COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[mkm5]

Was speaking with the early voting poll worker in my little corner of Texas about early voter turnout.

Last Prez election this location had 15 (!) early voters total. 4 days in and there have been 90 votes cast already.

Just my verification of the big turnout noise, at least here in Chillicothe America.

That's how we do it, get out and vote, and take some people with you!

I live in a small town too, going in person with some family and friends.

Kinda funny, my ex-wife called me yesterday to make sure I was going to vote and she wanted me to talk with our four daughters about it. She's never talked about politics before.

[wal]

Do your own risk analysis to decide if thats ok.

Based on the data provided by the sponsor, other data available to FDA including real world evidence, and
based upon its benefit-risk analysis, the review team concludes that the data support that the known and
potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks, and therefore recommends authorization of the
use of a single booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to individuals 16 years of age and
older at least 6 months after completion of primary vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine or COMIRNATY"

Just trust the FDA

So do I trust them?

It is not about whether the original document is accurate it is whether you trust the comments on that document as being truthful by Slay News. A document which itself states on every page "not certified by peer review".

[Mark Rippetoe]

Wal, you don't know much about "peer review" in publication. All it really means is that the reviewers agreed with you.

[wal]

Wal, you don't know much about "peer review" in publication.

Your right mark I don't. Do you review what is published on your website say in the articles section or do you just trust the author?

[Martin Shenfield]

People, please do not forget that those in charge love you unconditionally and want the very best for you.

[wal]

Peer review is not a guarantee of accuracy or truth. It's a relatively recent process that started from good premises, but in its current form has degenerated mostly into a conformity check. Peer review process might occasionally catch some egregious mistakes, or manipulations, but offers no incentives to actually test the results in a paper, and therefore verify its results. That would require access to experiment data (not all publications require authors to provide it, actually most don't) and then time to replay the experiment and check the result; as peer-reviewing is not paid, and counts for little in terms of career, very few reviewers bother.
The task of catching bad results falls therefore on the people who will attempt replication of the result after its publication, and sometimes it will take years before this happens.
Plenty of famous, even seminal peer-reviewed articles have subsequently been proved wrong, or even fraudulent. And, in general, a huge percentage of published results cannot be reproduced (General overview: https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a.pdf . An egregious example from the field of cancer research: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a.pdf ).

So, the fact that a paper has been peer-reviewed means very little, it certifies little more than compliance with some very broad rules, and certainly says nothing about the truth of the content. The process is quite ineffective at its stated goal, and there is a growing movement of opinion to reform it, or even abolish it. After all, before WWII it did not exist, and plenty of good science was done nevertheless.IPB

Thanks for your excellent explanation.

This is a poor example I am giving, but I was a substation tech and I use to work in HV Substations and when contractors needed to take out or work on HV equipment we had to write a switching schedule to safely remove say a circuit breaker or a transformer from service ensuring that it would be safe to work on. Otherwise someone could be burned by the high voltage. Each instruction was written by an operator then countersigned by an engineer, then I had to review it as a final check therefore my ass was on the line when I put that instruction into action. I was extremely careful that the process was safe from start to re-energisation. So we reviewed those written instructions at least three times, and finally I walked through the instruction checking each step one by one, otherwise someone could die if the instruction was flawed.

As far as medical documents go I understand they need to be peer reviewed to certify that what is written is accurate as lives may be at risk, but as you say that is no guarantee.

Plenty of famous, even seminal peer-reviewed articles have subsequently been proved wrong, or even fraudulent.

That is very unfortunate.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Your right mark I don't. Do you review what is published on your website say in the articles section or do you just trust the author?

I edit all the articles on this website. This is not peer-review.

[wal]

I edit all the articles on this website. This is not peer-review.

Well I have considered and still do with regard to Strength Training you are a "peer" on this subject and you do in a way look with discernment that which passes over your desk before you post it. You are in a sense the "gatekeeper". This is good that is why when it comes to reading articles on your Starting Strength website it can be trusted. I thank you for that.

[Mark Rippetoe]

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1850233429159219307

She makes this easy.

[Subby]

Wal, what do you think peer review is exactly? Can you describe how you think the process works from start to finish?