I've had a couple of things published in peer review outlets/journals, but being on empirical archaeological findings, there was little to quibble over. In fact, one journal had me leave stuff out due to lack of publication space. I took it as proof my arguments were sound and correct that no one replied or argued differently. But it could also have been because no one actually read the stuff. Esoteric information of little or no interest to the vast majority of people. This applies to much of what passes for "science", good or bad. The criticisms are often more about the critic's egos than the correctness of the conclusions. So, sticks and stones and water off Ducky Duddle's back. Politics, on the other hand, is something else entirely...or is it?
You mention archaeological findings. Do you have any idea why the mainstream academic archaeology community won't touch the anomalies in research on megalithic structures?
This problem is one part ideology and another specialization.
Even if you're not a zealot, if you spend your time in a silo of one study then you can't question what's going on in other silo's. And vice-versa, others questioning your silo.
But what's really lost is the ability to make "connections" (both senses of the word).
Now, how to convince the younger (40-ish) medical/science community they have been punked? Like so much these days, persuading with actual, provable facts is uphill. 🤷🏼♀️
Courage, true courage is in short supply. Indoctrination dilutes innate or learned courage - and that leaves us with many who cannot/will not revise their thinking. Tragic and of course, another dividing line held up as a generational gap. No, it’s simple ignorance and lack of introspection and analysis. Disheartening though we go on sharing.
In my experience, there is a generational gap, in that the quality of the educational system has decreased. And as you say, it's a case by case affair, some are open to learning. The plain fact is that education is itself a form of propaganda - a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make 'good' citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens.
During the Covid Hysteria it was my fate to bump up against this: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
This is not new. I saw the beginnings of it decades ago. Back when I was in school 40 years ago, we were required to take classes in Statistices, Design of Experiments, and 'Science and Epistemology'. These classes gave us a basis for conducting scientific investigation correctly, whether we followed it or not. Today they have substituted Ethics classes. It used to be "thìs is how you are supposed to do it", now it's "Please don't do bad science - wink, wink". If the tenets of Scientific Method are no longer driving science, something else will fill the vaccum. That seems to be carreerism and politics. This is a much deeper problem than people realize. Have you ever wondered why the West, particularly the US, has dominated science and scientific advancement? Why do gifted Chinese and Indian scientists publish very little of merit in their home countries, but thrive in the West? It's because their countries, in fact practicality all non-Western countries, lack the cultural attributes necessary to accept the brutal honesty, openness, and rigor required to perform good science. This is not a theory - it's empirically and statistically provable. Science only thrives in societies with Western values, and the decline of Western values in the West means the decline of good science in the West. The nihilists say that science is based on White Supemacy. That's actually close, it's based on the predominance of Western Culture.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
Doctors enjoy their kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. They prescribe drugs based solely on the pharmaceutical rep who was last in their office. They are thinking about that “free” trip to Hawaii to learn more about the drugs they give you. Most doctors are terribly compromised, and in the accounting world we would call it a lack of independence and adverse interest.
Article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune today, Doctors got 200k in free "devices" as kickbacks. The traveled overseas to perform surgery for cash with these free devices. I wonder how many he had to install to get a free one. How many really needed this device. Everything is a scam.
"Now, how to convince the younger (40-ish) *medical/science* community they have been punked?"
It ain't just medical and science, amigo.
This age cohort has been the focus of BigGovPropaganda since the minute their parents sat them in front of the Boob Tube when maybe they could've been reading with them, or playing with Legos, or chasing toads instead - but, I digress... Everything from Global Big Hot Bad to The Food Pyramid
It takes time and persistence, in my experience. Then there's the matter of dealing with fragile egos, those are the most difficult ones. It can be very frustrating, especially, when the stakes are high, as during the Covid Hysteria.
I've been using the internet since Dogpile, AltaVista and Netscape. I was once very good at finding what I was looking for. Now it's much more difficult. Still looming for a great search engine
Try Presearch.. my cyberangels moved me from Google in 2015 to avoid tracking & algorithm issues to distributed node system that has spiffy tools they like and results like it's 2008 again.
The Russians have just as much ideology, much of it in common with the west (WEF, WHO, central banks, biometric ID, digital Rubel, vax mandates) but sometimes a bit hidden so they can bash the west.
