All things CoronaVirus

[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.

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.?

Yeah….you sound stupid too.

[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'.

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.?

mmm, pretty sure TLD rarely says "are", instead says "sound".
You did understand that's what he's saying, right?

[Farfromgeneva]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

[youthathletics]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

Looking forward to TLD calling you out.

[Typical Lax Dad]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

I have yet to hear anyone say the Peer Review process leads to bad science. I have heard people say its slow, it is not always right, there should be more incentives…..the guy being interviewed claims he doesn’t care where something is published…..I say the internet has devalued information and expertise…..look no further than just today someone saying Tucker Carlson could meditate the Ukraine / Russian war…..or listen to what Joe Rogan says about XYZ…… there are a multitude of peer review processes and the system is constantly evolving and people seem to be demonstrating a continuous improvement model. I am waiting on someone to offer an alternative to the various processes.

Notice how often the guy hedges what he says. Nothing definitive. Part of the issue with the internet is the outliers get more airtime. For every one of those dudes talking there are a hundred that support the process. I am surprised the guy didn’t say he plans on “disrupting the peer review process”…..or he will execute a process sharing model that values each step of the peer review process independently to make it more efficient….like Uber or Airbnb. I am waiting for example of how the peer review process has historically led to bad science and that’s why we haven’t advanced science. I don’t want to hear that its not perfect of has flaws…. I don’t know of anyone that claims it is a zero defect process. Next someone will say let AI do it…….

[Farfromgeneva]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

I have yet to hear anyone say the Peer Review process leads to bad science. I have heard people say its slow, it is not always right, there should be more incentives…..the guy being interviewed claims he doesn’t care where something is published…..I say the internet has devalued information and expertise…..look no further than just today someone saying Tucker Carlson could meditate the Ukraine / Russian war…..or listen to what Joe Rogan says about XYZ…… there are a multitude of peer review processes and the system is constantly evolving and people seem to be demonstrating a continuous improvement model. I am waiting on someone to offer an alternative to the various processes.

Notice how often the guy hedges what he says. Nothing definitive. Part of the issue with the internet is the outliers get more airtime. For every one of those dudes talking there are a hundred that support the process. I am surprised the guy didn’t say he plans on “disrupting the peer review process”…..or he will execute a process sharing model that values each step of the peer review process independently to make it more efficient….like Uber or Airbnb. I am waiting for example of how the peer review process has historically led to bad science and that’s why we haven’t advanced science. I don’t want to hear that its not perfect of has flaws…. I don’t know of anyone that claims it is a zero defect process. Next someone will say let AI do it…….

Well I don’t know if it’s an outlier by being in the minority, a third of his guests are Nobel winners. I happen to be with Taleb that the Nobel prize is a sham when it comes to economics at least as winners have been reasoning for most of the seizures when their work was put into practice. It’s like having shorts in the market, we can’t be long only all the time that not healthy. You should be able to distinguish between that guy and a bunch of cranks or if you go to Russ Roberts website and see the last 30-50 interviews I think you’ll get comfortable that he’s not Joe Rogan. He was part of the Hoover Institute for a long time while working at George Mason (a surprisingly good Econ program given it’s like the 5th choice college in the DC area). The guy hedges what he says because that’s what real serious conversations are right. Not the absolutist trash we see folks toss up here. The confidence tech writes everything with is ludicrous considering heat and who hi is presenting here for example. I think that’s a good thing if you listen.

This isn’t a crank on Rogan who’s barely hanging on at whatever U where they desperately want to bounce him but he got tenure somehow.

And as I said in an earlier post we don’t use zero loss/incident threshold for making decisions. I took the podcast as insight into the flaws that perhaps
many in the system don’t see and a window into the improvements that could be made but often people inside a system can’t see that.

I don’t agree with the little intellectual rodents that want to question everything like a small child who thinks their slick but end up looking like s**t in a shoe. But I also think academics get too much too to manage themselves in a closed system (no different than police or military etc), are petty and fight over small things and often lose sight of the big picture and that can influence a process they control.

Hope you can distinguish this podcast from some other stuff out there. For the record something about the guys attitude came through the podcast that rubbed me wrong but I think he made some good pints that were with the 50-60 min.

Just don’t jump on this because it was lined up with folks who were tossing bombs at a process they don’t understand at all. I just happened to listen to it in the last week catching up on Chunks of the podcast I had missed with some downtime. It linked up with this discussion well. My guys > the people here making their argumetns is what I’m saying. Don’t toss out the baby with the bath water.

