Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones - Additional documentation on the replication crisis in science: most studies don't replicate, and those that don't are cited more than those that do.
As shown in Fig. 2, papers that replicate are cited 153 times less, on average, than papers that do not...
An article from UC San Diego News Center explaining the study.
Your Environment - thorough records of Canadian climate, etc. data. Curiously, no global warming trend!
The People Committee documentation - a group of Israeli doctors raising concerns about data they've collected regarding the unsafety of Chinavirus vaccines.
Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth - A declaration by Ontario doctors rejecting the CPSO's authoritarian attempt to censor their exercise of personal judgment, as I wrote about on May 1.
SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data - A French study highlighting case fatality rates of other respiratory viruses and pointing out that SARS-CoV-2 is no more deadly.
Another anti-mask peer-reviewed literature review, this one focused on the negative side-effects of prolonged mask usage. Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?
We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks. Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.
only weak evidence at best could be found for masks alone in everyday use
Are sex differences in human brain structure associated with sex differences in behaviour? A controversial pre-print out of psyarxiv exploring the titular question. The conclusion is "yes".
How science has been corrupted, an article about the authoritarian politics surrounding media misrepresentation of scientific endeavour.
A previous citation of mine, "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis" has been officially retracted for a few reasons, none of which pertain to the cited studies. It doesn't change the research, some of which which is aggregated above as well. I've had a thought to actually critically evaluating the paper myself, because the references are still valid, and the argumentation is clear. This does appear as though sociopolitical pressure was used to bring the journal to heel. The journal talks about redesigning its "editorial and review workflow" over it. I've listed many data on this site documenting masks (and if you want more, I've got a bunch of unqualified URLs in the source for this page), so it's evident that this move is not coming out of a clear scientific basis. There's another list of resources after the main article content / video embeds here.
Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere by Dieter Schildknecht - a 2020 paper critically examining claims of "greenhouse" feedback from a physical perspective.
Based on new radiative transfer numerical evaluations, we reconsider an argument presented by Schack in 1972 that says that saturation of the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sets in as soon as the relative concentration of carbon dioxide exceeds a lower limit of approximately 300 ppm. We provide a concise brief and explicit representation of the greenhouse effect of the earth's atmosphere. We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ΔT due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ΔT≃0.50C. We elaborate on the consistency of these results on ΔT with results observationally obtained by satellite-based measurements of short-time radiation-flux versus surface-temperature changes.
On April 20, all following Members of the European Parliament were served with notices of liability, advising that they may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of a Digital Green Certificate (Vaccine Passport), to be voted upon in the European Parliament on April 28, 2021.
COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease by J. Bart Classen, MD of Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. Quoth he:
The current analysis indicates Pfizer's RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have been shown to have high affinity for TDP-43 or FUS and have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases.
Classen is fascinating. He runs the website vaccines.net which performs independent vaccine safety research, and has an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications. The homepage of vaccines.net proclaims boldly: "We are concerned that the current outbreak of COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon attack and may be linked to the US anthrax attack of 2001, which originated from the US army base Fort Detrick."
From 2012, a A letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts (archive) rejecting the hypothesis that CO2 is implicated in climate change.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
From the CDC's publication Emerging Infectious Diseases, a metastudy from the University of Hong Kong entitled Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, which is a metastudy surveying RCTs of mask use and other preventative measures. As pertaining to mask use, it concludes:
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
La Griffe du Lion, a collection of excellent essays about various controversial topics.
Another day, another scientific article highlighting the antiscientific hypocrisy of the coronavirus extremists in government. Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis This one has an exceptionally pointed conclusion.
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
Here's a wild pre-print titled Evidence for a Connection Between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Telecommunications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves. It's just a literature review, and the one author, Beverly Rubik, really likes some rather controversial topics, but the concerns raised are more legitimate than controversial. Dr. Rubik has a Ph. D. in Biophysics from UCa. The other author, Robert R Brown, received his MD from U of Miami. The preview does not render properly in my browser. Clicking "Download preprint" resolves this.
John P.A. Ioannidis of the Stanford Department of Medicine has published a now peer-reviewed paper entitled Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations in which he estimates the infection fatality rate of the global coronavirus to be 0.15%. This is 6% of the estimated infection fatality rate of the 1918 "Spanish" flu. Restated and inverted, the Spanish flu was 17 times more deadly! The coronavirus epidemic is half as deadly as malaria by these numbers. The Coronavirus is only slightly more deadly than two notable Asian flu epidemics, one from around '57, and the other (mainly Hong Kong) around '68.