This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Editors of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue"...
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.
It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:
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. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.
***
Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:
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 an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest.
And we’ve previously documented that the government sometimes uses raw power to cover up corruption in the medical and scientific fields.
Postscript: Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession ... and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.
»
- advertisements -
really?! let's see a keyword breakdown of scientific papers,and see how often "climate change" or "global warming" is mentioned from 1965 to present.
Economist?............
Whenever you see a study using a ridiculously small sample size, you know the research is rigged. I've also seen studies that had no control groups. That's scary. It invalidates the data completely.
Unfortunately, corruption extends to business as a whole. In any given company, you'll see the most mediocre people being rewarded while the talented employees are pushed out.
finally 'science' being knocked off its pedestal by those honest enough at the academy to actually point out that the conduct of sciencitific research is as vulnerable to biassing by way of perverse incentives as much as the conduct of any other activity.
global warming research --90% nonsense. probably 10% valid.
cancer research ---on drugs ---90% lies.
cognitive studies using mri's to prove that some set of circumstances in macro activation means someone needs medication-----lies.
it's all about selling drugs, taxes, and other for profit agendas.
why?
follow the money.
It all leads backs to government agencies one way or the other. Academia has always been the spare no expense and leave no stone unturned public sector R & D wing for the US government agencies since they got caught off guard by the USSR and Sputnik.
But it all sounds so impressive, Allopathic Ambulance Medicine was given a state-sponsored medical monopoly because it was allegedly "proven" and "scientific".
Just like anti-GMO food protesters are described in the MSM as anti-science. Of course de-bunking half the so called "scientific" studies will have little effect on the sheeple as they can't get enough "Establishment" anything.
They're too afraid, toxic and depressed to think or act on their own so bogus is far better than scary independent thinking and taking responsibility for one's own health.
My favorite terms for people skeptical of science claiming global warming/cooling trends first change the name to climate change (no shit sherlock, climate was always dynamic and never static). Then labeling the skeptics as climate deniers instead.
You see the loaded nature of the propaganda by doing this.
Then you have no shortage of people conflating weather and climate when it comes to global warming/cooling.
This is one of the better descriptions to differentiate the 2.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
...
In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.
...
People are really addicted to bullshit and lying to themselves is what they are primarily addicted to. The consequence of 24/7 nonstop propaganda inflicted on all 6 senses. The GMO food is just the equivalent of giving a dog a cookie after it sits to reinforce all this.
March 17, 2003.
Rented a tractor to do some landscaping in my yard. A warm morning, temp about 75 or so, after a couple hours I took shirt off and let the moobs run free. An early spring day in the high desert of California. It got up to about 85 by noon, and I had done most of what I wanted in the yard, and was now cutting a drop for a future fence line. Started to sprinkle a bit from a cloud. By three pm I had my shirt back on. By four it was snowing. By five I had to stop because it was too fucking cold to continue. Temperature went from 85 to 25 in the space of eight hours.
The good news was that my landscaping got enough wetness that was baked in the next day that it's still solid as a brick today.
The term 'climate change' was first introduced to me in the 1989 documentary After The Warming when the host/presenter James Burke used the term "climate change" 90 seconds into the doc.
ATW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
These discussions will be all but forgotten 30 years from now:
"Now we are at the point where some of the excuses which were used in Copenhagen 2009 for not taking action, which was basically some uncertainties on some of the questions, although there was a lot of evidence on many of them, now is no longer valid.
It's no longer tenable. Ignorance can no longer be used as an excuse for no action and this is a fundamental difference compared to 2009. Why? Because in 50 years from now, actually in 30 years from now, governments, but not only governments, decisions makers at all levels can be held accountable for the decisions which are not taken now. Because knowledge is there. WE KNOW. We have no excuse for no action. Thank You."
Dr. Michell Jarraud, Secretary General World Meteorological Organization, 02NOV14 in Copenhagen speaking at the IPCC AR5 WG4 press release.
