An older article criticizing the flaws of the peer review process in scientific journals. His critique is good to keep in mind when we read any peer reviewed studies.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Richard Smith, 2006

“People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. I regularly received letters from authors who were upset that the BMJ rejected their paper and then published what they thought to be a much inferior paper on the same subject. Always they saw something underhand. They found it hard to accept that peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. But it is probably unreasonable to expect it to be objective and consistent. If I ask people to rank painters like Titian, Tintoretto, Bellini, Carpaccio, and Veronese, I would never expect them to come up with the same order. A scientific study submitted to a medical journal may not be as complex a work as a Tintoretto altarpiece, but it is complex. Inevitably people will take different views on its strengths, weaknesses, and importance.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

It’s no secret that I am very biased on the topic of health and pharmaceutical products.

I dig into research/expert opinions on all sides, listen to the lived experiences of people from multiple perspectives and throw them against the backdrop of my own lived experiences and my intuition. That is how I’ve come to believe what I do about the nature of reality, and I’m always learning, always refining and challenging my own beliefs.

No doubt, I am more likely to listen and accept the expert opinion, the research, the lived experiences within the realm of natural health, allopathic skepticism, and germ theory skepticism. Why? Because my lived experiences have continually shown me that those things make the most sense for me. Confirmation bias? Sure. CONTINUED...

CONTINUED... I fully recognize that not everyone has had the same lived experience as me, and for many, their experiences have led them to perceive things in a manner that is diametrically opposed to my perceptions. I do not ever want to deny people of their experience because experience is everything. I also fundamentally believe (really what I call “knowing”) that we are all one, and to deny an aspect of “me” the opportunity to fully explore the infinite possibilities of reality through the free will of “other” is wrong. This is why, as some of you have noticed, I very rarely make statements on what people should/should not do. It goes against my core values. It goes against freedom.

Health freedom, as spelled out by my good friend Sarah Carnes, means the freedom to make one’s own health decisions, without coercion or force. If someone perceives this shot to be necessary/good based on their own experiences, the research they’ve come across, the stories they’ve heard, that’s their choice. If someone believes otherwise, that’s also their choice. I ultimately believe that we should stop telling other people what to do, and instead hold space for people to choose what is best for themselves.

Honored to be a part of this amazing event. If you’re awake to what’s happening in our world, struggling to navigate this current time and concerned about where it’s headed–you’re not alone.

There are millions of us all over the world, and more and more are waking up. A revolution of consciousness is fully underway. From March 20-26, like-minded and like-hearted people from around the world are gathering in a free, ground-breaking online event called Re:Union Summit 2021.

>>👇sign up here👇<<

https://2021.reunionsummit.com/?sc=qgZk6Dxe&ac=VCJ116sE

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

Remember, according to a Harvard pilgrim health study, nearly 99% of vaccine adverse events go unreported:


https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

“Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk of immune-mediated diseases? In reply to “potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases”


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/

Don’t forget to check out our most recent interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mErYVKWjhYw

Interesting for sure.