Skepticism and critical thinking

Select to expand quote

japie said..
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.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

Evidence-based medicine is actually so corrupt as to be useless or harmful,***It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement 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.
Marcia Angell, 2009, Former editor in chief
New England Journal of Medicine

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practise of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful.
Dr Arnold Relman,
2002, Former editor New England Journal of Medicine

I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process. It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety,
Fiona Godlee,
2016 Editor
BMJ

They are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse. They're more serious, and they lead to a huge amount of death. Our prescription drugs are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

The pharmaceuticals] are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse."
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014,
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

"Antipsychotics are dangerous drugs that should only be used if there is a compelling reason, and preferably as short-term therapy at a low dose because the drugs produce severe and permanent brain damage."
Peter G?tzsche
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don't have evidence of its benefit.[i]It's time to slaughter the sacred cow.
Dr Richard Smith, 2015,
Former Editor BMJ

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common. This is surely a scandal.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor,
BMJ

Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

Yes, I read that already. It's almost completely irrelevant.

Why can't you answer my very simple questions? You must already know the answers. Here's the questions again, with 4 slightlty altered in light of your last post;

1- What are Atlas' credentials as an expert on public health policy? You state that he is an expert so you must know them.

2- How do Atlas' credentials in that area compare to those of other people on the Taskforce?

3- If you believe that the Task Force should have believed Atlas because he was a "credentialed expert" then how can other people not believe other "credentialed experts"?

4- Do you believe that editors of scientific journals should be trusted?

You're not engaged in a logical discussion using critical thinking if you're not answering very simple questions.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Chris 249 said..

japie said..
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.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

Evidence-based medicine is actually so corrupt as to be useless or harmful,***It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement 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.
Marcia Angell, 2009, Former editor in chief
New England Journal of Medicine

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practise of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful.
Dr Arnold Relman,
2002, Former editor New England Journal of Medicine

I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process. It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety,
Fiona Godlee,
2016 Editor
BMJ

They are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse. They're more serious, and they lead to a huge amount of death. Our prescription drugs are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

The pharmaceuticals] are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse."
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014,
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

"Antipsychotics are dangerous drugs that should only be used if there is a compelling reason, and preferably as short-term therapy at a low dose because the drugs produce severe and permanent brain damage."
Peter G?tzsche
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don't have evidence of its benefit.[i]It's time to slaughter the sacred cow.
Dr Richard Smith, 2015,
Former Editor BMJ

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common. This is surely a scandal.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor,
BMJ

Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

Yes, I read that already. It's almost completely irrelevant.

Why can't you answer my very simple questions? You must already know the answers.

Because as with others on here I don't choose to engage with you. I've read many of your posts in the past and my estimation is that you are a toxic individual and that you and your ilk are responsible for the state that the world is in. I consider you to be an enemy of the common man and a traitor to your country and it's people.

I hope that that's clear enough for you.

Well that's a load of rubbish from a cowardly liar, resorting to childish insults because he has no critical thinking skills and is gullible.

The fact that you gave zero evidence for your ludicrous claims shows that you have no understanding of the way critical thinking and adult discussion works. It is completely ridiculous to imply that I'm a traitor merely because I believe in following the consensus of experts in science.

In my work I've actually done stuff to bring down major corporations and those who use their power to harm others - have you ever done anything like that? I have and still run a couple of community associations - do you give to the community like that? In other words, I actually DO stuff to help the nation while you post rubbish on forums.

Just because you didn't answer;

1- Atlas appears to have no particular "credentials" on public health policy. He is a doctor and a medical researcher in a specialist field. Anyone with critical thinking skills would have checked that.

2- Atlas' credentials with regard to public health policy are no better than that of other people on the task force.

3- Any honest person would admit that if they are going to listen to one "accredited specialist" then it's dishonest to reject other with similar accreditations merely because they have a different opinion.

4- Atlas has been, according to Stanford "editor, associate editor, and a member of the boards of numerous scientific journals and scientific societies over the past three decades." So if you are going to claim that scientific publishing is rotten to the core then Atlas must take part of the blame.