I’m an iterative guy. That means evaluatin along the way. The only thing that really concerns me is a system that doesn’t iterate much over time and becomes too comfortable with itself (see AA and the big book, when you’ve got a 70% failure rate since 1938 and haven’t iterated at all rather whenever anyone falls off they say it’s not the system it’s you, that’s a system that I want no part of).

[Farfromgeneva]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

I have yet to hear anyone say the Peer Review process leads to bad science. I have heard people say its slow, it is not always right, there should be more incentives…..the guy being interviewed claims he doesn’t care where something is published…..I say the internet has devalued information and expertise…..look no further than just today someone saying Tucker Carlson could meditate the Ukraine / Russian war…..or listen to what Joe Rogan says about XYZ…… there are a multitude of peer review processes and the system is constantly evolving and people seem to be demonstrating a continuous improvement model. I am waiting on someone to offer an alternative to the various processes.

Notice how often the guy hedges what he says. Nothing definitive. Part of the issue with the internet is the outliers get more airtime. For every one of those dudes talking there are a hundred that support the process. I am surprised the guy didn’t say he plans on “disrupting the peer review process”…..or he will execute a process sharing model that values each step of the peer review process independently to make it more efficient….like Uber or Airbnb. I am waiting for example of how the peer review process has historically led to bad science and that’s why we haven’t advanced science. I don’t want to hear that its not perfect of has flaws…. I don’t know of anyone that claims it is a zero defect process. Next someone will say let AI do it…….

Separate comment on first line. I doubt anyone in the system would ever state it leads to bad science but I do believe strongly that iatrogensis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis)

is very real and a concern that increases the more enclosed and isolated the medically community is. Bad outcomes always happen even with this process we can’t stop that with any process but if any doctor actually said the system NEVER led to bad outcomes I wouldn’t look for an appointment at his joint next week is all.

[Farfromgeneva]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

Looking forward to TLD calling you out.

He didn’t like it but I can see his comments are pointed at what he believes is the issue. I dropped it in the middle of a debate soon can see where it was listens to/observed as taking a position but I haven’t yet other than to say that constantly sharing at it by questioning like an annoying child and not adding any value to anything is dumb and pointless but I guess it makes some people, maybe including RIT grads, feel better.

I can discuss detail and fairly however and not play b**ch a** games like some do here. So I can handle real discussion. Just not low rent, weak character gamesmanship to “win” here by small people .

[Typical Lax Dad]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

I have yet to hear anyone say the Peer Review process leads to bad science. I have heard people say its slow, it is not always right, there should be more incentives…..the guy being interviewed claims he doesn’t care where something is published…..I say the internet has devalued information and expertise…..look no further than just today someone saying Tucker Carlson could meditate the Ukraine / Russian war…..or listen to what Joe Rogan says about XYZ…… there are a multitude of peer review processes and the system is constantly evolving and people seem to be demonstrating a continuous improvement model. I am waiting on someone to offer an alternative to the various processes.

Notice how often the guy hedges what he says. Nothing definitive. Part of the issue with the internet is the outliers get more airtime. For every one of those dudes talking there are a hundred that support the process. I am surprised the guy didn’t say he plans on “disrupting the peer review process”…..or he will execute a process sharing model that values each step of the peer review process independently to make it more efficient….like Uber or Airbnb. I am waiting for example of how the peer review process has historically led to bad science and that’s why we haven’t advanced science. I don’t want to hear that its not perfect of has flaws…. I don’t know of anyone that claims it is a zero defect process. Next someone will say let AI do it…….

Well I don’t know if it’s an outlier by being in the minority, a third of his guests are Nobel winners. I happen to be with Taleb that the Nobel prize is a sham when it comes to economics at least as winners have been reasoning for most of the seizures when their work was put into practice. It’s like having shorts in the market, we can’t be long only all the time that not healthy. You should be able to distinguish between that guy and a bunch of cranks or if you go to Russ Roberts website and see the last 30-50 interviews I think you’ll get comfortable that he’s not Joe Rogan. He was part of the Hoover Institute for a long time while working at George Mason (a surprisingly good Econ program given it’s like the 5th choice college in the DC area). The guy hedges what he says because that’s what real serious conversations are right. Not the absolutist trash we see folks toss up here. The confidence tech writes everything with is ludicrous considering heat and who hi is presenting here for example. I think that’s a good thing if you listen.

