RFK hearing

[Incogneeto]

I wish. 

I'm trying to see if after people find out what a lying trash bag RFK is (and always has been), they will still defend and support him.

Yep!!


Now you know.

[beej]

I wish. 

I'm trying to see if after people find out what a lying trash bag RFK is (and always has been), they will still defend and support him.

We're kinda seeing how that plays out are we not?

By the way, calling RFK out for what he's doing doesn't = fan of big pharma. I don't think that is a tough concept to grasp?

I think RFK jr is a nutter. But he still might be right about corruption of science journals.

[CNCAppsJames]

I'm holding out for a Carnival Barker position.

Free fiss.

[CNCAppsJames]

... a lot of studies that are done poorly.  Small sample sizes leading to unreliable results, poor methodology, and yes, conflicts of interest. These things are often reviewed and pointed out by other scientists.

Aaaaaaand when pointed out, the scientists get flagged or called out by the rubber stamp crew. So, the vast majority keep their mouth shut and their rubber stamp wet so that grant money will continue to flow.

Science that cannot be questioned, isn't science, it's propaganda.

#ChangeMyMind

[neurosis]

I think RFK jr is a nutter. But he still might be right about corruption of science journals.

I had to look it up, because I don't spend a ton of time researching medical journals. There has been a lot of reform and transparency changes made since the early 2000's. A lot of it has to do with open access and the internet. I don't know what other system we have to rely on to do medical research? Isn't it a little odd that the same people who push for skepticism in the medical journals are still citing them using cherry-picked information? Are they trustworthy or not?

This is an integrity problem to me. I don't know if RFK is nuts or if he's just full of crap. 

[Del.]

Free fiss.

I'm working with the Yak woman.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

I think RFK jr is a nutter. But he still might be right about corruption of science journals.

He is both. Absolutely. The peer review process has stunk to high heaven for 2 decades, repeatability concerns, small sample sizes and outright lies which serve a narrative judged to be virtuous by the 5 publishing houses which control 61% of all published science material as of 2022:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/10/30/quantifying-consolidation-in-the-scholarly-journals-market/

Overall, the market has significantly consolidated since 2000 — when the top 5 publishers held 39% of the market of articles to 2022 where they control 61% of it. Looking at larger sets of publishers makes the consolidation even more extreme, as the top 10 largest publishers went from 47% of the market in 2000 to 75% in 2023, and the top 20 largest publishers from 54% to controlling 83% of the corpus.

Twenty owners/boards are responsible for presenting us 83% of all scientific papers. Something's wrong with that.

[CNCAppsJames]

I had to look it up, because I don't spend a ton of time researching medical journals. There has been a lot of reform and transparency changes made since the early 2000's. A lot of it has to do with open access and the internet. I don't know what other system we have to rely on to do medical research? Isn't it a little odd that the same people who push for skepticism in the medical journals are still citing them using cherry-picked information? Are they trustworthy or not?

This is an integrity problem to me. I don't know if RFK is nuts or if he's just full of crap.

IMHO... the system is deeply flawed. ANY time someone's work/paycheck depends on grant money from ANY source, the data derived MUST get extra scrutiny.

When I see polls, data, etc... that claim something substantial, then see a microscopic number of people, studies, "scientists" sampled, yeah... I'm gonna take that bullshit with a grain of salt weather I like/agree the result or not.

[neurosis]

But he still might be right about corruption of science journals.

To add to my last post

If it comes down to having to trust someone to explain a study to me, or tell me how trustworthy a study is, especially when it comes to medical studies, it's going to be specialists in that field, not someone known for misrepresenting studies to push a narrative. If I find out the specialists in those fields are misrepresenting the studies, I won't trust them either.

[Incogneeto]

I'm holding out for a Carnival position.

I won a Goldfish at The Carnival..

He swam upside down for a week before I noticed he wasn't eating.

I think I got a Bad Fish.

He was given a Circular Funeral.   

[Incogneeto]

To add to my last post

 If I find out.

You have to want to find out.

[beej]

To add to my last post

If it comes down to having to trust someone to explain a study to me, or tell me how trustworthy a study is, especially when it comes to medical studies, it's going to be specialists in that field, not someone known for misrepresenting studies to push a narrative. If I find out the specialists in those fields are misrepresenting the studies, I won't trust them either.

sabine hossenfelder goes through a lot of the junk science on her channel, often. It is worth watching and I find her to be very un-biased politically. She seems to be more worried about actual science than politics.

[Incogneeto]

sabine hossenfelder goes through a lot of the junk science on her channel, often. It is worth watching and I find her to be very un-biased politically. She seems to be more worried about actual science than politics.

This is not an opinion yet approved by Neuro.

Please Refrain.

[Newbeeee™]

He is both. Absolutely. The peer review process has stunk to high heaven for 2 decades, repeatability concerns, small sample sizes and outright lies which serve a narrative judged to be virtuous by the 5 publishing houses which control 61% of all published science material as of 2022:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/10/30/quantifying-consolidation-in-the-scholarly-journals-market/

Twenty owners/boards are responsible for presenting us 83% of all scientific papers. Something's wrong with that.

:CLAPPING:
You Good.
You VERY Good.
:CLAPPING:

[Newbeeee™]

IMHO... the system is deeply flawed

100%.
By. Design.
SHB has just shown that it is now, fully captured.
And "they" will NOT, let it go.
By. Design.