GateAgent007

You self admittedly went to a "LIBERATE [YOUR STATE HERE]" rally. Most likely armed. That puts you in a distinct category of radical zealot. Don't sell yourself short. How much MAGA merch do you own?

block30

Damn right I did! Inside my car to be socially distanced. The media lied about it too. Said there were guns and agitation and near violence, it was nearly all white, etc. Bull! But you conveniently glossed over that.


I have said, and state supreme courts and sheriff's have also ruled these lockdowns and decrees un-constitutional. FFS open air farmers markets in California were shutdown. Just one example of the crazy your types foisted on everyone else.

LA Mayor Closing Farmers

Markets

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/coronavirus/la-mayor-talks-covid-19-testing-updates-city-on-coronavirus-spread/2337996/

Katherine Schwarzenegger

works to get Los Angeles

mayor to shut down

farmers

markets amid coronavirus

crisis

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-los-angeles-mayor-farmers-market-schwarzenneger-20200402-pzhgzejglvhwxbnwl4qjk5t7m4-story.html


I think people should eat. The under age 60 crowd should be able to go to work and provide for themselves and their family. That is not a partisan issue.

God youre a tool. And you just love to put it on display.

Knobcrk1

Election night was probably very confusing for you huh?

block30

If ya wanna go there, how did the dems do? Not a good night. So much for that blue wave huh?

Ive said before the POTUS is his own worst enemy.
Another swing and miss for ya! You beclown yourself again.

Said once more for emphasis, Knobcrk1 aligned themself publicly with wutface. Ouch.

Ronaldo

So are you still saying that peer review does not include checking the reproducibility and/or validity of data analysis? In your previous reply it is unclear.

As for bias, that’s why many journals use single or double blind practices during review.

NE_Pilot

Checking the reproducibility of results is not the same as reproducing the results. Peer review does not reproduce the results, it does not run the experiment/study again. A rather large and touted study earlier this year, which was used to make policy decisions, was found to have data that was unverifiable, yet made it through the peer review process. It is not the only one, and was likely only found out due to how much outside attention is being paid to these particular studies.

As I stated, peer review is not the end of process as much of the public seems to believe, it is closer to the beginning.

A journal may use those practices but a paper is still being read by a person who has bias. A paper still receives funding from an organization that has bias. A journal still has people who choose which studies to publish in their journal, and they have bias.p

Ronaldo

Ok, I can accept most of that. So you don’t consider peer review a valuable process? If you have two papers on the same experiment and one has been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal, while the other failed pre-publication, you weigh them equally?

NE_Pilot

That’s not what I said. Peer review has a place and purpose, but the general public’s idea of peer review is not what peer review is. Peer review does not determine what “is”. A paper may fail pre-publication for many reasons but that does not by default mean the conclusion is wrong. Just as a paper that makes it is not by default correct. Further investigation is needed and others need to see if they can reproduce the results. Unfortunately not much money is given out to those who try to reproduce already published results.

Ronaldo

Sorry, I did not intend to put words in your mouth. Just trying to narrow the argument.

Mesabah

The hilarity of this, is that the paper I linked to that was withdrawn, said that masks were effective. Not a single one of you read it, instead you went immediately to your confirmation bias, and rejected it.