OT: Coming to a beach near you in NJ and NY
- Thread starter newell138
- Start date
- Status
Interesting. I also have several friends and relatives who work in high level positions in the medical, scientific, and pharmaceutical fields. And, by and large, #s posts about COVID were representative of what they were all saying about it. Guess our worthless anecdotal evidence cancel each other out and we're stuck having to go with the preponderance of statistical data and expert opinion instead.
Everybody's information changed, over time, as the various variants themselves changed and more and more data became available. Yet there's this populist narrative that plays well mostly among low-IQ folks, that denounces the preponderance of medical and scientific information, calling it "wrong" because it changed over time. Genius, amirite?
This supports my theory about not allowing anybody with an IQ under 150 to vote. But hey, look on the bright side... not voting means y'all will have even more free time to post lame politically-motivated narratives on the internet supported by meaningless anecdotes from your personal lives. Woo hoo! 🤣
Wow, that's kind of weak. Try again with some actual scientific input, detailing what your contacts have said that contradicts some specific things I said. "I know a guy" just doesn't cut it. And while you may have a wealth of personal knowledge of fishing, I just don't see that translating to the impacts of windmills on marine mammals.
Agree, NOAA is a joke and totally corrupt.
Thanks for your work on the slot limit. Long overdue.
Beyond clueless. NOAA is one of the most highly respected government-scientific organizations in the world.
I think you don't know what NOAA does.
Mild - I agree with the premise of your post. However, re: COVID, in my opinion, it's disingenuous to omit that there was an awfully high degree of perceived superiority and definitive "this is correct and final" that many people clearly defused when posting on the topic.
I don't recall a lot of "correct and final".
What I recall is the constant shriek of the anti- and denier folks every time conditions changed, attempting to suggest that because conditions changed that meant "science is wrong".
In retrospect, there are definitely things that could have been done better, by everyone. But NHIA, CDC and FDA did a better than fair job, given that they were dealing with a set of circumstances that just doesn't roll around that often.
Bring it to the current events board and we can do it. You have posted a bunch of stuff, some accurate and some wrong about covid. My contacts aren't "I have a guy" they are family members and friends who know a helluva about Covid, including a couple from your company.
And while i can't say I know offshore wind power is killing/can kill marine mammals, we all know that data can be manipulated to say what we want it to say. And I know NMFS has made controversial decisions over the years that didnt seem based on proper science. And we also know when it comes to money, people will skew the results to fit their narrative.
Vid posted in another thread that’s relevant here
LMFAO. You can't get Democrats to agree that voter ID should be a must and you think showing proof of a 150 IQ should be used. Now I've heard everything.
Hey Numbers,
This article is from an official Government website and probably should be read by everyone who takes all scientific "results as gospel". Sometimes circumstantial evidence is correct and scientists and corporations and the government do lie, or come to pre determined conclusions to fit their agenda.
Explains how corporations can influence scientists and government officials and other kinds of funky stuff to manipulate studies. This article is about the health care industry but can be used as an example for other industries.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This article is from an official Government website and probably should be read by everyone who takes all scientific "results as gospel". Sometimes circumstantial evidence is correct and scientists and corporations and the government do lie, or come to pre determined conclusions to fit their agenda.
Explains how corporations can influence scientists and government officials and other kinds of funky stuff to manipulate studies. This article is about the health care industry but can be used as an example for other industries.
The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process—and how to restore scientific integrity
For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
As @RU4Real said, I don’t recall a whole lot of “this is final” type statements from any experts. There were people trying to be reassuring, which can come across as overly dedinitive sometimes.
I never said it’ll get implemented. Just that I have a theory. Not sure why you single out Dems. The vast majority of legislators on both sides would never vote for a new law or amendment prohibiting them from voting.LMFAO. You can't get Democrats to agree that voter ID should be a must and you think showing proof of a 150 IQ should be used. Now I've heard everything.
Wait you mean when the WHO&CDC said vaccines were very safe and would "stop the spread" that wasn't true? I had a friend who died 3 days after he took shot#1 after 10 friends were together for a week long deep sea fishing trip, 18 hole golf outing and 2 spring training ball games 2 years ago. Throw in the fact we get lies all the time from the FBI & CIA hiding a laptop, for 2 years, Russian interference,China spy balloon was disrupted before it transmitted info,and where do I start with the current White House. Southern border is secure, Mar-a-lago raid wasn't ordered by them, the Afghanistan withdrawal is something they are proud of, the inflation is transitory and social media restricting free speech. So funny watching Liberals meltdown when Musk gave them a taste of what they controlled for 6 years on Twitter. With that said, how can anyone mock or question those that don't buy everything the media, alphabet agencies or White House $hits out, without questions? Only the ignorant would be so easily convinced. Question and investigate for answers you have a problem with.Hey Numbers,
This article is from an official Government website and probably should be read by everyone who takes all scientific "results as gospel". Sometimes circumstantial evidence is correct and scientists and corporations and the government do lie, or come to pre determined conclusions to fit their agenda.
