321–330 of 491 posts
As shown both in the article and in the comments, scientific establishment seems content to tolerate fraud. But when research goes against big money interests, suddenly standards become very strict. See how Andrew Wakefield was treated. https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.
I mean weed, psilocybin, shrooms, peyote, LSD, and MDMA are all pretty effective without a prescription.
People cite paper titles like they are facts. Nobody even knows whether or not it was an epidemiology study or an interventional study, they just say “they did a study showing that underwater basket weaving lowers your risk for colon cancer!” Nobody actually reads the studies. During a debate or conversation, many people cite studies in support of their point of view. This is a problem because now the other person is…
> there is an emerging cultural mechanism to deal with this in the growing “epidemiology is bullshit” sentiment There is an emerging cultural mechanism - more a rampaging mob - that says 'X is bullshit' as a simple way of denying facts or issues that are inconvenient or difficult. It's used for the news media, academia, non-partisan government agencies (e.g., the CDC), etc., etc. and for everyone who disagrees. I say…
What I want to know is how does this issue impact the notion that we all seem to buy into that we should "follow the science". Scientists themselves have a hard time "following the science". Add to it the observation that when an issue is getting lots of attention outside of academia, then there are usually some really strong incentives (profit, prestige) associated with doing the science and applying it (e.g., epide…
What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most plane crashes are due to pilot error, so maybe we should give non-pilots control of the planes."
Be a rock. This doesn't mean be hard-headed and unpersuadable, but it also means not being lead around by statistics and citations and "studies". Know who you are, trust your instincts, and do what is right for you.
The fact is, unless you're actually the scientist doing the science, almost all the papers and publishing and Science The Meme! that happens and is constantly and endlessly touted, has zero bearing on your own personal life. Ignore it all.
In particular, when it comes to health science, you can literally ignore every little bit of it--none of that garbage gets in front of a wide audience unless it's got some profit for some concern at the other end. Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy. Sure, you could use the NYTimes to determine whether a pescetarian diet is superior to a carnivore diet, or whether you should be eating highly-processed factory-produced fake meat and in what quantities, or you could just use your own common sense and your own body to do your own individual science--try carnivorous eating for a month, then vegan, see how you feel.
Be confident and ever-increasingly capable. Become more dangerous every day. Have an anchor that's ties your core values to who you are, however you define that, and let the rest of the masses get socially engineered into believing whatever the hell they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and mos…
I think this is one of the hurdles human civilisation has to iterate over en masse and long-term. Game theory is distorted by a mixture of power dynamics and the abstract nature of "society" - i.e. determining risk v reward (professional, personal, financial, etc) comes down to the individual person or organisation, whereas "society" as a concept doesn't get a say in each transaction as it occurs, so a lot of discuss…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.
This needs to end. I would take a pharmaceutical/drug related test (administered through the state), and it could be comprehensive; If I could renew my long term prescriptions. The pharmacist wants to see a blood panel before refilling, fine, I should be able to order one. (Only on long term medications (Blood pressure, diabetes, and most psychiatric drugs within reason) , and never antibiotics)
> never antibiotics
Despite the common wisdom, the issue there wasn't (mis)use in humans but rather certain agricultural practices which I understand (in the US at least) to have largely been curbed at this point. Antibiotics that were still clinically relevant in humans were being added to animal feed en masse because "reasons" (ie cost cutting of various sorts). Evolutionarily, that went about as well as you'd expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends on the risk/reward of not following the science - as an example, there was debate about whether ibuprofen worsened the effects of COVID early in the pandemic. MGH basically came out and said that while the research was leaning towards ibuprofen being okay (and the WHO at that point had announced it was), they had plenty of acetaminophen available and no reason to doubt its safety for COVID patients…
Unfortunately, the risk/reward equation is confounded by people who interpret any kind of public health measures as a slippery slope towards fascism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the sentiment, anyone on long term medication needs regular monitors by a doctor anyway. If you are only 25 this won't make sense, but by the time you get to 50 you need regular checkups for lots of things that are best caught early. I've lost enough family to colon cancer (spouse of a second cousin - can I even claim him as family?), and several others are only alive now because their cancer was c…
I'm not arguing against physicals. Right now American law states you need to see a doctor once a year in order to procure medications. We all know how many times patients are brought in just to get that script. They (MD's) love the six week interval. It pays for the lifestyle. I'm lucky if my blood pressure is checked. And the Colon scan is something they might be mentioned while walking out the door. My point is if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and mos…
So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono? Write an article and send it to the papers? This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.
Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In my experience professors might not be on campus teaching one or two days a week or in summer, but that's only because they are working their ass off from home, writing grant proposals, reviewing papers, doing basically anything to get funding, and trying to find time to manage their own research. I used to think it was a great gig too, since most professors had one or more small businesses on the side…
Agreed, you can definitely work from home, but you're being quite charitable -- 'let's assume their behind closed doors with no accountability and do everything we expect'. This is basically how we ended up in the replication crisis to begin with. There's little to no accountability and people assume they're working hard and being honest. 5% of all degree granting universities are R1 or R2 research universities, e.g.…