I've been interested in reading various scientific papers for 15 years now on various topics that interest me, and so I was fairly well versed in detecting if a paper had poor methodology and what "p-hacking" looks like. For me it was obvious as fuck that the data wasn't supportive of the vaccine, but trying to explain this to my family was futile as I wasn't an accredited scientist it was impossible in spite of them always calling me smart and intelligent my entire life.
But he still argued that they did it for the wrong reasons.
(I know many who looked at the evidence and could see it wasn’t properly tested and wasn’t effective)
I've been interested in reading various scientific papers for 15 years now on various topics that interest me, and so I was fairly well versed in detecting if a paper had poor methodology and what "p-hacking" looks like. For me it was obvious as fuck that the data wasn't supportive of the vaccine, but trying to explain this to my family was futile as I wasn't an accredited scientist it was impossible in spite of them always calling me smart and intelligent my entire life.
That's what I kept standing on, the actual data didn't support them at all. Higher adverse outcomes for people that got it vs those that didn't.