Peer Review

Discussion in 'Science' started by Pieces of Malarkey, Dec 26, 2022.

  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to change policy go ahead. I have zero interest in changing any policy. And I went into detail of why this policy won’t be changed. Change in policy would expose the fraudulent reporting of influenza deaths over the years and it would result in the public finding out vaccine efficacy reported by current policy makers is fraudulent as well. There is no point trying to change this policy.

    What we can do is make personal health decisions on evidence instead of following policy we know isn’t science based. That’s why I’m providing actual evidence to people so they can make better decisions.

    The fact not every individual gets the same flu vaccine has no bearing on the fact all of them destroy the ability to benefit from them in old age when protection is most needed.

    Every bit of the posts I’ve made here has been backed by peer reviewed studies. My frequent references to peer reviewed research being superior to unsubstantiated opinions addresses the thread topic directly. I’m demonstrating my support for peer reviewed research with my actions, not just my words.

    Which has more value? Actually supporting peer review by accepting research that has been reviewed or saying you support peer review and then rejecting evidence the process produces?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2023
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not a comment about peer review. It's simply one of tens of thousands of cases where there was peer review, we can assume.

    And, your comment about flu vaccine policy is still a total muddle, as you have no serious support for some new flu vaccine policy.

    Also, your claims of false reporting are just plain nonsense.
     
  3. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ll ask again. Is acceptance of peer reviewed research more telling of one’s true position on peer review or are claims of support for peer review but actual rejection of the products of peer review more telling?

    You claim to support peer review but reject actual peer reviewed evidence in favor of unsubstantiated opinions. I make my statement of support for peer review by accepting and reporting on the product of peer review.

    Support? Serious support from whom? Peer reviewed science doesn’t need support from anyone. It speaks for itself. Are you saying you only accept evidence if some mythical entity “supports” it?



    No they aren’t. I don’t post nonsense. I post evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

    You can start here for a bit of education on what actual science says about influenza deaths. If you read that thread starting at the link you will find I certainly don’t post nonsense. I correct nonsense posted by others.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072137735/

    Here’s one study you will find amongst others in that discussion on the topic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387426/

    This analysis of studies is from over a decade ago. And we have since discovered the main mechanism of how influenza triggers heart attacks. It’s inflammation detaching plaques from blood vessels that end up blocking blood vessels of the heart, leading to myocardial infarction.

    We have also learned many strokes are caused by influenza infection.

    So peer reviewed studies show 90,000 influenza deaths from cardiovascular events alone, not counting respiratory related deaths. Yet the CDC reports only “estimates” of 25,000 to 80,000 annually, usually in the 40,000 range.

    This is not my “claim” nor is it “nonsense”. It’s the conclusion of peer reviewed studies. If you read the linked thread you will discover more evidence including heart attack death statistics showing increases in heart attack deaths during the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic.

    Don’t feel bad for not being aware of this. Even physicians are mostly in the dark on this. But as I’ve told people before on PF, being unaware of information does not make it “nonsense”. I guess you are on record now referring to peer reviewed studies as “nonsense”. Kind of funny after you seemed to support peer review earlier in the thread.

    You have referred to evidence based medicine many times. But when actual evidence is presented you call it nonsense and reject it. You seem to prefer “evidence free medicine” or “unsubstantiated opinion based medicine” or “rejection of evidence based medicine”.

    How can you call my posts nonsense when they are based on evidence while your posts are 100% unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to authority?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2023
    Jack Hays likes this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are at least two problems with that.

    First, peer review is not perfect - it is an important gateway. So, other methods get used as well. For example, it can be important to see duplication of studies by unrelated groups.

    Next, if one accepts the paper on flu that you cite, it still leaves open the question of what would be a better policy on flu vaccines.
     
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh dear! Can you quote me anywhere on PF saying the peer review process is perfect? Are you claiming we can just reject evidence we don’t like because the peer review process is imperfect?

    Sure, multiple studies by different groups is best. That’s why I referenced the article I did that looked at data from multiple clinical trials and case studies, not just one single study. That’s why when I presented information on vaccine efficacy it was a huge meta analysis of peer reviewed studies by different scientists on various influenza strains and various vaccine platforms. I guess you missed those small details.

    I’m uninterested in policy. I’m interested in giving individuals correct information they can use to make healthier choices. Individuals can’t make correct choices when their only source of information is public health entities that are providing blatant disinformation. Policy can’t protect you or make you healthy. Only correct personal decisions can do that. That’s what I’m focused on. You can waste your time on policy that won’t change for the reasons I’ve provided. I’ll spend my time studying and reporting on actual evidence.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You say you are uninterested in policy.