Atlas works for the Hoover Institution, which is funded from sources like America's richest family, the Waltons; the Scaife foundation which is funded by oil and banking; and the Simon Foundation which was started by a merchant banker. Atlas is an advisor to start-ups and other businesses. Anyone who thinks that Atlas isn't getting his paycheque courtesy of big corporations is having themselves on.

Atlas also threatened defamation against other academics, so anyone who claims Atlas is in favour of free speech is nuts.

Since you chose to use insults I'll say that I'm sure you didn't answer those simple questions because you lack critical thinking skills and therefore swallowed Atlas' claims whole, and you are too scared to admit it because you are a moral coward.

Since you appear to arrogantly believe that the rest of us are not aware with what goes on in science, I'll mention that my wife works with and knows some of the most celebrated "data thugs", ie scientists like Bix, James Heathers, Jim Coyne and Nick Brown, who are working to clean up the issues with scientific publishing. She writes papers with Nick et al on her own time because she is passionate about ensuring that what is published is the truth.

Unlike you, I talk with guys like Jim and know about the GRIM test and what it can reveal, for instance. All of the crusading "data thugs" I know or have checked believe that in general the consensus is right on global warming and Covid. So these people who actually DO put their careers on the line to make science better - unlike cowards on the internet or those who are supported by rich corporations like Atlas or Youtube - DO believe that the consensus is right.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
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.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

Evidence-based medicine is actually so corrupt as to be useless or harmful,***It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement 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.
Marcia Angell, 2009, Former editor in chief
New England Journal of Medicine

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practise of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful.
Dr Arnold Relman,
2002, Former editor New England Journal of Medicine

I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process. It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety,
Fiona Godlee,
2016 Editor
BMJ

They are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse. They're more serious, and they lead to a huge amount of death. Our prescription drugs are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

The pharmaceuticals] are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse."
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014,
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

"Antipsychotics are dangerous drugs that should only be used if there is a compelling reason, and preferably as short-term therapy at a low dose because the drugs produce severe and permanent brain damage."
Peter G?tzsche
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don't have evidence of its benefit.[i]It's time to slaughter the sacred cow.
Dr Richard Smith, 2015,
Former Editor BMJ

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common. This is surely a scandal.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor,
BMJ

Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

While you were trawling the internet looking for "former" people to support your erroneous position, I went to a lecture by one for the world's foremost scientific fraud investigators, Elizabeth Bik. She looked at 20,000 scientific papers and found that 4 percent had errors, 2 percent appeared to be deliberate. Many of these papers have been retracted because of her investigations.

As I noted in my first post, science is self correcting. Whining loons achieve little.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

japie said..
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.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

Evidence-based medicine is actually so corrupt as to be useless or harmful,***It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement 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.
Marcia Angell, 2009, Former editor in chief
New England Journal of Medicine

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practise of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful.
Dr Arnold Relman,
2002, Former editor New England Journal of Medicine

I think we have to call it what it is. It is a corruption of the scientific process. It's led me and others to increasingly question the idea that the manufacturer of the drug could ever be considered the right people to evaluate its effectiveness and safety,
Fiona Godlee,
2016 Editor
BMJ

They are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse. They're more serious, and they lead to a huge amount of death. Our prescription drugs are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

The pharmaceuticals] are committing more crimes than any other business on the planet, and the crimes are worse."
Peter G?tzsche, 2013, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014, Co-founder
The Cochrane Collaboration

"Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications."
Peter G?tzsche, 2014,
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

"Antipsychotics are dangerous drugs that should only be used if there is a compelling reason, and preferably as short-term therapy at a low dose because the drugs produce severe and permanent brain damage."
Peter G?tzsche
Co-founder The Cochrane Collaboration

If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don't have evidence of its benefit.[i]It's time to slaughter the sacred cow.
Dr Richard Smith, 2015,
Former Editor BMJ

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
Richard Horton, Editor in chief
The Lancet, 2015

What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common. This is surely a scandal.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor,
BMJ

Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.
Prof. Douglas Altman, 1994,
Chief Statistical Advisor, BMJ

While you were trawling the internet looking for "former" people to support your erroneous position, I went to a lecture by one for the world's foremost scientific fraud investigators, Elizabeth Bik. She looked at 20,000 scientific papers and found that 4 percent had errors, 2 percent appeared to be deliberate. Many of these papers have been retracted because of her investigations.