This isn’t a crank on Rogan who’s barely hanging on at whatever U where they desperately want to bounce him but he got tenure somehow.

And as I said in an earlier post we don’t use zero loss/incident threshold for making decisions. I took the podcast as insight into the flaws that perhaps
many in the system don’t see and a window into the improvements that could be made but often people inside a system can’t see that.

I don’t agree with the little intellectual rodents that want to question everything like a small child who thinks their slick but end up looking like s**t in a shoe. But I also think academics get too much too to manage themselves in a closed system (no different than police or military etc), are petty and fight over small things and often lose sight of the big picture and that can influence a process they control.

Hope you can distinguish this podcast from some other stuff out there. For the record something about the guys attitude came through the podcast that rubbed me wrong but I think he made some good pints that were with the 50-60 min.

Just don’t jump on this because it was lined up with folks who were tossing bombs at a process they don’t understand at all. I just happened to listen to it in the last week catching up on Chunks of the podcast I had missed with some downtime. It linked up with this discussion well. My guys > the people here making their argumetns is what I’m saying. Don’t toss out the baby with the bath water.

I’m an iterative guy. That means evaluatin along the way. The only thing that really concerns me is a system that doesn’t iterate much over time and becomes too comfortable with itself (see AA and the big book, when you’ve got a 70% failure rate since 1938 and haven’t iterated at all rather whenever anyone falls off they say it’s not the system it’s you, that’s a system that I want no part of).

I was talking about the general decline in the value of expertise and information post internet. I just used Rogan as an example not as an equivalent to the interviewer or the interviewee (who I suggest is in the minority when it comes to peer review). I also don't believe that guy doesn't care where his information comes from, in absolute terms. Also, I was referring to the guy being interviewed as being in the minority of opinion when it comes to the value of peer review. I am not sure he said peer reviewing is worthless. The process of peer review is constantly evolving. Part of my answer was with Tech's original post in mind which seemed to suggest that the NIH doesn't see any value in peer review. I am waiting on someone to explain how the peer review process has contributed to our development of bad science and what needs to be done instead. Having science reviewed by others is part of the process. I guess we should have non peers review information...... It's like a guy I ran across years ago suggest that the bank allow him to manage "CRA money" because he knows who in the community is "safe and sound"...... I posted a link earlier by the various methods of peer review and how it has been evolving. A big criticism of peer review is tied to funding and who gets it and how it is awarded..... it was a quality podcast but my criticism is just a general observation that "critics" get more air in the media than "supporters".... it is the nature of the medium. Yeah what we have been doing all along is not that interesting...... we know what we see and hear and it can distort reality.... we don't see everything and we don't hear everything.... also Peer Review is not the same thing as Reproducibility.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commki ... rspective/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9902019856

https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/19/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... r%20review.

I am going to pull a Tech move (except I provided the link)

"The benefits of peer review are real, whereas the alternative—giving up peer review in favour of a scientific ‘freedom of expression’—would create many problems of its own. Novel findings or ideas might not move into the mainstream of our understanding of biological processes if they are viewed as simple statements from the discoverers, since peer review adds additional weight to claims that challenge our current understanding. Moreover, spectacular, but ultimately spurious, claims without the due process of peer review would confuse the public and raise expectations that eventually cannot be fulfilled, particularly in the biomedical sector. The consequences on society are real, as a false claim could give rise to erroneous treatments for patients or to unjustified movements in the stock market. And correcting the error by careful experimentation is a time-consuming and costly alternative." ...NIH

Pretty sure like most things there are flaws. I am waiting for someone to suggest how to take peers out of the process and how it will advance science.....

[Farfromgeneva]

About 26 min into this podcast contemplating whether the peer review process is effective today.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0599331215

Not to endorse but I do like the host and have for around 15yrs

I have yet to hear anyone say the Peer Review process leads to bad science. I have heard people say its slow, it is not always right, there should be more incentives…..the guy being interviewed claims he doesn’t care where something is published…..I say the internet has devalued information and expertise…..look no further than just today someone saying Tucker Carlson could meditate the Ukraine / Russian war…..or listen to what Joe Rogan says about XYZ…… there are a multitude of peer review processes and the system is constantly evolving and people seem to be demonstrating a continuous improvement model. I am waiting on someone to offer an alternative to the various processes.

