It's how industries like Big Pharma, Big Sugar, Mr. Weed Killer, etc., can peddle their wares. The War Against Fatty Foods is another example of intentional scientific maleficence.
Used to be doctors endorsing cigarettes, but examples over generations have continued and the response to COVID-19 with its misdirection isn't really an outlier.
Thing is they do have some benefits like helping with weight loss and some degree of mental health issues. It's just that no sane doctor would ever say this officially as they'd lose their license over it.
There are just a few downsides like cancer and dementia amongst other things >.>
A fun exercise for statistics 101 course would be to attempt to determine if the increased probability of death by lung disease/cancer caused by smoking offset the decreased probability of death by heart disease caused by obesity.
There are dozens and dozens more example of this. I haven't even touched on Covid, which has proven that medical science is not just broken but has been commandeered by corrupt scum to be abused for politics, to spread pseudoscience, and to enable injustice.
But actually diving into the sea of trash that is social science gives you a more tangible perspective, a more visceral revulsion, and perhaps even a sense of Lovecraftian awe at the sheer magnitude of it all: a vast landfill—a great agglomeration of garbage extending as far as the eye can see, effluvious waves crashing and throwing up a foul foam of p=0.049 papers.
That's putting aside all the papers that can't be replicated because the dataset is unavailable or the software being used to generate/analyze the data is unavailable because the authors are trying to start a company based on the software and don't want to give away the recipe for their secret sauce.
This is a well known problem for those who have been paying attention. The reason is that the academy is completely rotten. Peter Boghossians stunt of publishing Mein Kampf in a feminist journal should be all that you need to know about academic journals and the peer review process. Brett Weinstein also rails against the broken academic journal system.
The funny part is this is actually a problem in science. Amazing theoretical physicists emerge with what appears to be indecipherable gibberish to everyone but experimental physicists, who need 20 more years of technological development to even test the nonsense being described.
Peer Review isn't necessarily a problem, the issue is that how it's being used is a problem. It's become only about consensus building which is the main complaint here, but that doesn't mean removing peer-review as a system.
Peer-review should involve other people in the field tearing at your research to pick holes in it and find out where you are fucking up.
There is a concern that this could lead to science becoming to establishmentarian, and we have seen that in the past with Quantum Mechanics and Fourier Series'. However, there is also an important point about trying to make sure that established science is not simply overthrown by some new academic or intellectual fad. What we need to fix is Peer-Review promoting intellectual fads instead of maintaining scientific rigor.
Peer review puts zealots and activists in positions to rubber stamp conclusions they like and obstruct conclusions they don't. The aggregare effect of this over decades you can observe for yourself.
We represent temporary form within ongoing flow. The flow (energy in motion) represents the source of ALL information; which we as form within flow perceive as inspiration. Adapting to that inspiration is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL information.
What the parasites are doing with everything within form, is to corrupt our comprehension of flow by suggesting us the form themselves. The act as merchants of form in exchange for our consent to ignore flow.
They suggested money as substitute value (form) so that ONE doesn't use free will of choice to evaluate ALL (flow). They suggest copyright (form) so that we don't comprehend that we are suppose to mimic from what flow is offering us. They suggest SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] so that we consent to them for knowledge; instead of comprehending that KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "a clear and certain perception of that which exists" represents ONE using free will of choice upon ALL perceived to build ONEs own comprehension.
peer review
PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank". Each of us represents ONE (potential) within ALL (potentiality). We are each different in potential; yet equal in potentiality (energy). It is motion (flow) that self segregates us into momentum (form); because the perceived differences are needed as inspiration for us to be able to sustain ourselves as form within flow.; which requires choice based adaptation.
REVIEW, verb transitive [re and view.] - "to retrace". Flow moves form forwards from beginning (inception) towards end (death). To retrace represents to choose to ignore that which is (flow) for that which was (form).
Peer review; like everything else, is suggested to gain consent of ignorance (want based) towards self sustenance (need based). Between perception and comprehension operates free will of choice (need or want) and the parasites are nonstop suggesting wants to trick us to ignore needs. It always needs to be offer/consent under natural law (as defined by motion).
I can't prove that he is, and his other behaviors have a human ring to it.
Tammuz 7, 5781 - 'Use free will of choice; get your humanity questioned'. What a world to live in.
As for proof...if we are within flow; then we can only perceive change; hence PROVE, verb transitive prov. [Latin probo.] - "to try; to ascertain some unknown quality" us trying to build comprehension by adaptation to perceived change.
Question motion; comprehend change; get inspired to question if true/false contradict change...profit.
Bot posting spam
I'm a Nigerian prince; I made $3486 last month working online; would you like to buy penis enlargement pills?
STUPID, adjective (Latin, to be stupefied, properly to stop). As form within flow we don't stop; we transmute from form back to flow. Stupidity represents the choice of form to ignore flow. Ignorance closes up comprehension of what is perceived.
If only Bishops actually did that instead of actively participating in Heresy.
Its a phrase that people never actually think about and just assume it means that it has been tested and proven and everybody agrees with it.
When its usually just a handful of guys who have never left academia reading it and giving it a thumbs up.
Its the equivalent of judging movies as perfect because 7 critics gave it 5 stars.
It's how industries like Big Pharma, Big Sugar, Mr. Weed Killer, etc., can peddle their wares. The War Against Fatty Foods is another example of intentional scientific maleficence.
