I recently watched an infamous misinformation superspreader discussing a research article from the Cleveland Clinic about COVID vaccination.
The conclusion drawn by the unqualified superspreader was that COVID vaccination increases the rate of COVID infection.
He did a superficial job interpreting the data while sounding knowledgeable and certain about the conclusion.
It's only toward the end of the discussion after the viewer has been sold a bill of goods that it was revealed, the paper is only a preprint.
Either the superspreader doesn't understand what a preprint is or doesn't care and hopes that you don't know.
So for the record, a preprint is a manuscript that has not yet undergone the peer review process. They are papers submitted for publication that have not been scrutinized.
It is very deceptive to discuss a preprint as if has been verified. Some preprints are poorly designed and executed studies. There may be methodological flaws and statistical abberrancies buried in the paper that lead to artifactual results. Some preprints are terrible studies and many never survive the peer review process.
Sadly, far too many researchers succumb to pressure to publish breakthrough papers and fudge data in the process. That's why there is peer review, to filter out the junk.
The peer review process is incredibly rigorous. The preprint submission is scrutinized in multiple ways by experts with specific skills to dissect the article. Their charge is to find any and all flaws in the article. Peer reviewers are the guardians who prevent poor quality research or false information from being published and polluting the public discourse.
Despite their best efforts sometimes bad research still gets through. When flaws are discovered later, papers are retracted. Some authors even make up data.
Then there is the issue of the credibility of the journal. Some journals scrutinize with a fine tooth comb. The papers they publish are flawless or nearly so. Sadly those journals are few. The New England Journal of Medicine is the most rigorous of all. There are many more "throwaway” journals and “pay to publish” journals that publish most anything submitted, junk included.
That's why it is imperative that doctors be trained in “critical appraisal” to be able to separate out junk science from quality science.
In his discussion the superspreader failed to make it clear at the very beginning that the research he was reviewing was an unpublished, non peer reviewed preprint. It's OK to talk about preprint research but you have to put it in the right context. It may never survive peer review and get published.
It was wrong for the superspreader to do this. But then again, it's common among antivaxxers, they are either unwilling or unable to distinguish high quality research from poor quality research and they rely upon junk science to mislead people. They lack formal training in critical appraisal of the medical literature. Without, you cannot discern between poor quality and high-quality studies.
A preprint is just that. It's junk until proven otherwise.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-anti-vax-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1125197/
from far left loonies to far right loonies, the migration of the antivaxx movement.
haha. no. fiscal conservative. registered republican. have never voted for a liberal or a democrat in my life. but after Trump led the GOP over the antivaxx cliff, I am done. Every doctor i know is disgusted with the GOP antivaxx lunacy. the antivaxx nut jobs used to be far left Loonies. somehow they ended up in the GOP.