As I noted in my first post, science is self correcting. Whining loons achieve little.

Neat. Did Elizabeth elaborate on the methodology utilised to eliminate the scientific corruption these former editors blew the whistle on or was it a secret enterprise?

GlaxoSmithKline (LON:GSK) paid nearly $10 billion in inflation-adjusted financial penalties between January 2003 and December 2016, the highest tally for any drug company, according to research published in JAMA. That sum was more than any other in a sampling of 26 companies paying fines inside the U.S.

Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) was next in line with almost $3 billion in fines.

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) came in the third slot with $2.7 billion in penalties."The pharmaceutical industry is unique in that all large pharmaceutical firms explicitly state that they are focused on promoting patient welfare, yet the majority of large pharmaceutical firms engage in illegal activities that harm patient welfare," said Denis G. Arnold, a coauthor of the study and a professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

www.pharmaceuticalprocessingworld.com/gsk-pfizer-and-jj-among-the-most-fined-drug-companies-according-to-study/#:~:text=GlaxoSmithKline%20(LON%3AGSK)%20paid,paying%20fines%20inside%20the%20U.S.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
Oh and whilst we are at it who funded her?

Because the scientific community has taken a pretty hard blow to the solar plexus over the past four years and I'm still a little suspicious.
Is there a possibility that some of the more liquid corporations put a little of their ill gotten gains into the hat in order to improve their public relations?

Probably not I guess. Why would they do that?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

japie said..
Oh and whilst we are at it who funded her?

Because the scientific community has taken a pretty hard blow to the solar plexus over the past four years and I'm still a little suspicious.
Is there a possibility that some of the more liquid corporations put a little of their ill gotten gains into the hat in order to improve their public relations?

Probably not I guess. Why would they do that?

She got started on this back in 2013, doing it in her own time.

You're a fan of reading,
www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

This is what she does now, she even lists her funding
scienceintegritydigest.com/about/

I've just read it. She obviously has a talent for spotting fraudulent images which is what the article appeared to focus on. That and plagiarism. Both of which are odious. I can see how scientists would now be particularly meticulous about the work they submit from that perspective. Not surprising either, that people cheat. As I stated in another post, the financial incentive will always result in temptation.
However the article does not deal with any of the concerns raised by the former editors of the journals I quoted. Look at that compilation of fines incurred by big pharma. Whilst they are enormous and presumably indicative of the extent of the crime, they are obviously only a deterrent to doing sloppy work. A cost of doing business if you will.

Take the analogy of a repeat offender. A person who has a record of stealing is a thief. That's not arguable. I fail to see why the pharmaceutical industry should be awarded a waiver from that logical conclusion.

Anyway this debate will never sway people whose opinions are die cast. It is now taking up more of my time than I'm prepared to commit and as I've said to you before, I use the forum to practise and learn and with regard to this subject I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future

Perhaps only to say I told you so ??

Select to expand quote

japie said..

It is now taking up more of my time than I'm prepared to commit and as I've said to you before, I use the forum to practise and learn and with regard to this subject I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future

Perhaps only to say I told you so ??

One of the moles refuses to come out.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
PubPeer and RetractionWatch highlight the self correcting nature of science. Something that doesn't happen in the world of CT loons.

Listened to all but the last 10 minutes of this exceptional 60 minute interview last night.

Neil Oliver interviews a female doctor from London about the censorship she has faced after questioning the narrative about the shots.

She does not sound like a 'CT loon' to me


%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY

The silly thing is how transparently illogical CTers are.

In one case they say that the scientific consensus is being corrupted in a way that improves the profits of big corporations, and that the few scientists whose theories would reduce the profit of big corporations are brave people fighting against big corporations.

In another case they say that the scientific consensus is being corrupted in a way that reduces the profits of big corporations, and that the few scientists whose theories would reduce the profits of big corporations are brave people fighting for big corporations.

The former case is of course Covid, the latter is global warming. According to the nutcases, big pharma corrupts the science but for some reason big oil doesn't - even though it has far more money and more to protect.