--------------
@George Washington: I have posted comments a few times in the last several months asking you about After The Warming / Mike Slee. I see you had plenty of time to respond to Shit. Guess I'll have to do it myself.
--------------
p.s. "Al's screensaver" is arriving at L1 ~ today. Congrats SPACEX/NASA/USAF
As you know, MEAN BUSINESS, the sentiments of many who post comments on Zero Hedge are to over-generalize the degree to which climate science has been corrupted.
A recent example, which is similar in tenor to the article above, is this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/
When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?
I have added that to the current end of my forum thread which has collected by research and thoughts regarding the topic: Humans blamed for climate change.
My view is that the science regarding greenhouse gas mechanisms, and the potential runaway threats they pose are still REAL. However, at the same time, the various climate models deliberately disregarded more cosmic factors, which nobody fully understands at the present time.
Runaway global warming due to humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is based upon valid scientifically-based concerns. HOWEVER, the overall issue of climate science is quite hyper-complicated, and raises basic issues that nobody understands. My opinion is that the more cosmic factors, related to the combined Sun & Earth magnetic fields, are giving us a "lucky break" from what otherwise could have already been runaway greenhouse gases causing global warming.
MEAN BUSINESS, you and I already have discovered that many who post comments on that topic on Zero Hedge have pushed cynicism to the point of being stupidity. There is a general trend to over-generalize that because there is some fraudulent science, therefore, there is no valid science. HOWEVER, I have never seen anyone disprove that greenhouse gas mechanisms exist. I have only seen people demonstrate that the climate includes many other hyper-complicated issues, that nobody fully understands, and therefore, the over-simplified climate forecasting models based upon nothing else but greenhouse gas mechanisms, while pretty well deliberately ignoring everything else, have become seriously wrong regarding their previous predictions.
Tragically, that is like the parable of "the boy who cried wolf." In my view the wolf of global warming is still going to be really coming. However, there was a hidden agenda, promoted by the ruling classes, in order to consolidate more control over those they ruled, that advanced the greenhouse gas threat as being serious, for their ulterior purposes. That seriously biased the issue, as did a wide variety of other extraneous political influences, and those continue to do so ... At the present time, nothing close to the predicted global warming has actually happened. (I REPEAT, I believe we are getting a "lucky break" from the more cosmic factors.)
The history of some fraudulent data presentations, as well as the failure of the climate models to predict what has actually happened, have been over-generalized by many to assert that the threat of global warming due to greenhouse gas mechanisms has been discredited, which is NOT the case. However, in the context of the "Fight Club" in the Zero Hedge comments section, it has become painfully obvious to me that those in the different camps refuse to engage in any rational debates resulting in any compromises of their previous positions, that they have already concluded are right, and therefore, continue to pound upon, regardless of any new evidence or logical arguments that arise ...
An old friend of mine quotes Carl Sagan at the end of his emails:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
The one argument that does give me "pause" is your's, Rad, when you argue that the philosophy of science has been moulded to back up the biggest bullies bullshit stories. I think that is THE articulation to describe the seemingly stubborn entrenched position taking and irreconcilable differences in the "camps". This to me is most glaring example of our stalled political science and therefore to me Paris is really more about philosophy of science and political science than data and physical science. Will the controlled opposition continue to be controlled? Is Paris humanity's critical moment to begin to move beyond Neolithic styled civilizations?
I guess part of the argument also has to address the funding issue when the "money" is available to those who would reinforce the bullshit story and denied to those who may not countenance the fraud. That's legit, and that's why I've been asking George Washington "who is Mike Slee and who funded the making of After The Warming?" I would be fascinated to learn about how that documentary came to be and also what Burke's or Slee's thoughts are about it here in 2015.
-----------------------
I think your comment last night on the Protecting Perks thread was extremely refined. The question you posed at the end will, for me, be answered in Paris. Unfortunately my sense is that currently younger voices are too few and too powerless, the older voices are too busy doubling down on antiquated political processess, and the general public is essentially completely oblivious. Regardless, I have said it before Rad, your comments are *priceless* : ) If I was a gamblin' man, I'd say we've got no hope in hell of turning this ship around before the death insanities. Then the Wolf will appear...
