I was just explaining that the recent data we have for legalizing hard drugs is corrupted like this because it's only been employed by partisan anarcho-tyrant states AFAIK

Slightly related:

Getting “the data say” vs “the data says” right is the lowest bar for statistics competence

Which I sometimes fail

Science is Redacted.

Ultimately, it will have to be decentralized.

www.redactedscience.org

every time someone tries to explain something, most of them make efforts to divert the topic and do everything possible not to talk about it, as soon as you talk about something and suddenly someone starts to share their experiences or try to make him right without understanding. what was being talked about.

Of course there is ambiguity and bias in any data, it’s impossible to remove. It even exists in this counter factual argument as well, which is not presented with corresponding data or evidence and is therefore just anecdotal narrative. That doesn’t make it untrue, I’m sure it is. But it’s not unverifiable in a way that makes it 100% clear for one to truly know if what is being said is real. It’s a statement.

People have adverse reactions to vaccines, drugs, innocuous foods all the time. It is not a gotcha and just because they do doesn’t mean vaccines are bad.

I don’t see anyone trying to ban peanuts and they kill orders of magnitude more people than vaccines. The fact that they’re floating around in many foods when people can literally die if they come in contact could be considered insane, but for some reason culturally we don’t think that.

Is there a hidden conspiracy with peanuts? No.

I don’t doubt that mainstream media, or even some mainstream research attempts to remove data points, limit knowledge - of course that happens. I don’t doubt that data, research and “science” itself isn’t doctored. That isn’t my point. But science cannot operate like that at scale, or at least for the most part because there is falsifiability, and adversarial review at every stage and in that way it edges toward truths, while making mistakes along the way.

Just because there is outliers and anomalies does not equate to all science being faulty or vaccines being obviously bad because someone points the inevitable but horrific outliers that happen when people consume anything - people die from eating paracetamol. While offering no scientific rationale in return, just trust me bro.

The excellent book by John Massaro, Will Vaccines Be the End of Us?, exposes numerous (and egregiously non-scientific) frauds used by some vaccine companies and promoters. Simply put, money can be used to buy bias and silence.

Sure, but pure science is a process and the end “conclusions” are always open to challenges and new data from often anecdotal input. Relative to everything, we know nothing. The scientific process is important or we would only have a loud chorus of stories about everyone’s cousin’s mother-in-law.

Actually, the funding sources are often the problem. They can taint what is “studied” and influence every step of the process.