Used to be doctors endorsing cigarettes, but examples over generations have continued and the response to COVID-19 with its misdirection isn't really an outlier.
Thing is they do have some benefits like helping with weight loss and some degree of mental health issues. It's just that no sane doctor would ever say this officially as they'd lose their license over it.
There are just a few downsides like cancer and dementia amongst other things >.>
Chew your tobacco. ;^)
Tired: cigarettes
Wired: cigars ?
A fun exercise for statistics 101 course would be to attempt to determine if the increased probability of death by lung disease/cancer caused by smoking offset the decreased probability of death by heart disease caused by obesity.
Yup, and it has wrought this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and all of this and this and this and I'll end with a real doozy with this.
There are dozens and dozens more example of this. I haven't even touched on Covid, which has proven that medical science is not just broken but has been commandeered by corrupt scum to be abused for politics, to spread pseudoscience, and to enable injustice.
Nice citations.
Stages of modern academic denial :
We cannot accept citations as they are not peer reviewed.
Pointing out errors in my work is harassment and cyberstalking.
Pointing out fraud in my work is inciting violence against me and therefore violence itself.
.....
And we wonder why kids want to skip university
Haha, holy shit.
That's putting aside all the papers that can't be replicated because the dataset is unavailable or the software being used to generate/analyze the data is unavailable because the authors are trying to start a company based on the software and don't want to give away the recipe for their secret sauce.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals Ironically enough a paper that was published about the process. One of the best papers I've read as it actually explains what "peer review" is.
Now?
-STEMfag from a family of STEMfags
This is a well known problem for those who have been paying attention. The reason is that the academy is completely rotten. Peter Boghossians stunt of publishing Mein Kampf in a feminist journal should be all that you need to know about academic journals and the peer review process. Brett Weinstein also rails against the broken academic journal system.
Science progresses one funeral at a time.
Science is progressed by Great Scientists.
Greatness has no peer.
Not really. Science is progressed by great experiments. The Scientists are useless if the experiment isn't replicable, or the theory isn't testable.
touche
The funny part is this is actually a problem in science. Amazing theoretical physicists emerge with what appears to be indecipherable gibberish to everyone but experimental physicists, who need 20 more years of technological development to even test the nonsense being described.
Peer Review isn't necessarily a problem, the issue is that how it's being used is a problem. It's become only about consensus building which is the main complaint here, but that doesn't mean removing peer-review as a system.
Peer-review should involve other people in the field tearing at your research to pick holes in it and find out where you are fucking up.
There is a concern that this could lead to science becoming to establishmentarian, and we have seen that in the past with Quantum Mechanics and Fourier Series'. However, there is also an important point about trying to make sure that established science is not simply overthrown by some new academic or intellectual fad. What we need to fix is Peer-Review promoting intellectual fads instead of maintaining scientific rigor.
We need to incentivize reproduction.
Peer review puts zealots and activists in positions to rubber stamp conclusions they like and obstruct conclusions they don't. The aggregare effect of this over decades you can observe for yourself.
We also may need to privatize research funding.
We represent temporary form within ongoing flow. The flow (energy in motion) represents the source of ALL information; which we as form within flow perceive as inspiration. Adapting to that inspiration is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL information.
What the parasites are doing with everything within form, is to corrupt our comprehension of flow by suggesting us the form themselves. The act as merchants of form in exchange for our consent to ignore flow.
They suggested money as substitute value (form) so that ONE doesn't use free will of choice to evaluate ALL (flow). They suggest copyright (form) so that we don't comprehend that we are suppose to mimic from what flow is offering us. They suggest SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] so that we consent to them for knowledge; instead of comprehending that KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "a clear and certain perception of that which exists" represents ONE using free will of choice upon ALL perceived to build ONEs own comprehension.
PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank". Each of us represents ONE (potential) within ALL (potentiality). We are each different in potential; yet equal in potentiality (energy). It is motion (flow) that self segregates us into momentum (form); because the perceived differences are needed as inspiration for us to be able to sustain ourselves as form within flow.; which requires choice based adaptation.
REVIEW, verb transitive [re and view.] - "to retrace". Flow moves form forwards from beginning (inception) towards end (death). To retrace represents to choose to ignore that which is (flow) for that which was (form).
Peer review; like everything else, is suggested to gain consent of ignorance (want based) towards self sustenance (need based). Between perception and comprehension operates free will of choice (need or want) and the parasites are nonstop suggesting wants to trick us to ignore needs. It always needs to be offer/consent under natural law (as defined by motion).
Comment Reported for: Bot posting spam
Comment Approved: I can't prove that he is, and his other behaviors have a human ring to it.
Tammuz 7, 5781 - 'Use free will of choice; get your humanity questioned'. What a world to live in.
As for proof...if we are within flow; then we can only perceive change; hence PROVE, verb transitive prov. [Latin probo.] - "to try; to ascertain some unknown quality" us trying to build comprehension by adaptation to perceived change.
Question motion; comprehend change; get inspired to question if true/false contradict change...profit.
I'm a Nigerian prince; I made $3486 last month working online; would you like to buy penis enlargement pills?
STUPID, adjective (Latin, to be stupefied, properly to stop). As form within flow we don't stop; we transmute from form back to flow. Stupidity represents the choice of form to ignore flow. Ignorance closes up comprehension of what is perceived.