Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[luka_skywalker_77]

The difference is pretty clear. You, Mr. Skywalker, getting pregnant, doesn't immediately put those in your proximity of contracting a potentially deadly virus. Whether that difference means that a vaccine mandate is reasonable is still a discussion. But the discussion can't end with, "they're the same", because they're not. 

The peer review process isn't perfect, but it does provide an avenue for experts to review and critique the work of others that should be experts as well. The hope is that this pushes the science forward as things get incorporated, revised or thrown out. Not all journals are of equal value, and if a journal publishes questionable stuff too often, or published poor work for profit motive, or if folks create their own journals to try to push sub standard work, then the folks that know what they're doing eventually learn that about the outlets that are substandard. 

Folks leaning on non-expert, non peer reviewed stuff regarding the pandemic has lead to the circulatoin of some pretty crazy, easily debunked beliefs about the virus.

I don't really get this comment. Even if you disagree with his content, he's been a gentlement. Same for @"Dahlsim" actually. 

Not sure if I've read all your stuff, so maybe you've done the same. Your stuff seems to be "assertion" heavy. But if you don't value the peer review process, then maybe that's what you're left with.

Deadly? Potentially deadly. Again 99%, so I don't agree with your premise. My weekend's football watching negates that point, for if it were truly deadly---anyways. They are the same for all intents and purposes aiming towards ending the pandemic. Problem is, they wont. This is basically recommending a cup of coffee to solve a stomach ache. Yes there are over 600k deaths, many that could have been preventable provided proper prophylaxes were used in the proper timeframes. We're trending beyond those rates now WITH a vaccine so perhaps certain treatments weren't properly examined?

In terms of peer review--i think you have the wrong impression. PR doesn't mean unbiased, nor does it mean a paper was checked for factual basis or accuracy upon review. It's not entirely meant to be trusted. 

But I'm more than happy to provide any context to something you've questioned; most of which is outside of the mainstream biases. I contend i've not said anything inaccurate here that i can't back up in conversation.