Better? Better than what?
Integity doesnât mean anything anymore.
Howâs Big Pharma gonna develop and sell drugs without new syndromes being created every few years?
3 Likes
You know what Big Pharma hates the most?
A healthy heart. 
Reading taken 15 minutes after my weekly Pull Workout (25 minutes of head-to-toe super sets with a single 2.5 minute breather).
Thursday is the same thing, but with Push muscles. Thatâs it. Less than 1 hour of gym time per week.
207.5 lbs total mass
103.8 lbs skeletal muscle
13.5% body fat
4 Likes
Reproducibility!
Must have been peer reviewing global warming papers, which Iâm sure they gave the stamp of approval!
1 Like
Its worse, if the in situ data they get doesnât support the hoax they throw it out and use grid averaging taking the average of the 4 highest temperatures bordering the grid.
3 Likes
Science is to accurately report outcomes, regardless of success, or failure, to further knowledge. Politics demands results to comply with the objectives of the politicians, with anything contrary to those objectives to be ignored and/or ridiculed.
4 Likes
Absolutely! You know who hates it worse? The American Heart Association 
2 Likes
Good thing for them that theyâll have plenty of new patients from the young men who were cv19 vaccinated.
2 Likes
A patient cured is a customer lost.
3 Likes
The vax ⌠the gift that keeps on giving.
2 Likes
There are two intermingled themes here:
- this is how science is supposed to work! A person develops a hypothesis, tests it, others review the methods and results. If if passes that review, itâs published and others attempt to replicate them.
If others canât replicate the results, the results arenât accepted. Thatâs an excellent system for confirming science. The fact that science tosses things that arenât replicable is a feature, not a bug
- the Bug is the pressure to publish new, different understandings that have high potential to have large impact. Thereâs not much funding in replication. So researchers seek out more novel, flashier ideas - and Iâm more than one case, build the data to match the idea.
2 Likes
I believe what the articles, at the head of this thread reveal two things
-
Science is NOT tossing them, except in rare an abberant cases.
(if science were effectily policing itself the the articles at the head would have found falsification rates of 1 or 2 or 5%, more in line with the rates of roofers, driveway resealers, auto mechanics etc.) -
When someone is discovered producing such non-reproducible quackery, ther are little or no repercussions. Certainly nothing that would compare with what would happen if plumber lied 49% of the time, or a big corporation covered up for its team of employees who lie 49% of the time.
3 Likes
Good thread.
1 Like
What if a private company charging thousands of famiies $38,000/year, played fast and loose with the truth this way?
1 Like
look at scott adams, took ivermectin and fenbendazole to treat his prostate cancer.
as i always say, listen to the quacks out there, they know what they are doing.
Allan
Soft science or pretend science.
1 Like
