And I’ll say add the disclaimer to the next part that there is no right/left, vaccine/anti-vaccine side-taking from me when it comes to my contempt for the ****ty reporting of studies and statistics, even though clearly I have a strong opinion on vaccinations. But whichever side chooses to sensationalize data without critically reviewing it first, scores a short-term victory at the cost of disastrous long-term skepticism.
>90% of the “studies” trumpeted by the media are not peer-reviewed, don’t have any type of controls, etc, rely on self-reporting, bias, and skewed population samples. But the incredible thing is the agendas of medical organizations, pharma, governments, etc. to gladly cite these and ignore the clear disclaimers that are often out up by the researchers themselves…because they need to score a PR victory.
Excellent post, really well put. I was trying to make a similar point, but I did a lousy job. I don't claim to be a medical expert, but I am an experienced scientific reviewer and well-published in peer reviewed journals. Our society is based on science (see: smartphones) and the lack of understanding of scientific research, as well as a number of dangerous trends, absolutely appalls me and IMHO threatens our technology based civilization.
As you say, real scientific researchers make only careful claims, and submissions to reputable science or medical journals are peer-reviewers (by top experts in the field) to vet and challenge every assertion that does not have iron-clad scientific evidence, to ensure that the (usually limited) claims are absolutely verified as fact, BEFORE the research is publicized. And, it takes lots of time to collect the right type of data for research studies on new phenomena (like the Delta variant).
But increasingly nobody wants to wait until data is collected over a large sample set to enable a conclusive research study. Many people now consider themselves experts at everything based on "research" that at worst is distorted information from social media, opinion makers, and conspiracy websites. But, as you pointed out, information Googled even by better informed non-experts is often sensationalized (by the media) preliminary conclusions with no review or controls. I keep hearing how "scientists keep saying different things!!!" and "who knows what to believe??". IMHO that is because the media trumpets either disinformation, distorted information, or preliminary or incomplete "newly released" research that has not been peer-reviewed, vetted, or corroborated. Of course such unvetted, exaggerated or preliminary info is conflicting.
As you say, unfortunately there are also researchers (often unfunded ones trying to make a splash to get grant funding) that themselves go to the media with preliminary headlines before their work has been reviewed (as cited in this and other threads) and then the media trumpets and extrapolates conclusions of this unvetted preliminary work.
I may be the last of a dying breed, but rather than anointing myself a medical or vaccine expert I will wait for recommendations from medical experts at entities like NIH and the CDC....and, occasionally Board experts like PBPF.
