Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
churchmousec.wordpress.com | ||
| | | | |
ryankemper.io
|
|
| | | | | Introduction [DISCLAIMER: The original author is a layperson without medical/scientific credentials and this post represents a best-effort attempt to synthesize relevant research and unpack the policy implications of the ?lockdown? approach as compared with the proposed alternative.] [Note: See the very last section, ?(The End) Help us improve this review?, for how you can contribute. Here?s where you can submit suggestions or identify issues.] The following lays out what we now know about the Coronaviru... | |
| | | | |
drmalcolmkendrick.org
|
|
| | | | | 3rd September 2021 Thank you to the many people who have e-mailed me recently and asked if I have been silenced. I have not. I have had letters from Public Health England and the General Medical Council, informing me that I was under investigation for daring to question anything about COVID19, particularly vaccines. The good... | |
| | | | |
occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com
|
|
| | | | | Coronavirus shown to be a hoax coronavirus, pangolins, Chinese cobra, many-banded krait | |
| | | | |
lemire.me
|
|
| | | [AI summary] The article discusses the limitations of peer review in science, using historical and contemporary examples to argue that it is not the gold standard. It highlights cases where peer review may suppress innovative or controversial ideas, such to the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. The piece critiques the suppression of dissenting views and the role of funding and institutional pressures in shaping scientific discourse. It concludes that science should be open and progressive, with peer review being a tool rather than a gatekeeping mechanism. | ||
