathing review which suggests there may be holes in the CDC's analysis [0] - and let's not forget that the CDC has effectively committed to vaccination at this point, so there is the weight of political pressure to justify certain conclusions.
In any case there are other valid, data-supported points raised in the article - which have been published for many months, mind you. At what point are we going to acknowledge that the science regarding this new disease and an accompanying novel medical technology is actually not as settled as certain political and pharmaceutical interests are incentivised to have you believe?
And that experts are hesitant to come forward with criticism, does that sound like a healthy scientific process? Suppression of dissent is equivalent to wearing blinders - and it is totally possible to conduct seemingly valid research but deliberately steer an entire field toward the wrong direction. Just look at how many decades we've wasted chasing the amyloid plaque hypothesis.
I would have an axe to grind too if my coworkers shamed and alienated me for doing my job (practicing research). If you don't let scientists ask certain questions or make certain conjectures, you are poisoning the scientific process, and a pandemic is no excuse; in fact such dogmatic, socially enforced groupthink is counterproductive to any pandemic response.
0. https://trialsitenews.com/cdc-vision-network-study-showcases.... --- the source is questionable but the points it raises appear to be valid. At the very least it appears that the CDC has made the same mistake here as they did together with pfizer in choosing, let's say, optimistic effectiveness values for approval of vaccines in children. Numbers which are blatantly contradicted by real world data from numerous highly vaccinated nations.
Experts are human too.