Explains how corporations can influence scientists and government officials and other kinds of funky stuff to manipulate studies. This article is about the health care industry but can be used as an example for other industries.
The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process—and how to restore scientific integrity
For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public ...
Last edited:
Let's maybe start with term limits and a age limit for a Presidential run, you pick the age that you can't be over before the first term. My pick would be 68. Enough with this parade of Dinosaurs trusted to run this country into the ground.
Vaccines are very safe. They did stop the spread of early variants for which they were designed. Newer vaccines are not stopping the spread of newer variants, they're just too contagious. But they have worked very well to keep a bunch of people alive that might have become much sicker without them.
The rest is a one-sided take on politicized issues aimed at attacking the current admin built upon an oversimplified assumption of what's right and wrong, which is totally subjective and highly complex. People on both sides use wildly different takes, but do the same exact same pointless thing. I have less-than-zero interest in discussing any of it because 99.9% of it, coming from both sides, is hyperbolic ideological half-truth-based propaganda being regurgitated by people whose sum total knowledge of the issue is what they were fed through various propaganda machines.
I am allergic to the idea of allowing myself to be an unpaid servant of anybody's propaganda machine, left or right.
Great post and I would've said something similar with links, graphics and more words, lol, but I'm not allowed to. Interesting that others are.
Sorry, posting to the CEsspool is not worth my time any more, as it's >90% far right posters and QAnon adherents, who are beyond reach and not a single one of them has any medical/science background - even our friend T, who is a scientist, will step out of his right wing troll costume and note that that crowd is deranged on this topic. I'd be happy to discuss/debate any of this on the thread on TOS.
This is a good article, thanks (and the examples are drawn from many industrial products, not just those from the health care industry/Pharma). People, including scientists, need to be skeptical about the science they do/oversee and about the science they read about (that's the whole point of the peer review process). Skepticism about scientific experiments and results saved my ass countless times in the real world of chemical process development, formulation development and scale up to manufacturing, as well as colleagues of mine who were responsible for clinical development of new drugs/vaccines.Hey Numbers,
This article is from an official Government website and probably should be read by everyone who takes all scientific "results as gospel". Sometimes circumstantial evidence is correct and scientists and corporations and the government do lie, or come to pre determined conclusions to fit their agenda.
Explains how corporations can influence scientists and government officials and other kinds of funky stuff to manipulate studies. This article is about the health care industry but can be used as an example for other industries.
The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process—and how to restore scientific integrity
For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public ...
Fortunately, I never experienced any pressure from senior management when the science indicated we might have problems with some element of a process, even if resolving those problems could have been "ignored" rather than addressed, which always took time and money (delaying approval at times), which is completely opposite of what some scientists either experienced or, sadly, championed at other companies where problems were hidden or ignored, as per that paper.
However, I would say that for cases like the science underpinning anthropogenic global warming, risks to marine mammals from offshore windmills, and much of the science related to the pandemic (even the vaccines were co-developed with academic partners for the most part, most famously the case with the partnership between the NIH and Moderna), much to most of that science is generated by academic scientists and/or governmental scientists, as opposed to corporate scientists and that difference is important.
None of the examples in that paper were about scientific disinformation (or even fraud) coming from academia or the government, although clearly there have been cases where government regulators bowed to intense pressure from companies/industries, which is why it's kind of surprising that people who think that could be an issue in some current situations weren't up in arms over the efforts by the previous administration to defang/sideline regulatory oversight in places like the EPA, FDA, USDA, OSHA, and elsewhere. There is no doubt that some regulations are overreach, but I'd rather have overreach than go back to the days of wanton pollution, promoting "drugs" that weren't safe or effective (we have enough of that crap already with the largely unregulated supplement industry), and Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."
And the obvious reason for there being far less concern over the motivations of academic/government scientists relative to industrial scientists is the huge disparity in profit motives. Companies that don't innovate new products tend to not do well or go bankrupt, whereas academic/government scientists generally don't profit from their science, directly (they can by leaving and forming their own companies or going to work for industry), so their motivation to not do the best they can to publish real, actual, accurate science is far smaller.
