Highest rate of vaccine hesitancy is among those with PHDs

[Twinblade★ 3,922]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9893465/Americans-PhDs-reluctant-vaccinated-against-COVID-study-finds.html

 

 

Interesting study.....clearly doesn't conform to the narrative that its all just poorly educated rednecks & Trump supporters.

[Goukosan 2,255]

1 hour ago, Twinblade said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9893465/Americans-PhDs-reluctant-vaccinated-against-COVID-study-finds.html

 

 

Interesting study.....clearly doesn't conform to the narrative that its all just poorly educated rednecks & Trump supporters.

 

This spin with this is almost as bad as when MS says Xbox had a great success it sold 100% more consoles this month.. But when you check the raw data it shows that they went from selling 1 console to selling two consoles... Same applies here. 

 

"Researchers surveyed just over five million US adults in an online survey, with 10,000 reporting that they were educated to PhD level." 

 

Few things

 

1) That 23.9% represents a smaller raw total number than those other categories.

 

Not only that, If you look at the questionnaire you will find that the MD's and DVM's are "professional degree," and there is no "PhD" classification at all.

 

So the chart is deceptive.

 

D8 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

1. Less than high school
2. High school graduate or equivalent (GED)
3. Some college
4. 2 year degree
5. 4 year degree
6. Master’s degree
7. Professional degree (e.g. MD, JD, DVM)
8. Doctorate

 

Category 7 is where the actual Medical Doctors are listed (MD, DVM etc)  and those are only at 12.3% hestiency......but on the chart under profressional degree they only list JD as an example even though it actually represents MDs as well..... Lmfao. 

 

Check it out yourself.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.article-metrics

 

 

2) And last but not least, the reason it has that glaring error is because it's a preprint that hasn't been peer reviewed.  

 

The authors themselves said for any Journalist who reports on this paper should note that the conclusions aren't final as yet as it has to be peer reviewed and that should be noted in the reporting.... But of course daily mail didn't include that in their reporting. 

 

From the authors themselves - 

 

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." 

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

 

What is an unrefereed preprint?

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions.

 

Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

 

Because this process can be lengthy,

authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as

“preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing

other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

 

" We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Goukosan

[Cooke 2,029]

5 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

This spin with this is almost as bad as when MS says Xbox had a great success it sold 100% more consoles this month.. But when you check the raw data it shows that they went from selling 1 console to selling two consoles... Same applies here. 

 

"Researchers surveyed just over five million US adults in an online survey, with 10,000 reporting that they were educated to PhD level." 

 

Few things

 

1) That 23.9% represents a smaller raw total number than those other categories.

 

Not only that, If you look at the questionnaire you will find that the MD's and DVM's are "professional degree," and there is no "PhD" classification at all.

 

So the chart is deceptive.

 

D8 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

1. Less than high school
2. High school graduate or equivalent (GED)
3. Some college
4. 2 year degree
5. 4 year degree
6. Master’s degree
7. Professional degree (e.g. MD, JD, DVM)
8. Doctorate

 

Category 7 is where the actual Medical Doctors are listed (MD, DVM etc)  and those are only at 12.3% hestiency......but on the chart under profressional degree they only list JD as an example even though it actually represents MDs as well..... Lmfao. 

 

Check it out yourself.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.article-metrics

 

 

2) And last but not least, the reason it has that glaring error is because it's a preprint that hasn't been peer reviewed.  

 

The authors themselves said for any Journalist who reports on this paper should note that the conclusions aren't final as yet as it has to be peer reviewed and that should be noted in the reporting.... But of course daily mail didn't include that in their reporting. 

 

From the authors themselves - 

 

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." 

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

 

What is an unrefereed preprint?

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions.

 

Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

 

Because this process can be lengthy,

authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as

“preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing

other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

 

" We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

 

 

 

Your obsession with peer reviews is showing again. 

[Goukosan 2,255]

53 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Your obsession with peer reviews is showing again. 

 

Even if you ignore that it hasn't been peer reviewed, (which by the way the authers said to not ignore that fact) the actual chart for Phd's is at 12.3% not 23.9% as daily mail claims 

[Cooke 2,029]

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

 

Even if you ignore that it hasn't been peer reviewed, (which by the way the authers said to not ignore that fact) the actual chart for Phd's is at 12.3% not 23.9% as daily mail claims 

You know what hasn't been peer reviewed? The recommendation of random face coverings to prevent the spread of Covid. None of that shit works except for n95 masks. 

[Goukosan 2,255]

17 minutes ago, Cooke said:

You know what hasn't been peer reviewed? The recommendation of random face coverings to prevent the spread of Covid. None of that shit works except for n95 masks. 

 

That deflection 

Cooke's an antimasker now 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Goukosan

[Cooke 2,029]

12 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

That deflection 

Cooke's an antimasker now 

A proper masker