It's stupid. If the consensus of Covid scientists are so easily bought off then why doesn't the fossil fuel industry buy the climate scientists off? Big oil has far more money than big pharma and they both have far more money than universities.

It's as dumb as pretending that videos on Youtube, which is owned by the world's fourth biggest company, are not "MSM". Youtube's owner is far bigger than any "mainstream" media company; it's far more richer and more powerful and more establishment in most ways. Youtube these days IS the mainstream media, just like Fox. Not to mention, of course, that despite their stupid insults many of us never watch the MSM and actually get our information from doing proper research like actually reading the science.

They will never admit this, of course, because they too childishly cowardly and dishonest. CTers are like the corrupt people I used to investigate - too cowardly to be honest.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

Chris 249 said..


According to the nutcases, big pharma corrupts the science

Calling people nutcases because they have a different opinion from yourself exposes your character.

You appear to be driven by ego.

Ego refers to an individual's sense of self-identity and self-importance

An excellent and concise reply. If you didn't know what ego was, there is a definition for your convenience. (I personally thought Ego was a type of Magnum Icecream..).

I think I am also in the category of calling people nutcases. I guess that means my character is one of calling people nutcases.

Almost everyone is driven by ego. If we weren't we would do very little.

But its not a dirty word. Dirty word.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

D3 said..

japie said..
Oh and whilst we are at it who funded her?

Because the scientific community has taken a pretty hard blow to the solar plexus over the past four years and I'm still a little suspicious.
Is there a possibility that some of the more liquid corporations put a little of their ill gotten gains into the hat in order to improve their public relations?

Probably not I guess. Why would they do that?

She got started on this back in 2013, doing it in her own time.

You're a fan of reading,
www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

This is what she does now, she even lists her funding
scienceintegritydigest.com/about/

I've just read it. She obviously has a talent for spotting fraudulent images which is what the article appeared to focus on. That and plagiarism. Both of which are odious. I can see how scientists would now be particularly meticulous about the work they submit from that perspective. Not surprising either, that people cheat. As I stated in another post, the financial incentive will always result in temptation.
However the article does not deal with any of the concerns raised by the former editors of the journals I quoted. Look at that compilation of fines incurred by big pharma. Whilst they are enormous and presumably indicative of the extent of the crime, they are obviously only a deterrent to doing sloppy work. A cost of doing business if you will.

Take the analogy of a repeat offender. A person who has a record of stealing is a thief. That's not arguable. I fail to see why the pharmaceutical industry should be awarded a waiver from that logical conclusion.

Anyway this debate will never sway people whose opinions are die cast. It is now taking up more of my time than I'm prepared to commit and as I've said to you before, I use the forum to practise and learn and with regard to this subject I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future

Perhaps only to say I told you so ??

The article was to assist with answering your question of who was funding her.

Because you implied that she had been bought and paid by corporations trying to improve their image.


I would be interested to know what you have learnt from this discussion?
I do try to keep my comments at least vaguely rational so as to have these sorts of discussions. So it would be interesting to see what you got out of it

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Pcdefender said..

She does not sound like a 'CT loon' to me

She's a member of the HART Group, a bunch of CT Loons.

"An article in the Daily Dot said that the bland self-description was a "fa?ade" and that group members were engaged with COVID-19 conspiracy theories: transcripts of chat sessions between members obtained by DDoSecrets entertained the notion that the COVID-19 pandemic might have been planned, and contained exchanges about Bill Gates, George Soros, and The Great Reset."www.dailydot.com/debug/leaked-chats-ex-cambridge-analytica-patrick-fagan-hart-group/

Dismissing her testimony and the others in the Group on the grounds that you believe she is a 'CT loon' puts you in the same basket as Chris 249.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

I'll take that as a compliment.

Which reminds me... while I was unfairly banned, someone wondered if I had psychological problems because I do not suffer fools gladly.

Well you can relax, I was independently psychoanalysed by an external company because of the high research position I held, and the requirement for people leadership. The analysts found that I had extremely high skepticism and extremely high honesty, but what surprised them was that I had a very high willingness to bend rules to achieve positive outcomes. Apparently, it is highly unusual for honest people to bend rules-something the analysts had not seen before.

