In case you didn't know, a new mocking 'joke' about those reluctant to inject experimental mRNA into their muscle tissue on the pretext of protecting them from a cold virus, from our pro-quaxxine friends, is "do your research!". They repeat this to each other a lot and grin and roll their eyes.

I wasn't quite sure what they found so amusing about this, but assumed their extraordinarily sophisticated wit was simply too advanced for stoopid ol' anti-vax little me to understand.

Anyway, the meme I posted yesterday has qualified the apparent nature of their amusement. Apparently, they believe the definition of 'research' is: "compiling a literature review and writing abstracts on each article, collecting a random sample of sources, and performing probability statistics on the reported results."

It should go without saying that not a single pro-quaxxer knows what the above quote means, but they assume *because they don't* it's well clever innit (and none of you stoopid anti-vax morons could do that! LOL, that's you told.)

Well: I - in common with many other crazed conspiraquacks - do understand what it means and it isn't clever at all. It's simply someone using a pompous tone and pretentious language to describe a meta-analysis. A non-pretentious definition of a meta-analysis is: "examination of data from a number of independent studies of the same subject, in order to determine overall trends."

Every anti-vaxxer I know has done that and no pro-vaxxer has. No pro-vaxxer has objectively read the original source, independent science (they mock anti-vaxxers for "not following the science", but the reality is they neither do this nor know how to do it) and instead they worship BBC soundbites of "science" like a religion, which nobody involved in producing or reviewing said science actually does.

Independent scientists free from establishment bribes and corruption - an increasingly small group, admittedly, but they do exist - will tell you just how dark and corrupt the mainstream scientific world is. Unlike BBC-watchers who believe "scientists" are some special breed of super-advanced being (Gods, basically - hence why 'science' is viewed as a religion), impervious to all normal human motivations of status, career, and money, anyone who's actually met and interacted with such people can confirm they are all too ordinary in this regard (and that, quite frankly, a scientist is easier to buy than a politician).

But the very few who hold onto their integrity and produce real, independent, reproducible science have this to say about the "peer-review" process pro-vaxxers pretend to understand.

Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most respected scientific journals in the world), stated that: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

That is why the group most unlikely to vaccinate are those with PhDs in hard sciences - because they, unlike the average BBC-watcher - actually do understand "the science" - and all its staggering limitations. They do read research papers, and know very well how corrupt and flawed many of them are. This is why it's so laughably absurd when pro-vaxxers, who understand none of this, try to pretend that they're super-sciencey, clever, and advanced, by posting pretentious memes they don't understand, insinuating that anyone who rejects vaccines is thick and uneducated.

Apart from the atrocious snobbery of this position (so you're only allowed an opinion on what's forcibly inserted into your body if you've been to university, yeah?) is the laughable inversion and inaccuracy of it. Only people who don't understand science, and therefore don't understand how corrupt it is, vaccinate. Anyone who does properly understand science, doesn't.

What's particularly awful is, while you might expect this sort of "pseudo-sciencey snobbery" to come from puffed-up university graduates, you also get it just as much from people without formal education trying to shame their peers, who also don't have formal education, into shutting up. It's out-and-out elitism, of the sort that working class people claim to despise if it comes from the middle-classes, but, when it comes to vaccines, are ferociously enthusiastic to engage in themselves.

They are thereby endorsing the worst kind of medieval feudalism, where an 'uneducated' peasant class is dictated to by a grand and superior class of lords. Whether you call this lord class "scientists" or "experts" doesn't change the fundamental dynamics of this model, which is one of the most oppressive, tyrannical, and despicable in all of human history.

I can't believe I'm actually having to spell this out, but here we go: you don't need any qualifications or formal education to have an opinion, including and especially when the subject is "what I will have injected into my own body" - and, leading on from this, is the fact that the definition of 'research' is not defined by pompous and self-righteous buffoons on Twitter. Here's the dictionary definition: "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions."

So is watching YouTube videos research? Yes it is. (You do realise "scientists" and "experts" also put up videos on YouTube?) Is reading a Facebook post "research"? Yes. Facebook is just a platform, the same as the British Medical Journal, for instance - I can put a comment on the BMJ just as easily as I can on Facebook. Whether my comment contains any worthwhile content is not dependent on the platform on which it is published, and it is up to individuals to use their own discretion and discernment to decide whether the content of the post has merit. Trying to dismiss the content of a contribution because of WHERE it's published is really lazy, disingenuous, and, quite frankly, desperate.

Is talking to other people and learning from their experiences 'research'? Of course it is. The term 'research' is not some sacred, sacrosanct term that you need special sciencey powers to understand or conduct. To research something simply means to open your mind and learn about it, using input from a variety of different sources.

For instance, you 'research' getting a new car, but I highly doubt you "compiled a literature review and wrote abstracts on each article, collecting a random sample of sources, and performed probability statistics on the reported results" - instead, you, let me guess: read reviews online. Talked to friends. Etc. So how about if, instead, I came along and said, "actually, you should have no input into the car you drive and should just place the decision into the hands of state-appointed "experts" who can decide for you". Well, it's exactly the same principle as what you're endorsing with your pretentious memes - except that injecting experimental pharmaceutical cocktails into your body is a lot more serious than deciding what car to drive.

So, anyway: I hope now that I've explained the "do your research" 'joke', all my fellow stoopid anti-vaxxers can get a jolly good ol' belly laugh out of it, too

Read part two.