All roads lead to Paris
-------------------------
p.s. playing catch-up these last few weeks, missed some threads : (
The often repeated comment "they had to change it to 'climate change'", presumably in light of "the pause" is why I have often replied here pointing to the James Burke / Mike Slee film mentioned above. One can consider this merely anecdotal but it should serve to highlight the ridiculousness of arguing semantics. The term "climate change" was in use as early as 1989, and I have to laugh when I point out that it was in use 90 seconds into a doc with "warming" in the title.
The same thing goes for all the other oft-repeated arguments like "it's so they can impose the carbon tax", "we need more research!", "these things take thousands of years/ climate always changes", and yes, the computer models. Burke says, again in a 25 year old film, a simulated ten year run could take a supercomputer 100 hours AND NOT EVERYBODY AGREED WITH THE END RESULTS ANYWAY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw&feature=player_detailpage#t=...
Notice that the sun is shown in the clip as a factor. I can certainly agree that even today with significantly better computers one could still describe the results as "pretty primitive" but I don't think it's accurate to suggest that cosmic factors are either a total mystery or not taken into consideration when making the assessment. Moreover I am not surprised that senator Ihofe's "scientists who cannot be questioned" toady Dr. Willie Soon beats the 'the sun is not sufficiently understood' drum. Furthermore, as highlighted in my comment above, one should see the delicious irony that Triana 2.0 (aka Deep Space Climate Observatory DSCOVR) is arriving as we speak at L1 to further research about the sun. Too bad so sad all that potential data was foregone when even Ukraine offered to launch her for free!!! many years ago. Finally, while there may be other factors, as we have discussed before, what Jarraud is saying does not imply we know everything. He too calls for more research...
Jarruad also discusses "the pause" at the AR5 WG2 press release, as does Chris Field. Field states that the data continues to show rapid warming but DOES admit they don't fully understand why the heat is showing up in the oceans more than the atmosphere/land surface/cryosphere. Is that not in a sense an admission that they were "wrong" vis-a-vis the now much belaboured lower troposhere situation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZONwnqWFe8&feature=player_embedded#t=4688
One may notice that it was the question from The Economist about "The Pause" that was chosen as the thumbnail image for this youtube video.
-------------
I will have to continue later tonight, I've got some hay fields and overgrown fencerows to go dictate to / terrorize LOL. Gawd I love thrashing/murdering vegetation ! I really enjoyed your reply here and your comment on the Protecting Perks thread.
People can't get past their conditioned knee-jerk reaction to associate anthropogenic climate change with Al Gore. To them it's still a left/right issue.
Mass Animal Deaths in May 2015 ( 69 Mass Deaths In May and Still Counting) It looks like the rate of Mass Animal Deaths is Increasing
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-animal-deaths-in-may-2...
Don't forget Enenews.com!
Getting worse by the minute - for another billion years.
Outstanding source of information wrt this continuing ELE.
Whoever suggested that an Extinction Level Event must occur rapidly? /rhetorical
BTW, the three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi have not "melted down". (past tense)
They are "melting down", and will continue to melt down for the next several centuries.
The government is LYING to you about Fukushima.
The Pacific Ocean is dying.
And after Japan is dead, North America is next.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Done. With a bit of rye whiskey.
The govt has, however, updated the cancer rates, which we are told are now over FIFTY PERCENT for all the but the baby boomers (and who knows what the rates will be 20 years from now).
I can't believe people are still having kids when the odds are now SO HIGH that either your kids, your spouse or yourself will get cancer. And if you don't get cancer, evidently it's highly likely you'll have some other effect from the pollution...