The reason that some of the Russian and similar services are of value is often because they are not quite as adept at controlling technology and the tools we use. Give them a bit of time and their tools too will be compromised.
Yep - I cancelled my longstanding subscription to SciAm six or seven years ago when it became painfully obvious that political correctness had become its staple.
The entire medical and scientific journal industry has become about making money and not sharing rigorous information and data. If we are to follow evidenced based medicine then the evidence needs a bit of mopping up. The peer review process is in many cases is a joke where the submitting author is asked who they would like to have review their paper. This leads to conflicts of interests galore.
We need more rapid response sites like this in order to pull medical and scientific literature out of the gutter. I also believe the journal industry should be reigned in and perhaps all publications should require raw data be included in supplemental info and articles made available at no or low cost. $35 is criminal. That might help weed out the garbage post publication because the current “peer review” process is ineffective.
I guess they all forgot about science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon's Law written way back in 1957: "ninety percent of everything is crap".
As an additional tidbit - In 2013, philosopher Daniel Dennett championed Sturgeon's law as one of his SEVEN TOOLS for CRITICAL THINKING. 90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap
Like the drive-by media race false narratives and cpi/jobs data though.....the whole point of propaganda is the first mover effect....these fake studies have already fulfilled their goal in manipulating normie brains.
"Safe and effective", "hands up dont shoot", "1,000,000 new jobs", all remain "facts" to the audience that they were intended. The revision/retraction/updates won't alter the "facts" in their minds.
It is a good thing I agree, but the problem is the false studies will continue to be concocted to suit government/pharma/"science" narratives. And will manipulate millions of low information subjects before they are retracted.
I just read an article (Dr. Byram Bridle) that the FLCCC is starting their own independent medical journal and will not be accepting any funding from pharma. I am hopeful this will be a new barometer…
Nearly anything can be “proven” using medline searches. It’s nearly useless. I see all the internet health and nutrition gurus proving themselves right (so buy their program and supplements!) using research papers, and they aren’t wrong, but researchers tend to find what they look for and miss the confounders. The interesting stuff happens when someone goes out to “debunk” something, and can’t, and is forced to reconsider the whole hypothesis.
The big Australian meta-study that supposedly debunked homeopathy was finally shown to have been shamefully altered because their first pass showed a clear benefit beyond placebo.
There is always a piper. The best we can do is competing pipers.
When I read that something is “proven” by such and such data I see a big red flag. A hypothesis can be supported , partially supported, or not supported by the data at hand. Theories can be formulated when there is much supported data, unless you are a brilliant theorist , such as Einstein.
When these former PhDs all get fired for being liars and cheats, they'll have to start working at my Starbucks and In-N-Out and then I'll never be able to get a good cup of coffee or a tasty double-double, because they'll screw that up, too.
The peer reviewed racket is the ultimate example of an echo chamber. The critters that play that game will never leave the chamber. They should look to Pogo for solace, "We have met the enemy & he is us." Perhaps they could research some peer reviewed articles on circular firing squads? One of your best el gato malo!
In 1979 I was taking a class in college to add to my continuing education. I was an artist doing metal work / jewelry and selling well at art fairs for over 7 years already. (I out sold the professor in that course at those fairs). He added me to his cricle of other teachers and I learned that they would give artworks to each other then their resumes would list that work "In the collection of" the other professor. They would also write forwards for each other's books. (publish or perish, don't ya know). Same game in every field.
It can only be a racket. Otherwise, well over 90% of established science would be constantly rewritten. That would be the end of big pharma and the medical mafia.
I used to research, research, research when it came to prescription drugs. Wanted to know any negatives out there before unleashing something on my patients. I figured out that tried and true meds were being vilified to make room for the new, expensive, often not better, crop. ( I was not surprised about the ivermicten slander) The studies are so often fraudulent. I just rely now on basic pharmacology and do the watch and wait. If no lawsuits in 10 years, then maybe I might write for it. Less is more. So glad to see some one admitting they are full of kaka!!
That is interesting. I’ve actually preferred seeing nurse practitioners for most things rather than doctors for a while now. NPs actually listen and don’t talk down to me.
My only reservation might be how many of these retracted studies are being retracted not due to being incorrect or written by AI, but because they are not politically correct? It seems I’ve read many times recently about a study on the Covid vaccine or ivermectin or some other study on a subject not in favor that was retracted and then found to be correct after all. They were retracted because someone with a little power didn’t like the results.
