All things CoronaVirus

[Farfromgeneva]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

The folks outside the establishment should do the “reviewing”.

Straight out of a FR college kid trying to impress a girl type of thinking

He wants people to believe that the above is the NIH’s position, which of course it isn’t.

Right they’re agnostic to the results only flair the new information and how it can be incorporated into the world and future discovery.

Except in the land where everyone hires in the shadows, hidden agendas a vase the sheep and only one mountain man has transcended this zoo.

[MDlaxfan76]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

sorry, call me crazy but I'll take the aggregate analysis of scientists expert in the field in question over “some guy on the internet” who makes a living providing misinformation that generates clicks and eyeballs for profit, no other credibility. No editorial oversight insisting on facts, no interest other than building an audience of those who get their jollies from being titillated by one speculation or another, no matter how baseless. Or selling snake oil like ivermectin...

[tech37]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

The folks outside the establishment should do the “reviewing”.

Straight out of a FR college kid trying to impress a girl type of thinking

He wants people to believe that the above is the NIH’s position, which of course it isn’t.

Sorry bout that sport... here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."

Other:

https://www.wsj.com/science/whats-wrong ... w-e5d2d428

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2022 ... -problems/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... d-scholars

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/p ... e-problems

Need any more?

[tech37]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

sorry, call me crazy but I'll take the aggregate analysis of scientists expert in the field in question over “some guy on the internet” who makes a living providing misinformation that generates clicks and eyeballs for profit, no other credibility. No editorial oversight insisting on facts, no interest other than building an audience of those who get their jollies from being titillated by one speculation or another, no matter how baseless. Or selling snake oil like ivermectin...

You're not tired posting the same lame bullsh!t over and over and over...?

[cradleandshoot]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

sorry, call me crazy but I'll take the aggregate analysis of scientists expert in the field in question over “some guy on the internet” who makes a living providing misinformation that generates clicks and eyeballs for profit, no other credibility. No editorial oversight insisting on facts, no interest other than building an audience of those who get their jollies from being titillated by one speculation or another, no matter how baseless. Or selling snake oil like ivermectin...

You're not tired posting the same lame bullsh!t over and over and over...?

There is the chance that "some guy on the internet" slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[MDlaxfan76]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

sorry, call me crazy but I'll take the aggregate analysis of scientists expert in the field in question over “some guy on the internet” who makes a living providing misinformation that generates clicks and eyeballs for profit, no other credibility. No editorial oversight insisting on facts, no interest other than building an audience of those who get their jollies from being titillated by one speculation or another, no matter how baseless. Or selling snake oil like ivermectin...

You're not tired posting the same lame bullsh!t over and over and over...?

There is the chance that "some guy on the internet" slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

“You’re saying there’s a chance?” - Dumb and Dumber

[Typical Lax Dad]

Disagree.

Your infographic is evidence of a pathogen origin hypothesis only. How is it evidence of consensus?

Question...

What is the source of the graphic and what date was it originally published?

Yeah you are right….the consensus is that the China virus was manufactured in the Wuhan Lab.

Guess you can't or won't answer how your graphic is evidence of consensus? Wasn't that your entire point?

I can’t.

"Uh huh"

I don't think the graph 'proves' a consensus but it does show the many published peer reviewed analyses that point solely to zoonotic, contrary to lab manufacture. Many. The manufactured in a lab hypothesis is quite thoroughly rejected by those studies.

Peer review? Just like "who's checking the fact checkers?"... who's reviewing the peer reviewers? The intrinsic biases within the peer review system make it less than reliable/relevant especially re a politically charged issue like Covid origin.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused." – NIH

The folks outside the establishment should do the “reviewing”.

Straight out of a FR college kid trying to impress a girl type of thinking

He wants people to believe that the above is the NIH’s position, which of course it isn’t.

Sorry bout that sport... here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."

Other:

https://www.wsj.com/science/whats-wrong ... w-e5d2d428

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2022 ... -problems/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... d-scholars

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/p ... e-problems

Need any more?

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

What have you come up with as an alternative to the peer review process? You should submit a paper on it…

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://academyhealth.org/publications/ ... advantages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 2C%202010).


https://blog.degruyter.com/alternative- ... tors-lens/

Waiting on Tech to publish his recommendation….in the meantime we should suspend the peer review process….just put the information out there and let people do their own research so that we come up with something outside of the establishment…..maybe submit papers to Reddit?

[Farfromgeneva]

It’s easier and lazier to just question everything. And a as a bonus you can convince some people with confidence that you are intelligent or thoughtful.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Talked about a little on here.