It's a mad world, but nothing is dumber than those who decide to live in the past or refuse to adapt to REALITY. In any case, I won't bring kids into this world until things get back on track - there is no way I would subject them to all this satanic crap, and as a bonus, life is way less expensive this way.
i thought i read that Micheal Douglas said that his mouth cancer was likely from eating his wifes yani
Indeed.
All going as prophesied:
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html
"And ALL THE WORLD shall wonder after the Hildebeast.
Global Mass Insanity GMI!
That means scientists spend hlaf of their time spreading rumors when they quote each others papers.
Evil always wins and the meek shall inherit nothing.
Frank Zappa - Heavenly Bank Account
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCcgthWmE60
Evil loses in the end.
The wicked shall inherit nothing.
The righteous will inherit eternal life in perfection.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46
It's the 'pre-eternal life' that's the immediate problem.
Hopefully, later, not so much.
People have been profiting by writing prestigious journals full of bullshit for a long time.
And peer reviewed...
Subscribe to this:
http://retractionwatch.com
The "zerohedge" for science.
There was a time not so long ago, when one could breath a sigh of relief (Whew..!!), that 'science & math' were immune to the effects of politics-cum-Political-Correctness... Just goes to show that nearly ~anything~ can be corrupted for the right $favors.
As a former scientist who worked in academia and industry starting in the 1970s I agree with this. The rot is surprisingly advanced, in all areas of American society and industry.
Time to discover and develop new ways of living. Going Galt is one representative direction to take but only as a starting point for discussion. Small self sufficient small community development where all needs are addressed and handled locally without MBA's and JD's (who lack knowledge or spirit needed to solve problems or to be of service to others) is an answer.
Science was more lonely and had much less money but with much more integrity before institutionalization of science beginning in the 1960's. We can go back. In particular, applied science such as agriculture at the local level is sorely needed and can flourish if we (and our time/energy/resources) can escape the MBA/JD organized racketerring collectives that have taken over all aspects of our daily life.
Stay with me on this.
Back in the 60's/70's hydroponics was a big deal here in the California high desert. There were quansant huts made of plexiglass all over the desert were people were growing strawberries, cucumbers, corn, all kinds of veggies and they were sharing what/how they did things and others would take tours of their set-ups. It worked, it really did. The area was especially condusive to hydroponics due to the lack of rainy/cloudy skies and a general warm (hotter than hell) climate.
Somewhere between the 70's and now, all of it died out, and today, anyone involved in hydroponics is immediately assumed a pot grower. Granted we now have all kinds of hydropoinics pot growers all over the place, most doing in-door grows on some banks foreclosed house...but I really do miss going to the guy four miles down the road to buy cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes and strawberries.
I'm thinking it's time I reinvented hydroponic veggies.
(Oh, and if you want to hide your pot, plant it with the tomatoes. Most LEO's can't tell the difference.)
Aquaponics is the new hydroponics! You can't keep a good idea down. ;)
Galt's Gulch: can anyone tell me if he had a golf course? My life hangs in the balance while waiting on an answer.
Science is the new State Religion and Scientists are the new Priests. Disagreeing with "science" is modern "heresy" - as is disagreeing with a douche in a lab coat.
I have to laugh whenever someone is arguing with me and starts their statement with "Science has proven...." - and I usually remind them that "Scientists" have been pretty consistent about being *wrong* on a lot of important subjects ..... and will continue to do so because their egos (and paychecks) are usually tied to fantasy "theories" they pulled out of their asses - or in pushing some elitist agenda...
The scientific methods are valid, and have generated some real progress in physical sciences. However, that has not been matched by progress in political science.
Trogdor, you are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Rather, what we should do is go through series of intellectual scientific revolutions that apply to political science. However, doing that reveals that governments are necessarily the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.
That the biggest bullies' bullshit world view has dominated the history of the philosophy of science should not be over-generalized to discredit the scientific methods themselves, which has enabled real progress to occur. Rather, what should be done is to turn those scientific methods against the political processes, in order to understand how and why we have ended up with fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, which have resulted in the funding of scientific enterprises becoming a spin-off from the funding of politics in general.
