I don't get what you are arguing here. Are you telling me I shouldn't trust experts because sometimes they are wrong? I've already said that sometimes things are wrong and neither you nor me nor anyone else should blindly believe things. If I base my beliefs on things that have level of agreement amongst the experts, I am going to be right a whole lot more often than I am wrong. But yeah, every now and then I am going to be wrong.
Knowing or not doesn't change the fact it isn't what it isn't. But when data is withheld it generally manifest itself when other's can't reproduce the results, which is part of the peer review process.
You'd be surprised what you can get if you email the author of a paper you are interested in. No one person can know everything about everything, but you can know a whole lot about some particular thing if you run all the traps and ask all the people. We live in a time of information overload. Don't let the sensation of there being so much we can't know be mistaken for it being kept from you. There are only so many hours in a day and any topic can be endless. Imagine the meta-analyses one could conduct on just college sports rosters over a 10 year period. And that is literally trivial. Data are virtually endless on endless topics. Doesn't mean it is hidden or all faked.
That was fraud. A company was fined pretty heavily for it. How were they caught you ask? With science.
I'm saying this is why people don't always trust experts. But heaven forbid someone challenge them unless they are another scientist.
I don't think people should always trust experts. Problem is, there is a sizeable portion of the population that never trusts the experts, and they are amongst the loudest. I also don't mind the experts being challenged, but yeah I am going to be skeptical when the people doing the challenging don't bring forward any of their own evidence.
I don't trust experts blindly, no one should. Not the same as rejecting things supported by mountains of supporting information.
The issue isn't challenging conclusions, its the challenge is a low effort nuh-uh, with an anecdote as proof. No application of the scientific method to back up their claims. So its worth very little.
Their eyes. They saw people dying and knew there was a problem. It was pretty simple. Science failed and they realized it using their eyes.
So what? Let them be and let people make their own calls. If science is so perfect all that will be left is the people that follow it. Perfect world.
Hence the “worthwhile”. We didn’t get a study on masks until late 2022. Don’t think we ever got a study on naturally acquired immunity. The bulk of NIH funded studies were examining how certain ethnic groups were affected compared to others.
You're right on that. I was surprised that they didn't go in super deep on masks, and there did seem to be more ethnic group studies that I could easily interpret as following density and household trends than was really going to help anyone. I assume the mask study was hard to do ethically.
When talking about covid deaths it’s seems it should always be mentioned that not all “covid deaths” were covid. People who died from car wrecks or heart attack or whatever other reasons were classified as covid when they shouldn’t have been. I don’t recall and too tired to look so correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t stroke, heart attack, pneumonia and other common causes drop during that time when they were classified as covid instead. I know covid was deadly to especially a specific population but there was some political bullshit like mentioned above along the way, which is why people doubt and question and have the right to. Science seems to be the only job in the world besides a weatherman that allows you to say one thing one day and one thing the next and just say “it’s science, shit changed” without getting fired.
