31–40 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because the person is evidently a con-man. So it is not as much "interesting" but "illuminating" that supposedly smart people like scientists can be just as easily mislead as the random person responding to an email scam.
Everybody, without exception, can be conned. Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody, without exception, can be conned. Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else.
"Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else" Absolute statements are very rarely correct.
A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above.
The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme.
Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like that to be correct.
I've seen women who do email support roles use an invented persona with a man's name. The one time I asked, the person explained that when they used their own name, they received a fair amount of unwanted attention which went away when they switched to a man's name.
Bill Gates' team and other global health experts have been pushing for a truly open sequence database for awhile now -- GISAID of course has been freaking out and threatening litigation all over the place for every perceived slight. Then there was the other scandal of late, Martin Enserink wrote about that one too ( https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over... ). Basically GISAID claimed they were…
The article has quotes like this:
many flu scientists hesitated to share newly sequenced influenza genomes, concerned that rivals would skim the most interesting data and publish a paper first
and
Indonesia stopped sharing H5N1 samples with the world in 2007 over concerns that foreign scientists were describing a virus from Indonesia without proper credit
The whole point of giving these people government funding is because they claim it'll let them focus exclusively on noble humanitarian goals, yet here they are acting like tabloid journalists.
and
GISAID has many stalwart supporters. “I’ve known Peter for a number of years, and his push for ‘equitable sharing’ has helped the database, scientists, and the health of humans and animals around the world,” says virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center, who co-chairs GISAID’s Scientific Advisory Council
Equitable sharing seems to be about what you'd expect [1], Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well?
Can anything they say be trusted? How many screwed up public health institutions are out there exactly? Why do we fund these people??
[1] https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s129...
It's interesting that a person without any background in biology (Peter Bogner) was able to start a sequence database that has now become critical infrastructure for public health. But it seems like GISAID has outgrown his ability to lead it, and it would be good to transition to more responsible leadership.
It is because the person is evidently a con-man. So it is not as much "interesting" but "illuminating" that supposedly smart people like scientists can be just as easily mislead as the random person responding to an email scam.
Is it normal to directly link to a scam website in the first paragraph, before exposing the scam?
Its here now , did I scare you ?
Bill Gates' team and other global health experts have been pushing for a truly open sequence database for awhile now -- GISAID of course has been freaking out and threatening litigation all over the place for every perceived slight. Then there was the other scandal of late, Martin Enserink wrote about that one too ( https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over... ). Basically GISAID claimed they were…
The whole field of virology seems totally messed up not just this one organization. These accusations are hardly a surprise given the bizarre behavior and culture of deception that seems to pervade the field. So many virologists were willing to sign that notorious Daszak open letter that was blatantly pseudo-scientific and the result of a genuine conspiracy. Where were the objectors? The article has quotes like this:…