To put it another way, the oldest and best developed social science and social engineering was warfare. However, the successfulness of warfare tended to be based on being able to back up deceits with destruction, that then became the foundation for economics to become a subset of warfare. Therefore, financial success became based upon enforcing frauds.
In order to have better political science, which would be necessary to address the issues of fraudulent science, one would have to surmount the paradoxes that most of human history has been the history of successful deceits. Fraudulent science problems are merely one of the tips of the iceberg that civilization has always been based upon backing up lies with violence.
To have a more scientific society would require enough people going through enough intellectual scientific revolutions to be able to face the basic social facts that the two most significant state religions today are the monetary system and national security, both of which have become almost totally based on huge lies, backed by lots of violence. Therefore, most of the scientific enterprises carried out today are operating inside of the combined money/murder systems, which continue to be based upon the maximum possible frauds and deceits, and continue to be socially successful upon that basis.
Trogdor you are quite correct that:
I note that you put "Scientists" in quotes, which is quite appropriate, since the rest of what you described is NOT "Scientific."
There are still real scientific methods, which are valid techniques for making real progress in scientific endeavours. Those are NOT destroyed by the political situation surrounding "Scientists" corrupting them, in order to have socially successful careers, by being employed within social systems whose foundations are based upon enforcing frauds.
Personally, I rather like transforming "Science" into the new state religion. I have been promoting doing that for several decades, and I continue to do so. However, I do that by promoting the view that real progress in science has been achieved by a profound series of paradigm shifts, and that political science should progress by going through similar intellectual scientific revolutions, which what it would take to cope with how:
The deeper levels of these problems are that natural selection was internalized as human intelligence, which was then applied to the most significant selection pressure, which was other groups of people, which then drove the history of successful warfare based upon deceits and treacheries, which then became the foundation of financial successfulness based upon enforcing frauds.
By and large, most human beings do NOT LIKE applying more scientific methods to understand themselves better. When one does that one ends up discovering that there are social pyramid systems, which were basically systems of slavery, that have become more sophisticated systems of debt slavery. The established social pyramid systems operate through the ruling classes specializing in being dishonest and backing that up with violence, so that there currently exists a political economy based upon enforcing frauds, while the vast majority of people living lower down in the levels of that social pyramid system have adapted to that by ending up believing in the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, since there is almost nothing else than a core of organized crime, surrounded by layers of organized crime, operating through compartmentalized social pyramid systems.
One of the components of the social pyramid systems has been the development of scientific enterprises which are NOT scientific about themselves! "Scientists" face the same political problems as everyone else, and most of them adapt to those problems in the same ways as almost everyone else does, by agreeing to go along with being paid to participate in systems based upon enforced frauds.
The problems are WAY WORSE than that, however, since any genuine solutions would require that human artificial selection became more genuinely scientific, which is in a head-on collision with how to develop better death control systems which do not become based upon better ways to be dishonest about themselves. Militarism is the ideology of the murder system. Although that is the oldest and best developed of the social sciences and social engineering, it continues to have it successes based on being as deceitful and treacherous as possible. Therefore, the greatest challenge that the scientific methods face are how to come to terms with the intense paradoxes that the most significant social science is militarism, which is the supreme ideology, as well as deserves to be the supreme ideology.
In that context, to complete the project that "Science is the new State Religion and Scientists are the new Priests," they would have to develop better death control systems, which were able to converge closer to the scientific methods. Of course, nobody should expect that to be easy. Indeed, at the present time the growing Grand Canyon Chasm between real progress in physical science, versus nothing like that in political science, appears more likely to result in the human species committing collective suicide.
The essence of human nature is that we are able to built mental models of our world, within which are mental models of ourselves, which give rise to a potentially infinite series of models, within models ... Those developments were driven by natural selection, to develop systems of artificial selection, which became paradoxically the most successful by being the most deceitful, because the most important thing that those mental models were doing were operating the human murder systems against each other, which processes were driving the selection for social successfulness to become based upon being the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence.
