[spookthesunset]

> Still, it's an observational study with no reasonable, plausible mechanism of action presented.

Anything that supports the narrative is absolutely fine. Doesn't matter if the methodology is crap, the data is crap... none of it matters. Pointing any flaw out makes you a horrible person.

Now if you publish any kind of research that goes against the narrative suddenly every single flaw, no matter how irrelevant, comes into play. I don't think you can ever publish research that goes against the narrative and not have it somehow "discredited" by "experts".

I trust absolutely none of the research that has been conducted over the last 2.5 years. It's all garbage. Too much emotion and incentive is involved in making things follow the narrative.

And for people that downvote this... ever been on the other side? Ever been a critic of our covid policies? You get yelled at, called absolutely horrible things, and wished horrible death upon you. Your career can fall apart, relationships can dissolve, friends will stop talking to you. It's miserable. Yet, here we are... on the other side. It's not like we chose this... The science, data and morals just happen to be on our side (according to us (which history will almost certainly support)).

[kcplate]

> I trust absolutely none of the research that has been conducted over the last 2.5 years. It's all garbage. Too much emotion and incentive is involved in making things follow the narrative.

Glad I am not the only one with this level of skepticism. I say that implicating both sides of the debate. Every study I read seems filled with overt examples of confirmation bias.