    But, you ARE proposing that each individual should concoct their own policy. That is still a policy.

    In fact, you are rejecting the policy that professionals have established, are constantly testing and have adjusted as new information and new vaccine capability becomes available.

    Let's remember that the paper you cited does not address the issues that must be considered when creating policy improvements.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. The policy you introduced is this:


    policy
    noun [ C ]

    US

    /ˈpɑː.lə.si/ UK

    /ˈpɒl.ə.si/

    policy noun [C] (PLAN)
    ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situationsthat has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government, or a political party:


    And policy as defined by the CDC.

    You started out talking about POLICY created by government specifically. I’m uninterested in moving goalposts. Sorry.

    I’m pointing out the current policy is not based on evidence. In fact it’s based on verifiable disinformation. The current policy is not evidence based medicine.

    And no, the current policy has not been “adjusted” based on new information and new vaccines. All vaccines available are included in the meta analysis I provided.

    New information on vaccine efficacy and influenza deaths (vaccine efficacy is a function of deaths and illness) has NOT been evaluated and reflected in updated policy. That’s my whole point!

    Of course it does! But I’m uninterested in policy of government and government bureaucracy that you keep referring to in our conversation. You can keep your previous policies that are based on denial of science. I don’t want to deprive you of them. I just want you to know you can have better health if you base your decisions on science instead of government policy that denies science.

    Biology doesn’t care about your feelings or government policy.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Current policy absolutely is based on evidence, and you have presented NO argument to the contrary.
    You haven't come up with a new policy that would be superior to what we have today.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Current policy is not based on evidence. The evidence is clear the vaccine efficacy numbers used in policy formation are off by a factor of at least 2. When only half or less of actual influenza deaths are counted towards calculated efficacy that’s the result.

    Current policy denies evidence we’ve had for years and is formulated by bureaucracies that outright lie to you every year about how many Americans die from influenza.


    Attempting to rehabilitate corrupt bureaucracy is not interesting to me at all. Sorry. I have knowledge that can save your life. But I’m uninterested in your political games.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You still claim that current policy is somehow a failure (which which I disagree), but you have NOT shown any potential policy that the US could follow that would be better.

    Expecting individuals to somehow do better than what you are doing here just doesn't make sense. If you don't have a solution, then you have to admit that you don't have a solution.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  11. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113

    If the aged who need protection from influenza no longer derive any benefit from vaccination there is a failure. When the vaccination rate of seniors increases from under 20% to around 75% but instead of seeing a reduction in influenza deaths we see an increase in that demographic, we have failure. And that’s the figures based on estimates that are not including 90,000 cardiovascular event deaths caused by influenza. If that’s not a failure I don’t know what is.

    I already shared some ways to avoid destroying your ability to benefit from influenza vaccination in your old age.

    The information I provide is not for people who want others to do their thinking. It’s for people who care enough about their own health to engage their brains in the pursuit of knowledge that can benefit their health.

    I don’t tell people what to do. It’s none of my business if people wish to be healthy or not. But I want people who DO want to think for themselves and gain knowledge that leads to better health to have full knowledge, not just disinformation from public health entities and businesses with vested interest in a diseased population.

    I don’t want to decide what solution is best for you. I don’t know your age, your BMI, your C-reactive protein results, your diet, your exercise regimen, etc. so couldn’t make a better recommendation (solution) for you if I wanted to.

    I can fill in the massive knowledge gaps created by your faith in public health entities. I can empower you with knowledge so you can create the best solution for you. But you have to WANT knowledge. You have to WANT to think for yourself. You have to WANT to make your own decisions. You have to WANT evidence based medicine in your life.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2023
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your cites don't support your claim that the aged aren't deriving benefit from vaccination for flu.

    Further, they say nothing about what it would mean for them or any other population to stop getting flu vaccinations.

    And, your primary paper doesn't suggest that a policy mistake is being made, nor does it propose or test an alternative policy.

    https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135?login=false

    This idea that each individual can take your cited paper and create a better policy for vaccination is ridiculous. In fact, as pointed out several times now, there are holes in your interpretation of that paper - the kind of mistakes that could be expected when a general population is encouraged to reject vaccination based on one paper.

    In other words, you are proposing rejection of science based medicine.