Can you provide evidence of this psychoanalysis or is it just some more unsubstantiated 'hearsay'?

The global seabreeze consilidated network is entitled to peer review and scrutinize this apparent report.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

japie said..

D3 said..

japie said..
Oh and whilst we are at it who funded her?

Because the scientific community has taken a pretty hard blow to the solar plexus over the past four years and I'm still a little suspicious.
Is there a possibility that some of the more liquid corporations put a little of their ill gotten gains into the hat in order to improve their public relations?

Probably not I guess. Why would they do that?

She got started on this back in 2013, doing it in her own time.

You're a fan of reading,
www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

This is what she does now, she even lists her funding
scienceintegritydigest.com/about/

I've just read it. She obviously has a talent for spotting fraudulent images which is what the article appeared to focus on. That and plagiarism. Both of which are odious. I can see how scientists would now be particularly meticulous about the work they submit from that perspective. Not surprising either, that people cheat. As I stated in another post, the financial incentive will always result in temptation.
However the article does not deal with any of the concerns raised by the former editors of the journals I quoted. Look at that compilation of fines incurred by big pharma. Whilst they are enormous and presumably indicative of the extent of the crime, they are obviously only a deterrent to doing sloppy work. A cost of doing business if you will.

Take the analogy of a repeat offender. A person who has a record of stealing is a thief. That's not arguable. I fail to see why the pharmaceutical industry should be awarded a waiver from that logical conclusion.

Anyway this debate will never sway people whose opinions are die cast. It is now taking up more of my time than I'm prepared to commit and as I've said to you before, I use the forum to practise and learn and with regard to this subject I'm happy that I have met my goals. Not to say that I won't participate in the future

Perhaps only to say I told you so ??

The article was to assist with answering your question of who was funding her.

Because you implied that she had been bought and paid by corporations trying to improve their image.


I would be interested to know what you have learnt from this discussion?
I do try to keep my comments at least vaguely rational so as to have these sorts of discussions. So it would be interesting to see what you got out of it

The article was informative. Refreshing to see her put her talents to good use. As I said not surprising to hear that people were cheating and that that avenue has been curtailed to a degree.

From the discussion as a whole I learned one very important thing. Or rather I confirmed it and that was that Google is seriously biased.

I'd read a few of those quotes by journal editors over the years but struggled to find them as I couldn't recall the names. I switched search engines and the article appeared on the first page. So that was a bonus!

Another thing I've had confirmed is that it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get people to acknowledge the truth. I've known since 1974 that there are bad players in the pharma industry when a cockies wife in the Karoo blurted out that she was injecting labourers wives on a monthly basis to prevent pregnancy.

I was 19 at the time and knew better than to open my trap for fear of copping a flogging. But it is one of those things that stick in the memory. And I've gone on to learn of so many instances where vulnerable third world communities have been used as cheap Guinea pigs.

To get people to see that behind the shiny labels of many of the medicines they get relief from is not an easy task. Generally the ego plays a massive role in people's opinions. Which the advertising industry knows only too well and exploits to the max!

I worked at a reasonably elevated level for a corporation for a while. I left because I grew sick of rubbing shoulders with sociopaths who tend to gravitate up the ladder. Their capacity to screw people over for personal gain is sickening and it would defy logic to expect it not to occur in the pharma/medical industry.

Trying to sway people's minds on an issue on an anonymous water sports forum is far from ideal but it certainly has its uses as I've indicated before. Because you're writing your thoughts down it is crucial to do so as competently and clearly as you can. Which makes reading critical. Which in turn leads to being able to recall what has been learned and being able to repeat it verbally. I run the risk of being accused of blowing my own horn here but my forte is conversation.

I learned decades ago that people are more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you let them do most of the talking. And if you ask them sensible questions. They then become more inclined to hear and process what it is that you have to say.

It works. None of my immediate family succumbed to the pressure to "vaccinate" and most of my workmates held out for as long as they did because they listened to what I had to say. Some resisted entirely. All bar one who did have admitted they regret it.

Finally the CT nutter thing! When people resort to verbal abuse it's similar to a boxing opponent losing his temper. You know you've got him rattled!