Gatopal review is far superior to peer review.
I've had a couple of things published in peer review outlets/journals, but being on empirical archaeological findings, there was little to quibble over. In fact, one journal had me leave stuff out due to lack of publication space. I took it as proof my arguments were sound and correct that no one replied or argued differently. But it could also have been because no one actually read the stuff. Esoteric information of little or no interest to the vast majority of people. This applies to much of what passes for "science", good or bad. The criticisms are often more about the critic's egos than the correctness of the conclusions. So, sticks and stones and water off Ducky Duddle's back. Politics, on the other hand, is something else entirely...or is it?
"Esoteric information of little or no interest to the vast majority of people."
*raises hand, stands*
I'm your guy, Mick. If it's useless, I definitely know it.
I might have been the primary source cited ;-)
lol
You mention archaeological findings. Do you have any idea why the mainstream academic archaeology community won't touch the anomalies in research on megalithic structures?
Came here to ask the same thing. My mom just watched Ancient Apocalypse and is struggling with the mainstream disinterest.
aka "I gave my paper a Cat Scan"
Don't sell yourself short Yuri!...:)
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/70d843d0-3a95-4556-bd09-aa38ad7903ff
Less peers. More Polymaths.
This problem is one part ideology and another specialization.
Even if you're not a zealot, if you spend your time in a silo of one study then you can't question what's going on in other silo's. And vice-versa, others questioning your silo.
But what's really lost is the ability to make "connections" (both senses of the word).
Now, how to convince the younger (40-ish) medical/science community they have been punked? Like so much these days, persuading with actual, provable facts is uphill. 🤷🏼♀️
Yes. It's been an active campaign to diminish curiosity and wisdom.
Why do you think it appears as if doctors, etc. lacked empathy, etc?
The degree you can utilize Theory of Mind is directly linked to curiosity and wisdom.
They have weeded against those attributes and I would argue this also has a deleterious effect on courage.
Courage, true courage is in short supply. Indoctrination dilutes innate or learned courage - and that leaves us with many who cannot/will not revise their thinking. Tragic and of course, another dividing line held up as a generational gap. No, it’s simple ignorance and lack of introspection and analysis. Disheartening though we go on sharing.
I have come to understand how profoundly true this is - "Courage is the first virtue because it makes all others possible."
In my experience, there is a generational gap, in that the quality of the educational system has decreased. And as you say, it's a case by case affair, some are open to learning. The plain fact is that education is itself a form of propaganda - a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make 'good' citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens.
H. L. Mencken
Agree. Well said
During the Covid Hysteria it was my fate to bump up against this: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
Indeed
This is not new. I saw the beginnings of it decades ago. Back when I was in school 40 years ago, we were required to take classes in Statistices, Design of Experiments, and 'Science and Epistemology'. These classes gave us a basis for conducting scientific investigation correctly, whether we followed it or not. Today they have substituted Ethics classes. It used to be "thìs is how you are supposed to do it", now it's "Please don't do bad science - wink, wink". If the tenets of Scientific Method are no longer driving science, something else will fill the vaccum. That seems to be carreerism and politics. This is a much deeper problem than people realize. Have you ever wondered why the West, particularly the US, has dominated science and scientific advancement? Why do gifted Chinese and Indian scientists publish very little of merit in their home countries, but thrive in the West? It's because their countries, in fact practicality all non-Western countries, lack the cultural attributes necessary to accept the brutal honesty, openness, and rigor required to perform good science. This is not a theory - it's empirically and statistically provable. Science only thrives in societies with Western values, and the decline of Western values in the West means the decline of good science in the West. The nihilists say that science is based on White Supemacy. That's actually close, it's based on the predominance of Western Culture.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
Doctors enjoy their kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. They prescribe drugs based solely on the pharmaceutical rep who was last in their office. They are thinking about that “free” trip to Hawaii to learn more about the drugs they give you. Most doctors are terribly compromised, and in the accounting world we would call it a lack of independence and adverse interest.
Article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune today, Doctors got 200k in free "devices" as kickbacks. The traveled overseas to perform surgery for cash with these free devices. I wonder how many he had to install to get a free one. How many really needed this device. Everything is a scam.
"Now, how to convince the younger (40-ish) *medical/science* community they have been punked?"
It ain't just medical and science, amigo.
