Quote:
Originally Posted by Far-L
Fair enough...
But what peer reviewed science journals would you consider worthy of following in terms of scientific debate of any given hypothesis?
Unfortunately, when vast research grant money is used as a threat even those institutions are not immune to the infections of greed.
If fellow scientists are not allowed peer review without that bias tainting their findings, then even the most sacred peer reviewed journals, published openly for the purpose of inquiry and debate, become suspect as just another channel for disinformation in the form of unchallenged hypothesis and unsubstantiated "fact".
|
Oh, i'm certainly not a "the science is settled" guy. In fact, I rail against that here @ gfy.
we aren't scientists here. We chat about science and our understandings of it is all. WHP is in that group of us.
At the same time, *peer-reviewed* is an expression not many 20 year olds with an infant prolly ever heard of. Let alone spend the vast amount of hours sorting out 1) how to know which are valid and which are not 2) learning the vernacular used in real science documentation and 3) making a logical decision after reading the reams of data collected. not realistic and not needed. Vaccines aren't complicated.
as I understand it, wait till ~2 years old and don't get the all-in-one vaccines. IS there any thing more a responsible parent would do re: vaccinations?