nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqnac93fnqmsjtx77s6mmlgvprmx9dpd09g75dyql3juq2utlslxkqvf7c02 (nprofile…7c02) Sometimes there's so much to ask about this stuff... I have family members who spend time eating this stuff up as real information - but even as I look at it today I am reminded what a layman I am. I can point out things like "Children's Health Defense Network" isn't a good source, Michael Nevradakis' PhD is in journalism, the place where the study is published is questionable (though I can't seem to get a definitive "this is a bullshit publishing house"), and I don't see where this study is peer-reviewed, or even how I'd reference that. Doing a cursory scan of the study I see their study is of VAERS data, which, for me, is where I'd like to stop with "raw VAERS data is a pile of questionable crap mixed in with real reports".
Am I off track with my presumptions about this thing possibly not being peer reviewed, or that their study comes from questionable data in the first place? Would I be missing other items that say "Come on, this is bunk"? I generally don't look at individual studies, but I know the anti-vax crowd seems to hang on each new study's words that fit their narratives, even when the study's been updated or retracted. (I have a family member who can't get off the 'aluminum is eating our brains' bit...)
Kinetix /
npub1nx…6g4vs
2024-11-22 17:33:24
in reply to nevent1q…yxns
Author Public Key
npub1nxqylw7882vqses64kd0szm2q0f3klleggkv3cqt8u6qeg3cs9pqc6g4vsPublished at
2024-11-22 17:33:24Event JSON
{
"id": "82e717d569ba4aeca713c33b82c773499ef8d22ffc80801d62752fd4870e72f5",
"pubkey": "99804fbbc73a9808661aad9af80b6a03d31b7ff9422cc8e00b3f340ca2388142",
"created_at": 1732296804,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"9f7058a660dc24b37bd0d6f7f43023d98ad0b5e547a8d203f19700ae2ff0f9ac",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"5f1623d9b62000b1b0d49dd3b39025aee932784b44e20ab52da2a28298ce9871",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"a7acbfa1a874eea55102ccf3971457150c5d1f6219107cc37882d12a3ef4c6a4",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mycrowd.ca/objects/110c6c45-084e-4f3d-90e8-b76bc7f1d18e",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqnac93fnqmsjtx77s6mmlgvprmx9dpd09g75dyql3juq2utlslxkqvf7c02 Sometimes there's so much to ask about this stuff... I have family members who spend time eating this stuff up as real information - but even as I look at it today I am reminded what a layman I am. I can point out things like \"Children's Health Defense Network\" isn't a good source, Michael Nevradakis' PhD is in journalism, the place where the study is published is questionable (though I can't seem to get a definitive \"this is a bullshit publishing house\"), and I don't see where this study is peer-reviewed, or even how I'd reference that. Doing a cursory scan of the study I see their study is of VAERS data, which, for me, is where I'd like to stop with \"raw VAERS data is a pile of questionable crap mixed in with real reports\".\n\nAm I off track with my presumptions about this thing possibly not being peer reviewed, or that their study comes from questionable data in the first place? Would I be missing other items that say \"Come on, this is bunk\"? I generally don't look at individual studies, but I know the anti-vax crowd seems to hang on each new study's words that fit their narratives, even when the study's been updated or retracted. (I have a family member who can't get off the 'aluminum is eating our brains' bit...)",
"sig": "13a67efe466edb3d7684f5f52d327cdd3184678e6329e7d95cfefbb6dd0b5aaf83eba91e850702ce18bd1e2b6bd0d5e2740333afa6dbd0efc215e3b60c1b8705"
}