This age cohort has been the focus of BigGovPropaganda since the minute their parents sat them in front of the Boob Tube when maybe they could've been reading with them, or playing with Legos, or chasing toads instead - but, I digress... Everything from Global Big Hot Bad to The Food Pyramid
https://tinyurl.com/ybkynebe
to 6 Feet To Flatten The Curve, and not a one of them in We the Little People's Best Interest. *something something Public Choice Theory something*
I hope The Gods of the Substack Headings find me worthy of posting two links because this one seems relevant, too. Even moreso, in fact.
Still miss Frank *sniff*
https://youtu.be/JPFIkty4Zvk?si=6kIT6w2mYXGOSsbJ
Yes....evidence-based medicine replaced common sense.
Oh, the youngest are working real hard to be master punkers. See Karlstack's post:
https://www.karlstack.com/p/exclusive-scandal-at-americas-top?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=353444&post_id=144821771&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=p0wtk&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
It takes time and persistence, in my experience. Then there's the matter of dealing with fragile egos, those are the most difficult ones. It can be very frustrating, especially, when the stakes are high, as during the Covid Hysteria.
Modern science was founded and advanced by an individualist culture.
In the mid-twentieth century, a collectivist culture colonised it, and progress has been a crawl since then.
https://thewayofflesh.substack.com/p/can-science-be-saved
I've been using the internet since Dogpile, AltaVista and Netscape. I was once very good at finding what I was looking for. Now it's much more difficult. Still looming for a great search engine
I use Yandex because I trust the Russians much more than I do the goog.
Try Presearch.. my cyberangels moved me from Google in 2015 to avoid tracking & algorithm issues to distributed node system that has spiffy tools they like and results like it's 2008 again.
https://www.presearch.io/about
The Russians have just as much ideology, much of it in common with the west (WEF, WHO, central banks, biometric ID, digital Rubel, vax mandates) but sometimes a bit hidden so they can bash the west.
The reason that some of the Russian and similar services are of value is often because they are not quite as adept at controlling technology and the tools we use. Give them a bit of time and their tools too will be compromised.
MetaGer has proven solidly reliable, when looking for results the others try to bury.
Here's a nice example of a 'controversial topic' search.
Note the results are all relevant to the topic.
And also note the absence of conflation fluff.
https://metager.org/meta/meta.ger3?eingabe=Vaccine%20backlash&focus=web&mgv=113c6ca0ad3358c20efe96388ac23ae6&ua=1
There's also a lot I like in their privacy policy.
https://metager.org/datenschutz
Nature and Scientific American compromised themselves well over a decade ago when they bent over for the global warming thugs, now known as the climate catastrophe mafia. If you want to know what kind of hoop scientists jump through to publish outright lies about climate check out this scientist's blog: https://patricktbrown.org/2023/09/05/the-not-so-secret-formula-for-publishing-a-high-profile-climate-change-research-paper/
Agreed!
Yep - I cancelled my longstanding subscription to SciAm six or seven years ago when it became painfully obvious that political correctness had become its staple.
The entire medical and scientific journal industry has become about making money and not sharing rigorous information and data. If we are to follow evidenced based medicine then the evidence needs a bit of mopping up. The peer review process is in many cases is a joke where the submitting author is asked who they would like to have review their paper. This leads to conflicts of interests galore.
Peter Doshi, BMJ editor, has a website for reporting poorly designed, interpreted and published clinical trials. RIAT https://restoringtrials.org/riat-expressions-of-concern-campaign/
We need more rapid response sites like this in order to pull medical and scientific literature out of the gutter. I also believe the journal industry should be reigned in and perhaps all publications should require raw data be included in supplemental info and articles made available at no or low cost. $35 is criminal. That might help weed out the garbage post publication because the current “peer review” process is ineffective.
When we finish looking at Journal fraud check out text book racket!
I guess they all forgot about science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon's Law written way back in 1957: "ninety percent of everything is crap".
As an additional tidbit - In 2013, philosopher Daniel Dennett championed Sturgeon's law as one of his SEVEN TOOLS for CRITICAL THINKING. 90% of everything is crap. That is true, whether you are talking about physics, chemistry, evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine – you name it – rock music, country western. 90% of everything is crap
Is the other 10% a pony? 😁
I love it!
The other 10% craplite.
