Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thebrownblob" data-source="post: 5514547" data-attributes="member: 60485">“The scientific literature adds surprisingly little to our understanding of rigor, with the term almost always used without definition, as if its meaning is self-evident. The NIH has recently defined scientific rigor as “the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results” including “full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings” (<a href="https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01902-16#core-B13" target="_blank">13</a>). While we credit the NIH for providing a starting point for discussion, we find the NIH definition of rigor to be both excessively wordy and disconcertingly vague, as well as complicated by an insistence on transparency and reproducibility, which may be desirable but are arguably separate from rigor.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01902-16[/URL]The scientific rigor in regards to these “vaccines” is nonexistent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thebrownblob, post: 5514547, member: 60485"] “The scientific literature adds surprisingly little to our understanding of rigor, with the term almost always used without definition, as if its meaning is self-evident. The NIH has recently defined scientific rigor as “the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results” including “full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings” ([URL='https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01902-16#core-B13']13[/URL]). While we credit the NIH for providing a starting point for discussion, we find the NIH definition of rigor to be both excessively wordy and disconcertingly vague, as well as complicated by an insistence on transparency and reproducibility, which may be desirable but are arguably separate from rigor. [URL unfurl="true"]https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01902-16[/URL] The scientific rigor in regards to these “vaccines” is nonexistent. [/QUOTE]

Verification