Gauges in her ears, tatted up like some sort of Italian fresco, and with a thousand-cock stare. I'm not a fan of the messenger.
However, her facts are correct. Now, it's a 2 min video. It's incomplete.
I've had the privilege of studying with professors who did peer review. I've seen the process in depth. I've never seen anyone be anything but exacting and unflappably professional about it. They go through the data. They check the methodology. Use the wrong statistical test with assumptions that aren't valid and your paper's rejected. Ever taken a grad-level stats class? Those who have know. These people see peer review a bit like challenging a PhD thesis. You drill the scientist putting forward the work, because their work is now your work. You're being asked to put your stamp of approval on it. What does it look like if you reviewed a paper and ultimately, it has to be retracted because it was critically flawed... and you missed the error? Peer review isn't the issue, IMO.
Group think is an issue.
Publish or perish is an issue.
Overworked, overeager students and interns trying to fluff their resumes doing the lion's share of the actual work on these projects is a HUGE issue. They either do poor quality work because they're inexperienced and overcommitted or they flat out lie and make up data. ESPECIALLY at prestigious programs. Ambitious people do what they feel they must and I've seen it too many times. The PIs often trust them and honestly don't know they're working with garbage data.
Gov't bias as the primary funding source of medical research is a problem. In fact, any funding source is a potential bias. If you want the grant money to keep coming, you give them the results they want. Publish the right things and build your career and wealth. Publish the wrong results and you burn a bridge with the people who pay your bills.
Publisher bias is an issue. So is their business model that relies on appeasing the university system, specifically the librarians who manage the subscriptions.
Cowardice is an issue, especially on politicized topics.
Cancel culture intruding on academic freedom is an issue.
It's more complex than just suggesting that scientists can't police other scientists. They sure as hell can and have for over a century. It took woke politics, activism, and rank cowardice to change that.
Did a quick dive into her Twitter history. Looks like she's in a long process of having some tattoos removed or covered up. She's also recently two years sober. She wears a shirt that says "unvaccinated and ready to talk politics." And also she was going to a party and was hoping random people would hopefully be in to talking about Jesus or Iran Contra... ha! Chick seems reformed/super based. She's a nurse, but even I would ask for someone else based on appearances alone. But good on her if she's corrected course.
Always thought when I was going through engineering school that the books we were using were NOT up-to-snuff due to the AMOUNT of wording that accompanied the topic...we always tried to "discern" WHAT the idiot author was saying...hasn't changed at all...
Cutting corners, fudging and selective editing of the data, unacknowledged ties between close family and/or friends to pharma and manufacturers, prior "reviews" for same companies that stand to make huge profits and the knowledge of more to come if the review turns out well....these are all problems that need addressed
I wonder how many of the peer reviewers would sign on if they were held personally responsible for the drugs and devices that will be reviewed? It's all a sham. Also, the way studies are designed can be manipulated to show results that they want to get. Studies of hydroxychloroquine were manipulated. It had been used to treat Covid to keep the disease from progressing to a point where hospitalization was needed. When used early it worked quite well. But studies were needed to show the public it did not work. So, it was given to patients that were already in the hospital and where the disease had gotten much worse and thus showed it to not work. This was a blatant manipulation that was purposeful. Had the same study been conducted when given to patients when symptom first appeared, the results would have been much different.
In saying that they “Sure as hell can be policed,” perhaps that’s true, but policing has its own issues. I think that’s the point. There are corrupt figures who “police” them into compliance of the agenda. I would estimate that 95% of actual police are good people with good intentions. It’s that pesky 5% that seem to always be in those key positions though.
Gauges in her ears, tatted up like some sort of Italian fresco, and with a thousand-cock stare. I'm not a fan of the messenger.
However, her facts are correct. Now, it's a 2 min video. It's incomplete.
I've had the privilege of studying with professors who did peer review. I've seen the process in depth. I've never seen anyone be anything but exacting and unflappably professional about it. They go through the data. They check the methodology. Use the wrong statistical test with assumptions that aren't valid and your paper's rejected. Ever taken a grad-level stats class? Those who have know. These people see peer review a bit like challenging a PhD thesis. You drill the scientist putting forward the work, because their work is now your work. You're being asked to put your stamp of approval on it. What does it look like if you reviewed a paper and ultimately, it has to be retracted because it was critically flawed... and you missed the error? Peer review isn't the issue, IMO.
It's more complex than just suggesting that scientists can't police other scientists. They sure as hell can and have for over a century. It took woke politics, activism, and rank cowardice to change that.
Did a quick dive into her Twitter history. Looks like she's in a long process of having some tattoos removed or covered up. She's also recently two years sober. She wears a shirt that says "unvaccinated and ready to talk politics." And also she was going to a party and was hoping random people would hopefully be in to talking about Jesus or Iran Contra... ha! Chick seems reformed/super based. She's a nurse, but even I would ask for someone else based on appearances alone. But good on her if she's corrected course.
It's really a shame that Hanks is a pedovore, he was a great actor.
He was a decent actor in an age of really shitty actors.
Always thought when I was going through engineering school that the books we were using were NOT up-to-snuff due to the AMOUNT of wording that accompanied the topic...we always tried to "discern" WHAT the idiot author was saying...hasn't changed at all...
Cutting corners, fudging and selective editing of the data, unacknowledged ties between close family and/or friends to pharma and manufacturers, prior "reviews" for same companies that stand to make huge profits and the knowledge of more to come if the review turns out well....these are all problems that need addressed
I wonder how many of the peer reviewers would sign on if they were held personally responsible for the drugs and devices that will be reviewed? It's all a sham. Also, the way studies are designed can be manipulated to show results that they want to get. Studies of hydroxychloroquine were manipulated. It had been used to treat Covid to keep the disease from progressing to a point where hospitalization was needed. When used early it worked quite well. But studies were needed to show the public it did not work. So, it was given to patients that were already in the hospital and where the disease had gotten much worse and thus showed it to not work. This was a blatant manipulation that was purposeful. Had the same study been conducted when given to patients when symptom first appeared, the results would have been much different.
In saying that they “Sure as hell can be policed,” perhaps that’s true, but policing has its own issues. I think that’s the point. There are corrupt figures who “police” them into compliance of the agenda. I would estimate that 95% of actual police are good people with good intentions. It’s that pesky 5% that seem to always be in those key positions though.