Like the drive-by media race false narratives and cpi/jobs data though.....the whole point of propaganda is the first mover effect....these fake studies have already fulfilled their goal in manipulating normie brains.
"Safe and effective", "hands up dont shoot", "1,000,000 new jobs", all remain "facts" to the audience that they were intended. The revision/retraction/updates won't alter the "facts" in their minds.
It is a good thing I agree, but the problem is the false studies will continue to be concocted to suit government/pharma/"science" narratives. And will manipulate millions of low information subjects before they are retracted.
It will keep happening.
You're not wrong, Locke, but the white pill still tastes sweet, Gato
I just read an article (Dr. Byram Bridle) that the FLCCC is starting their own independent medical journal and will not be accepting any funding from pharma. I am hopeful this will be a new barometer…
https://open.substack.com/pub/viralimmunologist/p/flccc-alliance-launches-new-independent?r=1ennfo&utm_medium=ios
"as any system gets established and later ossified, those in and around it learn to game it." Wow, so much of history in one sentence!
Sounds like the federal government
It's *all* governments and institutions.
Nearly anything can be “proven” using medline searches. It’s nearly useless. I see all the internet health and nutrition gurus proving themselves right (so buy their program and supplements!) using research papers, and they aren’t wrong, but researchers tend to find what they look for and miss the confounders. The interesting stuff happens when someone goes out to “debunk” something, and can’t, and is forced to reconsider the whole hypothesis.
The big Australian meta-study that supposedly debunked homeopathy was finally shown to have been shamefully altered because their first pass showed a clear benefit beyond placebo.
There is always a piper. The best we can do is competing pipers.
When I read that something is “proven” by such and such data I see a big red flag. A hypothesis can be supported , partially supported, or not supported by the data at hand. Theories can be formulated when there is much supported data, unless you are a brilliant theorist , such as Einstein.
And even Einstein is hotly debated
gato, this is terrifying.
When these former PhDs all get fired for being liars and cheats, they'll have to start working at my Starbucks and In-N-Out and then I'll never be able to get a good cup of coffee or a tasty double-double, because they'll screw that up, too.
The peer reviewed racket is the ultimate example of an echo chamber. The critters that play that game will never leave the chamber. They should look to Pogo for solace, "We have met the enemy & he is us." Perhaps they could research some peer reviewed articles on circular firing squads? One of your best el gato malo!
In 1979 I was taking a class in college to add to my continuing education. I was an artist doing metal work / jewelry and selling well at art fairs for over 7 years already. (I out sold the professor in that course at those fairs). He added me to his cricle of other teachers and I learned that they would give artworks to each other then their resumes would list that work "In the collection of" the other professor. They would also write forwards for each other's books. (publish or perish, don't ya know). Same game in every field.
One of my favorite HS classes was was a semester long jewelry class.
It can only be a racket. Otherwise, well over 90% of established science would be constantly rewritten. That would be the end of big pharma and the medical mafia.
I used to research, research, research when it came to prescription drugs. Wanted to know any negatives out there before unleashing something on my patients. I figured out that tried and true meds were being vilified to make room for the new, expensive, often not better, crop. ( I was not surprised about the ivermicten slander) The studies are so often fraudulent. I just rely now on basic pharmacology and do the watch and wait. If no lawsuits in 10 years, then maybe I might write for it. Less is more. So glad to see some one admitting they are full of kaka!!
We need more doctors like you!
its Because I'm a Nurse Practitioner! Thank you!
That is interesting. I’ve actually preferred seeing nurse practitioners for most things rather than doctors for a while now. NPs actually listen and don’t talk down to me.
My only reservation might be how many of these retracted studies are being retracted not due to being incorrect or written by AI, but because they are not politically correct? It seems I’ve read many times recently about a study on the Covid vaccine or ivermectin or some other study on a subject not in favor that was retracted and then found to be correct after all. They were retracted because someone with a little power didn’t like the results.
Agreed. I had a similar thought. Papers have always been pulled or not approved because they didn’t go a long with the normal.
That’s not an excuse but an observation. I think about Mitchell of the “Mitchell hypothesis” and Lamarck vs Darwin.
Good Point!
LIKE
“Peer Reviewed” has just become a term that acts like a pacifier to the NPR Canvas Tote Bag owners of the world.
They hear that sacred phrase and questioning anything that follows becomes unnecessary and possibly dangerous.