    Thinking for yourself is a fine idea, but when it leads to people ignoring those who are experts in the field it becomes a problem, not a solution.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  13. ryobi

    ryobi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2013
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The thing about the PCR test is the specificity of the test is nearly 100% and the sensitivity of the test is over 90%. Usually as the specificity goes up the sensitivity goes down but in the case of the PCR test both the sensitivity and specificity are over 90%-which is almost unheard of in biomedical science. So, the PCR test is like the gold standard of tests in biomedical science.

    with each cycle of PCR the amount of the target sequence increases exponentially so after 25 cycles of PCR you get 33 million copies of the target sequence-that is if the target sequence was there in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2023
    WillReadmore likes this.
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they do. I provided evidence vaccination rates in that population have increased from around 20% to about 75% and death rates have actually increased. I’ve provided peer reviewed studies showing vaccine efficacy in that age group and others is greatly overestimated. I’ve provided peer reviewed studies showing that overestimate is based on the fact less than half of influenza deaths are reported as influenza deaths. This means efficacy calculations are overestimated by a factor of two.

    Because that’s not their study design.

    I’m well aware of that. In fact if you read the study you will find the study authors recommend NOT changing policy. The problem is they are using CDC death numbers in their efficacy calculations and those numbers are not correct. As shown by studies designed for the purpose of finding the true death rate from influenza.

    I’ve cited numerous papers. I’ve cited the AARP. I’ve cited multiple meta analysis of papers. I’m not interpreting any paper. I’m just reporting findings.

    Why would you consider critical thought ridiculous? Just because you don’t want to be responsible for thinking for yourself doesn’t mean nobody can or will.

    Can you please back up your accusations that I’ve encouraged anyone to reject vaccination based on one paper. Otherwise we are going to have to assume you are being disingenuous again. Please quote me saying any such thing on PF.

    Please point out what I’ve posted that is in conflict with any of the DOZENS of studies I’ve referenced. Please point out where I have interpreted anything.

    LOL. Certainly not. I’m encouraging you and others to look at actual evidence instead of basing your decisions on unsubstantiated opinions and denial of existing evidence.

    Please point out some evidence I’ve rejected. Not someone’s opinion, actual evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

    If “experts” in scientific fields are saying and doing things that are not supported by evidence they should be ignored. If they are saying and doing things that conflict with evidence produced through application of the scientific method they should be ignored.

    Why do you think we should take everything a public health entity has to say as gospel truth when there are many easily demonstrable cases where they outright lie?
     
  15. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PCR is a great tool. It’s lousy at detecting active infections but pretty good otherwise.

    Now, what exactly is your point in talking about PCR in the context of influenza deaths and vaccine efficacy?

    Did you read my posts or any of the links I’ve presented?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2023
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, if the experts in your cite recommend NOT changing policy, why are YOU recommending that people reject that policy?
    I do not see ANY case where some entity is lying.

    I do not see any case where experts are advocating for unsupportable policy. You yourself pointed out that the study you cited includes a defense of current policy. Thus when YOU say there is a "mistake" being made, you are NOT posting any evidence of that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2023
  17. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same reason I recommended wearing N95 quality masks when “experts” recommended against them. Because I go with what evidence shows, not opinion.

    The opinion of the authors of the VE meta analysis is based on their work. But their work overestimated VE by a factor of at least 2 because their study uses underestimated influenza death counts.

    You said before we can’t base evidence based medicine on ONE study. Do you believe that or is it just something you say? Now you want to ignore ALL other evidence based on ONE paper!

    If the CDC doesn’t report over half of influenza deaths for over a decade after peer reviewed meta analysis concludes their numbers are inaccurate they are lying.

    If the CDC tells you not to wear N95 masks for Covid but instead to wear cloth masks they are lying.

    People who believe lies never consider the source of the lie to be a liar.


    Ive posted reams of evidence seniors are having their ability to benefit from influenza vaccination destroyed. I’ve posted peer reviewed evidence the VE data used by the study on VE is incorrect because influenza deaths are under-reported. If health of seniors is the goal, and an increase in vaccination rates from 20% to 75% results in MORE deaths, not less, there is a mistake being made.

    You are as always more than welcome to critique the studies. You are welcome to provide evidence current policy is based on peer reviewed evidence. If the current policy is supported by studies why don’t you post those studies? If the evidence I provide is incorrect in your opinion why can’t you provide evidence to refute what I’ve posted?