None of this means there aren't glaring exceptions, but, on average, far less of it is observed. But since it can still happen, as I said above, that's why we have the scientific peer review process, which is imperfect, but far better than not having it in place. Because of these scientific integrity motivations and safeguards, it's rare that we see fraud or disinformation in peer reviewed science, which is why there are essentially little to no peer reviewed scientific papers successfully challenging well-established science, such as evolution, global warming, and the effectiveness of the vast majority of vaccines (and, so far, the safety of offshore windmills with regard to marine mammals). As Dr. David Gorski put it so well, "science has everything to do with developing a consensus that, of course, can be challenged with evidence." Personally, I'd be the happiest person on the planet if someone came along who truly discovered some other explanation for why the planet is warming, assuming it wasn't human activity, as that would mean we could focus efforts on something other than nearly every human activity.
Tagging @SkilletHead2 since we've discussed these topics many times...
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/category/antivaccination_lunacy/
Spain has now imposed two Marine Exclusion Zones off its coast in an effort to reduce the number of Orca attacks on cruising sailboats. There were nearly 300 such encounters last year with most of the boats sustaining serious damage to their rudder assemblies, a dozen or so with hull damage and 2 total losses (sunk).
It's surprising that a lot of people don't know that the story of Moby Dick has a real life influence. The wreck of the Essex is known mostly for the cannibalism that occurred after the fact but the ship was sunk by the repeated attacks of a sperm whale.
When the whales are pissed, they let us know. So far they're mum on windmills.
It's surprising that a lot of people don't know that the story of Moby Dick has a real life influence. The wreck of the Essex is known mostly for the cannibalism that occurred after the fact but the ship was sunk by the repeated attacks of a sperm whale.
When the whales are pissed, they let us know. So far they're mum on windmills.
Nice story on the Rutgers students involved in supporting research for this wind energy project.
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutger...rstoday&utm_content=Research & Innovation
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutger...rstoday&utm_content=Research & Innovation
Related to this issue is the one having to do with replication of research. I hold pretty strong opinions on this one. The argument is that work doesn't get replicated and when it does, it doesn't hold up. And then added to that is a totally bogus use of Bayesian theory. Bayes is great, but so many people are so stupid in how they use it!
At any rate, in most fields, anything that shows real hope gets the bejesus replicated out of it. It's why we have a technique called "meta-analsysis" which is the quantitative analysis of many studies on the same topic (if there weren't a ton of replications, you couldn't have a meta-analysis!).
The paper I wrote (along with Moms Skillethead and Skillethead, Jr.) was called "The reproducibility crisis in psychology: Attack of the clones or phantom menace?" Pretty good piece.
Hey Numbers,
This article is from an official Government website and probably should be read by everyone who takes all scientific "results as gospel". Sometimes circumstantial evidence is correct and scientists and corporations and the government do lie, or come to pre determined conclusions to fit their agenda.
Explains how corporations can influence scientists and government officials and other kinds of funky stuff to manipulate studies. This article is about the health care industry but can be used as an example for other industries.
The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process—and how to restore scientific integrity
For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public ...
Thanks for posting this. The NIH wasn't fooling around on this document - they name names.
The NIH didn't write it - was written mostly by scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists (which many on the right feel leans left, but who most scientists think just leans science). The journal it was published in, like thousands of other journals, is simply part of an electronic collection sponsored by NIH's Library of Medicine, which houses the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Yep, replication is where cold fusion fell apart, as nobody could replicate the results of Pons and Fleischmann. However, in the medical/clinical world, replication isn't always possible, due to ethical concerns, especially when clinical results show significant efficacy (one can't then repeat a placebo-controlled study, as withholding a now proven therapy becomes unethical). That's part of why there is so much replication of animal studies - meta analyses are often confined to non-clinical studies or to observational clinical studies, which rarely demonstrate statistical significance. Great title for a paper! Never did learn or use Bayesian theory much - most of my probability knowledge is self taught.
Looks like we have some objection from our military....
news.yahoo.com
Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind Sites
(Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon is sounding alarms over Biden administration plans to advance offshore wind projects along the central Atlantic US coast, warning that almost all of the new terrain eyed for development conflicts with military operations. Most Read from BloombergWorthless Degrees Are...
I actually like this idea, good to see someone is actually studying the impact that doesn't have a financial interest in the project.
Looks like we have some objection from our military....
Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind Sites
(Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon is sounding alarms over Biden administration plans to advance offshore wind projects along the central Atlantic US coast, warning that almost all of the new terrain eyed for development conflicts with military operations. Most Read from BloombergWorthless Degrees Are...
Since the article doesn't enumerate any specific challenges that would be faced by the USN/USAF (the objecting parties) perhaps you'd enlighten us as to what those specific challenges are.
Do i work at the Pentagon? How the F am I supposed to know? I'm just posting an article that popped up on my news feed.
- Status
