You have a good pharma shill technique. You download tons of fake information that would take me a day and a half to refute. I’m going to have to get pro-active about getting the truth out there because nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has time to wade through the INDUSTRY APPROVED FAUCI LEVEL propaganda you post. It’s the ‘narrative’ reposted on Free Republic because we were out here in the wild, choosing our own sources the government has not blessed. We now have ‘state doctors’ who tell us what the ‘TRUTH’ is and any non-state doctor who says different will be fired, threatened, stripped of certification or license to practice. Yes - that’s your group, turning America into the CCP one state-approved post at a time.
The legitimate process of peer-review has been purchased by FAUCI over his 40 plus years buying compliance, so that if frowns, the Lancet will pull an article and lie about it for years. So normal scientists can’t get ‘non-state approved’ opinions published. They finally put together their own peer review sources because they don’t want to be Faucists, they want to be doctors. And for this you sneer that they set the bar low for themselves; how DARE they escape state level censorship. Don’t they know who now owns medicine?! Don’t they know every American now has the same doctor, and he’s a FED?
You are going to have to try harder than that. I get my information from the scientific/medical literature, the literature that scientists all over the world consult in order to inform and guide their own research.
How, may I ask, do you go about refuting a published research report?
Why don't you start with this paper, Genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants in Delhi reveals alterations in immunogenic regions in spike glycoprotein? Explain to me how you are going to refute their experimental methods and analysis. Explain how the bioanalytic algorithms they used are faulty. Tell me how their analysis is wrong and why their protein diagrams (figures 3, 4, and 5) are flawed.
And then, after you successfully refute this paper (which I chose at random), go ahead and try to refute any of the references that I have previously provided.
I don't think you can do it.
The thing about science is that research papers are written so that other scientists can replicate the research. Unless you read the paper and do the experiments yourself, you can't even begin to refute it. And even if you had your own personal research laboratory and did the experiment yourself and got a different result, that would still not be a refutation. You would have to demonstrate (with experimental evidence and theoretical explanation) that the experiment they describe cannot have the result they reported. Can you do that?