Well. Yeah. Contrary to popular belief. Most “Journal of (insert medical term)” and similar publications. Are mostly private enterprises. Who pick and choose what they put out. No real standard for them exists despite what such publications may claim. Ghislaines Dad was actually one of the first to start this racket.
And handful of ones that aren’t. And are linked to Universities and or Governments. Are subject to both political pressures and funding pressures.
Not to mention it’s been an open secret that the touted “peer review” process that’s touted by so many journals, publications, and even colleges isn’t worth shit if it ever was to start with. An uncomfortable secret that anyone in “Science” who isn’t lying to themselves likes to avoid talking about.
He's quoting a former editor of NEJM, Marcie Angell, who resigned over her epiphany that took her 20 years to realize. As I recall she blamed political motives for biased research and reporting, but she wasn't the only editor at NEJM to come to that conclusion. This isn't a new problem. Schools don't teach skepticism and reanalysis, they demand compliance with their authority.
If AI summarizers become reliable, that’s bad news for contract lawyers who specialize in fine print and for legislators who hide their kick-backs in the riders.
Well. Yeah. Contrary to popular belief. Most “Journal of (insert medical term)” and similar publications. Are mostly private enterprises. Who pick and choose what they put out. No real standard for them exists despite what such publications may claim. Ghislaines Dad was actually one of the first to start this racket.
And handful of ones that aren’t. And are linked to Universities and or Governments. Are subject to both political pressures and funding pressures.
Not to mention it’s been an open secret that the touted “peer review” process that’s touted by so many journals, publications, and even colleges isn’t worth shit if it ever was to start with. An uncomfortable secret that anyone in “Science” who isn’t lying to themselves likes to avoid talking about.
It started with Darwin, at the very latest.
He's quoting a former editor of NEJM, Marcie Angell, who resigned over her epiphany that took her 20 years to realize. As I recall she blamed political motives for biased research and reporting, but she wasn't the only editor at NEJM to come to that conclusion. This isn't a new problem. Schools don't teach skepticism and reanalysis, they demand compliance with their authority.
The Lancet went along with the covid hoax, they published articles about how "safe and effective" the jab was. Fuck the Lancet.
And how dangerous hydroxychloroquine was.
The solution advocated by this author is worse than the problem.
If AI summarizers become reliable, that’s bad news for contract lawyers who specialize in fine print and for legislators who hide their kick-backs in the riders.