It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Santa Clara Study: Where's The Peer Review?

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2020 @ 09:26 AM
link   
About mid-April, Stanford University published a preliminary study of blood serology Covid-19 antibodies, to attempt to extrapolate the amount of transmission of the Covid-19 virus to the population. The results were intriguing, showing a much higher transmission rate than had been expected, and predicting a much lower mortality rate, though this preliminary study lacked the rigorous clinical standards that would attempt to provide as clear a picture of the data as possible.

Earnest researchers such as myself who are somewhat scientifically literate have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of the peer review process, as this will help determine whether or not the findings of the Santa Clara study have merit. Early efforts looked promising, with Los Angeles County and New York state performing more rigorous study of their findings to date, and presenting findings similar to that of the Santa Clara study. I thought I saw an article reporting Florida finding similar results in the last couple of days...and I've found nothing else.

Well, not exactly nothing else. Plenty of downplaying and attempted debunking of the Santa Clara study, and reporting on the study itself. Very little peer review though. This is suspicious to me, enough so that I thought I should write this thread about it. Where's the peer review? It's been more than two weeks since the preliminary study's results were reported. I would guess dozens, if not hundreds of labs, would have quickly designed and performed similar studies to evaluate the data. Why aren't we seeing any reporting on these studies?

It would be a feather in the cap for either side of the scientific debate to show these findings. It would also be mud in the eye of all the politicians who knee jerked and closed down the nation, if the studies were to show a much lessened mortality rate. That sort of dirty politics, hiding the truth to pad one's political nest, would certainly be a reason to suppress such data, if it were deemed to be potentially damaging...

Am I missing something here? Perhaps the peer review process has been thoroughly conducted, and is simply not being reported on? Perhaps it is being reported on, but is just lost in the shuffle and I'm not seeing it? Where's the peer review of the Stanford Santa Clara study? This is suspicious to me. What do you think?

www.latimes.com...
www.breitbart.com...
www.nbcnewyork.com...




posted on May, 3 2020 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

When it first came out, it had not been peer reviewed.

But the numbers they found were right in line with other similar surveys.

www.nature.com...


News of the Santa Clara analysis follows preliminary results from a similar study in Germany, released on 9 April, that tested some 500 people in a village of more than 12,000 and found that one in seven had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The German team also looked for active infections, using diagnostic tests based on the polymerase chain reaction, and when those figures were combined with those who had antibodies, estimate that the town’s overall infection rate was 15%.


And the survey in New York City turned up similar numbers too.

www.axios.com...


12.3% of New York state has tested positive for novel coronavirus antibodies, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at a briefing on Saturday.

...

Between the lines: As a whole, 19.9% of New York City has tested positive for antibodies, the preliminary study found. At 27.6%, the Bronx is reporting the highest rate of infection, which Cuomo said the state would further investigate.


So peer reviewed or not, these are the kinds or numbers that are being turned up as we get more of these antibody testing surveys being completed.



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The peer review process is a joke.
I’ve been involved in several peer review studies.

I remember receiving one that was several hundred pages long. It was sent by email carbon copied to 50 recipients.
This study included some heavy numbers that needed to be double checked.
The next day I saw about 1/3 of the recipients had already signed off on the study.
No way in hell they did all that homework.

No idea about this particular study, but I wouldn’t put much stock in peer reviews.



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The peer review process is a joke.
I’ve been involved in several peer review studies.

I remember receiving one that was several hundred pages long. It was sent by email carbon copied to 50 recipients.
This study included some heavy numbers that needed to be double checked.
The next day I saw about 1/3 of the recipients had already signed off on the study.
No way in hell they did all that homework.

No idea about this particular study, but I wouldn’t put much stock in peer reviews.


Yea the whole problem with "Peer" review, is the "Peer" part.

It should be "Non-Peer" review.




posted on May, 3 2020 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I don’t think I would trust peer reviews if they came out . The majority of the academics who would be reviewing the studies hate Trump. Why would anyone think they would be different than any other liberal ?
edit on 3-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I don't trust the peers.

Using the opioid thing as an example, Purdue lied about it and paid doctors to lie about it.

Sadly, to much of the medical profession has been paid by special interests to write falsehoods, whether to FDA or elsewhere.

The serological tests are not wanted by the fear mongers because those tests get too close to the truth--the virus is everywhere and many people have been infected with no serious consequences.



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Have you considered that if the laboratories prove that, we as a nation are overreacting, they stand to lose billions in funding.



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason79
Have you considered that if the laboratories prove that, we as a nation are overreacting, they stand to lose billions in funding.


The politicians also lose their mandate for the level of control, even constitution violating, if it's proved that the lockdown is ineffective and/or unnecessary.



posted on May, 3 2020 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It is impossible to create an impartial non-bastardised Peer Review.

The entire Peer Review System is gone now.Get used to it.

We are Blind no more.

The Peer Review System is going in the same fire as the Patent System,both were creatd with good intentions but have ultimately been used as conduits of Anti-Humanitarian Terrorisim.

We already trust the prelims....we know the rest is adultered bullspit.

Welcome to the NewAge.

edit on 3-5-2020 by one4all because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2020 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone who has replied so far, I appreciate your input, though I don't entirely agree.

Perhaps I misstated my opening post. What I am referring to as 'peer review' is the process where studies are repeated with fresh sets of data, to either confirm or not confirm the original findings. While I agree with the sentiments expressed that peer review, and confirming findings by reproducing a study can be manipulated to twist the truth, I think the fact that we're not seeing reporting on reproducing this study is telling. That is why I made this thread.

Authorities can stop reproduction of this study in some locales perhaps, but not everywhere. They CAN try to put a lid on reporting of it though. I would imagine hundreds of different entities would have attempted to reproduce this study. Spinning hundreds of confirmations of those findings would be just about impossible. If reproductions of these studies had NOT confirmed the findings of the Santa Clara prelim study, you can bet we'd be hearing about it, as it confirms the narrative that we are all being force fed at present.

The fact that we are not hearing about reproductions of this study strongly suggests that those reproductions confirmed the Santa Clara prelim findings, and that because of this they have not been reported on. This is noteworthy.
edit on 6-5-2020 by TheBadCabbie because: to make changes to the post




top topics



 
13

log in

join