No cervical cancer cases detected in vaccinated women following HPV immunisation

no cervical cancer cases have been detected in fully vaccinated women following the human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation at age 12-13 since the programme started in Scotland in 2008.

Hopefully that trend continues.

Australia is on track to eliminate cervical cancer by 2035, but some women might be left behind

[tech37]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

[cradleandshoot]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

If it is not a BFD, why did you note, incorrectly, that it was NIH’s position? I just pointed out a fact, in case nobody else took the time to confirm NIH’s position and just assumed you were correct. Richard Smith’s view doesn’t carry the same weight as the NIH but in your mind, it probably does. What do you suggest is used in place of the peer review process?

[MDlaxfan76]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

If it is not a BFD, why did you note, incorrectly, that it was NIH’s position? I just pointed out a fact, in case nobody else took the time to confirm NIH’s position and just assumed you were correct. Richard Smith’s view doesn’t carry the same weight as the NIH but in your mind, it probably does. What do you suggest is used in place of the peer review process?

Exactly.

I've been clear about the potential flaws in scientific studies, thus the importance of peer review, including repeatability.

Of course peer review is not always perfect either, which is why it's so important for ongoing scientific challenge, including ongoing peer review. Scientific challenge, not challenge of science itself.

What I dismiss is purported "challenge" by those with no actual expertise in the subject, without peer review and repeatability. Likewise, I dismiss those who are 'selling' misinformation or snake oil for profit or power, again without peer review and repeatability.

Perhaps tech can tell us what is better than scientific challenge with peer review?

[MDlaxfan76]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

Sometimes some people actually do "sound stupid"...they may or may not be 'stupid', but they have spouted off in a way that makes no common sense, ignores facts and logic. Simplistic and easily refuted.

We're all capable of doing so, including people who are objectively very 'smart'.

[Farfromgeneva]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

Sometimes some people actually do "sound stupid"...they may or may not be 'stupid', but they have spouted off in a way that makes no common sense, ignores facts and logic. Simplistic and easily refuted.

We're all capable of doing so, including people who are objectively very 'smart'.

Word

[Typical Lax Dad]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

Sometimes some people actually do "sound stupid"...they may or may not be 'stupid', but they have spouted off in a way that makes no common sense, ignores facts and logic. Simplistic and easily refuted.

We're all capable of doing so, including people who are objectively very 'smart'.

I rarely, if ever use “are stupid” unless I know the person personally and even then it’s a rare occasion, generally reserved for family.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Review ... eview.html#

“Types of peer review

The three most common types of peer review are single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review. Over time, new models have developed such as transparent, collaborative, and post publication peer review, which are key variations from the standard approach. Peer review is constantly evolving, with new models and changes to traditional models being experimented with regularly. You can find the peer review policies for individual Wiley journals here”

[youthathletics]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

Sometimes some people actually do "sound stupid"...they may or may not be 'stupid', but they have spouted off in a way that makes no common sense, ignores facts and logic. Simplistic and easily refuted.

We're all capable of doing so, including people who are objectively very 'smart'.

I rarely, if ever use “are stupid” unless I know the person personally and even then it’s a rare occasion, generally reserved for family.

You have used that term directed at me on multiple occasions....your slip is showing from under your skirt, TLD. SHould I take that is a term of endearment.?

[cradleandshoot]

Clarence, that was Richard Smith’s quote not the NIH….Capisce?

Missed this...

I'll use one of your favorite replies to people you disagree with "you sound stupid"

BFD. Why would I try to fool anyone with something so easily checked for something that "fooling" is totally unnecessary? It was an NIH site with author unknown to me. Obviously the message/quote was/is salient re mdlax's peer review claim.

Nice to see though that context actually does matter to you at opportune times!

Because when people say that you sound stupid that they are actually stupid enough to believe that you actually are stupid.

Sometimes some people actually do "sound stupid"...they may or may not be 'stupid', but they have spouted off in a way that makes no common sense, ignores facts and logic. Simplistic and easily refuted.

We're all capable of doing so, including people who are objectively very 'smart'.

My wife makes that inquiry of me rather frequently. Some times a few salty adjectives are thrown in for good measure. She hasn't figured out why I have over 30 birdhouses stored in the basement and I am looking forward to building more. She saw me eyeing up my table saw trying to figure out a way for me to take it down from the shelf and set it up in my garage workshop. Her first inquiry was what was I doing? The 2nd inquiry was as to the level of intelligence I was using for even thinking about it.