Posted on 02/21/2022 1:56:02 PM PST by ransomnote
Wrong link. I’ll see if I can find the one I was thinking of....
Like me.
Michal Mann
Phil Jones
James Hansen
Look them up in the context of “peer review.”
No not like you.
You’ve paid your dues, you’ve been in the trenches.
These people popped up from unknown just to score some cash.
Get over to Truth Social………you’ll be more than happy there and welcomed.
Nothing is stopping any of these so-called “peer reviewers” from reviewing the report and publishing their own conclusions.
Oh, please! 75 years.
Somebody ought to pull up and post the picture of the FDA approval process. The FDA doctor looking through his wad of rolled up 100s like it was a microscope.
I will, but there’s a backlog of 200,000 at least. It will be months.
There are great people on substack, including Naomi Wolf, Alex Berenson, and others. I have found some terrific analysis there, much like we used to have here at FR.
Gaffer wrote: “Nothing is stopping any of these so-called “peer reviewers” from reviewing the report and publishing their own conclusions.”
Except that the authors refused to submit their report for such review. Why? What are afraid too?
Gaffer wrote: “Look them up in the context of “peer review.””
Seems like all three tried to subvert peer reviews.
Why?
Gaffer wrote: “Oh, please! 75 years.”
As I’ve said before, there are legal reasons, proprietary and PID, that require a complete review prior to it’s release. The seventy-five years was completely uncalled for. And, as I said before the courts will force an expedited review.
Not just subvert reviews. They were in control of the periodicals/associations to the extent that it made their collusions so execrable. They were bullies.
Bullies just like many of the ‘experts’ who want to pooh pooh concerns over the vax or delay data release for data that likely had been released a priori (what trial have you ever seen that didn’t make you sign privacy act releases and the like?)
So....you’re saying the report wasn’t released ANYWHERE? Or just not in your journal-of-preference?
So....you’re saying the report wasn’t released ANYWHERE? Or just not in your journal-of-preference? Hint: The link for the paper/report is in the very first link-cite in this article.
A "fact" they pulled, fully-formed, directly out of their butts.
Being anti-vax researchers they don't even attempt to back up their ludicrous claims, but when you audience is other credulous anti-vaxers reality is optional.
Gaffer wrote: “So....you’re saying the report wasn’t released ANYWHERE? Or just not in your journal-of-preference? Hint: The link for the paper/report is in the very first link-cite in this article.”
It has been released. Now why do you think that it wasn’t submitted for peer review?
Are you aware that Kirsch started Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF)?
Perhaps you’re not aware that “In May, all 12 members of CETF’s scientific advisory board resigned, citing his alarming dangerous claims and erratic behavior. Over the summer, the conflict reached his most recent startup, M10. Its board told him that if he wanted to remain part of the company he would have to stop making public anti-vaccine statements. In September, he resigned as CEO and gave up his board seat.”
And, there’s this: “What has alarmed many of the scientists associated with CETF, though, are Kirsch’s reactions to the work he’s funded—both successes and failures. He’s refused to accept the results of a hydroxychloroquine trial that showed the drug had no value in treating covid, for instance, instead blaming investigators for poor study design and statistical errors.”
That should give you pause and question why this paper hasn’t been submitted for peer review. What is Kirsch fearful of?
Why, indeed. Perhaps the board saw its chance at funding from alternative non vax, non government sources threatened because of government suppression and recrimination campaigns. The point REMAINS the paper is out there, just like Foxx Mulder would say. Why is it you feel the need to have him formally 'submit' his paper to your journal-of-preference for it to be even worthy of looking at or on the odd chance a credible detractor takes the time to refute? You continually approach all this from a vax-snobbery standpoint born of existing bias against any and all detraction. Your 'truth' is your truth - doesn't make it true or right. You're the veritable Vax Catch 22 of FR, AFAIC.
Gaffer wrote: “Why is it you feel the need to have him formally ‘submit’ his paper to your journal-of-preference for it to be even worthy of looking at or on the odd chance a credible detractor takes the time to refute?”
I don’t have a journal of preference. Anyone who wants to lend credence to such claims should insist upon an expert peer review.
Gaffer wrote: “You continually approach all this from a vax-snobbery standpoint born of existing bias against any and all detraction.”
No, I approach all of this unsubstantiated anti-vaxxer propaganda with a healthy dose of skepticism. Why is it so many here of FR accept any and all anti-vaxxer claims without question?
Gaffer wrote: “Why, indeed. Perhaps the board saw its chance at funding from alternative non vax, non government sources threatened because of government suppression and recrimination campaigns.”
“With little government funding available for such work, Kirsch founded the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), putting in $1 million of his own money and bringing in donations from Silicon Valley luminaries: the CETF website lists the foundations of Marc Benioff and Elon Musk as donors. Over the last 18 months, the fund has granted at least $4.5 million to researchers testing the covid-fighting powers of drugs that are already FDA-approved for other diseases. “
Explain again why the board would remove Kirsch when he was the source of much of their funding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.