Still hiding behind the chainsaws, juk, you know nothing about Marshall McLuhan.
Seriously, just stop. Or demonstrate one, just one single piece of intelligible evidence you know what medical literature is about, or how to interpret and apply that information, on any level. Or even the desire to learn. You have been asked here many times but have yet to demonstrate even the first bit of basic understanding of the process. You would systematically be booted from academic journal club, relegated to basis home assignments covering literature analysis and application.
A human with any perspective, honesty, or integrity would be beyond the point embarrassed. But yet you sail right along slinging out misinformation as if it were a troll, chopped up into a salad, pumped up on rye, the dressing sprinkled with make-believe facts, gleaned by the slithery tails. A psychedelic attempt at reality even Tom Wolfe would have recorded then kicked Further off the bus. Just that scrambled.........Opinions and observations do not magically become fact when stirred in a pot laced with chopped-on-the-block bits and pieces of information........Magical thinking is just that, magical, fantasy. In the real world, when human lives are in the balance, those of us actually taking that very real responsibility must in fact act that way, responsible. Not the slithering and slicing of bits and pieces of information slung out here.
Listen, medical literature and the eventual application to medical practice is very different from the literature and practice of other sciences. Why? Perpetual unknowns at the least. Myriad other reasons you could spend many careers analyzing and describing, the research difficult, methodologies hard to standardize, results often difficult to impossible to repeat, unknown or impossible to account-for variables, as yet mysteries of the human body and genetics, both of which we still know precious little, the end point, methods and results which are always in question, always. There is never a study or two, or even more, which gives final definitive medical answers. The literature pushes or pulls us in directions fine-tuned over time. Over forever. A slow and arduous, always present process.
Medicine is a game of statistics, the statistical accumulation of all the evidence we gather, that which pans out consistently, accumulates, other false, or lesser, uncertain, evidence subtracted, altered, fine-tuned, perfected, over forever, always reexamined, retested, looked at with literally new and different eyes, at different times, among different people. A game of statistics, yet even that is not good enough. When you apply statistics to the individual you have an entirely new set of variables. Blindly you may be right a statistical amount of time, for xyz, but that's not good enough when applied to an individual. You need more.
So we keep looking, observing, gathering information, using the imperfect and subjective art, personal experience, practice experience, anecdotal evidence, hey I keep seeing this variation isn’t that weird, keep that on the back burner, but always with the struggle to keep an open mind, to be ever conscience of natural and inherent biases, and to constantly battle all those dangers, including those dangers yet unknown. Medical literature is never final, definitive, absolute. That has to be acknowledged or the entire process is bogus. And all studies have flaws. Understanding those flaws is issue number one in effective use of the medical literature. Medical literature has to be used with full knowledge of the inherent weaknesses. Without even an understanding of the technical analysis of the literature and how to rank and weigh different levels of evidence, balanced in the overall aggregate of incoming accumulated information, all applied and perpetually fine-tuned to a medical problem, the process totally dependent of the consequence of that effort, well, that random airing of select literature is meaningless.
I do not have a side, with the exception of the truth. Prove masks or immunizations are harmful and I’m with you. That most certainly has not been done. Not even close. My natural and required skeptical interpretation would find that unlikely, but keep looking. Of course, if you don’t even bother to learn how to look, a blind nod is as good as a wink, at least for Dostoevsky’s horse. I’m not suggesting you ignore Cervantes entirely, windmills are all the rage, just don't go full Quixote, learn the technical game if you wish to play with any meaning. Learn how to gather and weigh the evidence, how to aggregate and apply that evidence, and most importantly how the consequence of that application alters the entire process. Welcome aboard and get out there and do the work. It’s never too late, unless of course, ego trips you over the abyss. Which is a real and present danger…….