Indeed, the ONLY connection between human laws and natural laws is the ability to back up lies with violence. That is what makes real progress in physical science become so extremely paradoxical, while similar progress in political science is problematic, and mostly prevented from happening. The central issue with respect to progress in political science is how that would be applied to the combined money/murder systems, or how the debt controls would be backed by the death controls. The current ruling classes have developed their series of expedient solutions to those chronic political problems, while those they ruled over developed matching sets of solutions, namely, systems of backing up lies with violence, matched by attitudes of ignorance and fear.
Since, at the present time, the existing social pyramid systems are based upon almost nothing but the pyramidion people applying the principles and methods of organized crime, including their ability to control their opposition, so that there is almost nothing that is publicly significant than various controlled opposition groups, that stay within the same bullshit frame of reference originally promoted by the biggest bullies, genuine progress in political science is extremely problematic, and appears at the present time to be practically impossible. But nevertheless, theoretically speaking, the only way that the human species that develops technological civilizations MIGHT be able to survive is through series of intellectual scientific revolutions in political science, which then could be applied to political problems, such as how to operate the human murder systems after the development of weapons of mass destruction. While I believe that is theoretically possible, that would require radical transformations in the ways that we perceive the death controls systems, in order to change the ways that we operate those death control systems.
At the present time, medicine is inside the monetary system, which is inside of the military system. Therefore, we have a Profit From Disease System, which is as criminally insane as the surrounding combined money/murder systems based upon the maximum possible frauds and deceits. Anyone who is interested can trace the history of the development of medical journals, to follow how those more and more had their control captured by their sources of funding, and trace that back to the same sources of the control over the funding of politics capturing control over the public "money" systems, which became based upon governments enforcing frauds by privately controlled banks.
The recent history of Obamacare has demonstrated once again how the funding of politics directed the medical systems to become even worse manifestations of the runaway Profit From Disease Systems. Indeed, as an objective fact, I believe that the established medical systems now torture to death at least an order of magnitude more people than the established military systems do!
Anyway, Trogdor, while I basically agreed with the comment that you made, I have endeavoured to explain the deeper levels of that, which lead towards NOT "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." There is no way to make a technological civilization disappear now, unless it madly destroys itself (which now appears as the most probable future.) However, instead, what such a technologically based civilization should do is recognize that its most important feature is its philosophy of science. As above, I have have tried to outline what happens if one pursues that course ...
Exceedingly well said. Whether or not heard or understood you is the question, and part of the problem. After all, there is an ongoing war on Christmas that must be defended.
So Viagra doesn't work after all.
Oh it works for most -- what it doesn't do is treat the common underlying cause: cardiovascular disease.
or fat ugly wives.....
Or Hardly treat them.
See what I did there?
Nah, it just has a "placebo" effect.
The Invisible Hand and It's immutable laws are being thwarted; that's the source of all corruption.
Repent, and the world may be born anew in Its perfect image once again.
The rule is "publish or perish" and when everybody is running on grant money, the only thing to do is make your bibliography as shiny as possible. Truth and facts are a distant second....
The rule is "publish or perish" and when everybody is running on grant money, the only thing to do is make your bibliography as shiny as possible. Truth and facts are a distant second....
Oh. You do not understand the New Rules?
It is we publish bullshit in the Medical Journals.
Then YOU perish as a result of the bullshit.
Publish then perish.
Does that make more sense now?
You need to become more modern, more progressive, rather than be stuck in your backassward ways. Damned knuckle draggers.
LOL
Hah! Yes Tall Tom, that is Profiting From Disease:
"YOU perish as a result of the bullshit."
Study director: "What's the risk ratio result for this clinical trial?"
Statistician: "What do you want it to be? "
Lies, damned lies and statistics....
Lies, damned lies and statistics....
Here is a page full of quotes about statistics:http://www.posnersmith.net/quotes_s.html
My personal favourate from the page:
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
--Aaron Levenstein