    What makes your unsubstantiated opinion more valuable in matters of science than peer reviewed research? Be specific.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have NOT identified any lies.

    Plus, science based medicine does NOT get to make policy on its own. Science informs policy makers. Trump was a policy maker. You can read about Dr. Fauci's constraints in working under Trump.
    You have not identified anything related to a better policy on flu vaccines.

    This is not a critique of the studies. The cites you give do not propose a better policy on flu vaccines than what we have today.

    The fact of weakening medications does NOT MEAN that they shouldn't be used as per policy.

    More specifically, YOU do not have a superior policy on flu vaccination. And, proposing that every individual should make up their own is a disservice, as not even YOU can come up with a better policy.
     
  19. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just listed two. Would you like to present evidence cloth masks are superior to N95 NIOSH certified masks for preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2? I’m open to evidence. :)

    I’m uninterested in strawman fallacy.

    This policy is not informed by science. If it were someone could post that evidence. Where is it?

    You claimed Fauci didn’t make policy so why would that concern you?



    Because I’m uninterested in creating policy. If I had been interested in that I would be working for the NIH.

    I can help you figure out a better strategy for yourself but I would need to know your BMI, age, sex, exercise routine, C-reactive protein results, genetic propensity for heart disease and your vaccination history.

    Did someone claim they did? Was formulation of policy part of their study design?

    Have you put any thought into why few countries recommend mass annual vaccination? Probably not. You never put any thought into why our CDC was recommending against N95 masks for Covid while European counterparts were buying N95 equivalent masks and providing them at no charge to at risk demographics.

    Remember your claim about universal weakening of medications is false.



    Strawman. Whether or not I have a policy recommendation is completely irrelevant to the fact vaccination rates increasing over three-fold in the elderly population has resulted in more influenza deaths than before the increase.

    Now, you made this claim. I asked you to back it up with evidence. Please do so. Please quote me proposing rejection of science based medicine.


     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep switching topics.

    The topic here is peer review.

    I did NOT suggest that medications aren't weakening. I stated that you have no policy that could be considered superior.

    I'm tired of your approach to the topic.
     
  21. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first time I addressed your posts in this thread was to correct your false claims about poliovirus.

    At one point you claimed ALL medication’s efficacy decrease over time. That is also false.

    My “approach” is to accept evidence produced through application of the scientific method—a method which we “enforce” in modern science through the process of peer review. You prefer to reject peer reviewed evidence based on preconceived opinions, not based on conflicting evidence or identifiable flaws in study design or methodology.

    Yes, the subject of the thread is peer review. Thank you for demonstrating my actions speak louder than your words. You claim to value peer review while stating opinions easily shown to be false using peer reviewed studies and while rejecting meta analysis of peer reviewed studies that conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions. I’ve used peer reviewed research to show your opinions are not based on evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2023
    Pieces of Malarkey and Jack Hays like this.
  22. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem the sciences suffer from is Peer Review and the Replication Crisis.

    Those undertaking the Peer Review process do not undertake/repeat the experiment.

    The Replication Crisis is that half of scientists can't repeat the same results, and a larger percentage of 3rd party scientists fail to get those results too.

    So despite that, the scientific papers are passed and published, then others copy and paste them as settled science, hence the plethora of bad science used to back someone's beliefs.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
     
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a significantly greater issue in medicine and psychology (or other studies of human behavior).

    The reason is that strong controls that are used in physics or chemistry can not be applied to human beings for obvious ethical reasons.

    Also, lets remember that there are far more serious problems with NOT using science.
     
  24. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "strong controls" you refer to involve basically the whole of human history and more specifically, the last 4-500 years of real world application that pretty much assures us that things like Newtonian physics is pretty reliable.

    And with the current crisis in repeatability, there the odds favoring not using bad science are pretty good. Not taking a new medicine (the COVID vaccines come to mind) could probably work in your favor given their history so far.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,474
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not getting vaxed was just blind assed silly.

    There were many MILLIONS of test cases.

    What we saw was the irresponsibility of whole populations devastating our hospitals, morgues emergency responders and the rest. And, not just by not getting a simple and safe vaccination, but by refusing to use the several standard methods of protecting against transmittable disease that don't involve any medicine.

    We were lucky. The next time, the transmittable disease could easily be far more lethal, and we have whole populations who think it is cool to help transmit the disease to others.

    Think about this:

    The rats living in the subways of the entire world all have multiple versions of COVID.

    And, the disease is mutating among them.
     

Share This Page