Notice how often the guy hedges what he says. Nothing definitive. Part of the issue with the internet is the outliers get more airtime. For every one of those dudes talking there are a hundred that support the process. I am surprised the guy didn’t say he plans on “disrupting the peer review process”…..or he will execute a process sharing model that values each step of the peer review process independently to make it more efficient….like Uber or Airbnb. I am waiting for example of how the peer review process has historically led to bad science and that’s why we haven’t advanced science. I don’t want to hear that its not perfect of has flaws…. I don’t know of anyone that claims it is a zero defect process. Next someone will say let AI do it…….

Well I don’t know if it’s an outlier by being in the minority, a third of his guests are Nobel winners. I happen to be with Taleb that the Nobel prize is a sham when it comes to economics at least as winners have been reasoning for most of the seizures when their work was put into practice. It’s like having shorts in the market, we can’t be long only all the time that not healthy. You should be able to distinguish between that guy and a bunch of cranks or if you go to Russ Roberts website and see the last 30-50 interviews I think you’ll get comfortable that he’s not Joe Rogan. He was part of the Hoover Institute for a long time while working at George Mason (a surprisingly good Econ program given it’s like the 5th choice college in the DC area). The guy hedges what he says because that’s what real serious conversations are right. Not the absolutist trash we see folks toss up here. The confidence tech writes everything with is ludicrous considering heat and who hi is presenting here for example. I think that’s a good thing if you listen.

This isn’t a crank on Rogan who’s barely hanging on at whatever U where they desperately want to bounce him but he got tenure somehow.

And as I said in an earlier post we don’t use zero loss/incident threshold for making decisions. I took the podcast as insight into the flaws that perhaps
many in the system don’t see and a window into the improvements that could be made but often people inside a system can’t see that.

I don’t agree with the little intellectual rodents that want to question everything like a small child who thinks their slick but end up looking like s**t in a shoe. But I also think academics get too much too to manage themselves in a closed system (no different than police or military etc), are petty and fight over small things and often lose sight of the big picture and that can influence a process they control.

Hope you can distinguish this podcast from some other stuff out there. For the record something about the guys attitude came through the podcast that rubbed me wrong but I think he made some good pints that were with the 50-60 min.

Just don’t jump on this because it was lined up with folks who were tossing bombs at a process they don’t understand at all. I just happened to listen to it in the last week catching up on Chunks of the podcast I had missed with some downtime. It linked up with this discussion well. My guys > the people here making their argumetns is what I’m saying. Don’t toss out the baby with the bath water.

I’m an iterative guy. That means evaluatin along the way. The only thing that really concerns me is a system that doesn’t iterate much over time and becomes too comfortable with itself (see AA and the big book, when you’ve got a 70% failure rate since 1938 and haven’t iterated at all rather whenever anyone falls off they say it’s not the system it’s you, that’s a system that I want no part of).

I was talking about the general decline in the value of expertise and information post internet. I just used Rogan as an example not as an equivalent to the interviewer or the interviewee (who I suggest is in the minority when it comes to peer review). I also don't believe that guy doesn't care where his information comes from, in absolute terms. Also, I was referring to the guy being interviewed as being in the minority of opinion when it comes to the value of peer review. I am not sure he said peer reviewing is worthless. The process of peer review is constantly evolving. Part of my answer was with Tech's original post in mind which seemed to suggest that the NIH doesn't see any value in peer review. I am waiting on someone to explain how the peer review process has contributed to our development of bad science and what needs to be done instead. Having science reviewed by others is part of the process. I guess we should have non peers review information...... It's like a guy I ran across years ago suggest that the bank allow him to manage "CRA money" because he knows who in the community is "safe and sound"...... I posted a link earlier by the various methods of peer review and how it has been evolving. A big criticism of peer review is tied to funding and who gets it and how it is awarded..... it was a quality podcast but my criticism is just a general observation that "critics" get more air in the media than "supporters".... it is the nature of the medium. Yeah what we have been doing all along is not that interesting...... we know what we see and hear and it can distort reality.... we don't see everything and we don't hear everything.... also Peer Review is not the same thing as Reproducibility.

Oh understood-literally. It’s about distribution and scarcity right. Once those channels “democratized” we have no scarcity. The value of diamonds and water don’t make sense anymore. It dilutes the good for the benefit of the mediocre for the chance that a few that fall through the cracks have equal shot without a controlled distribution system. True of art and other areas it’s all diluted and why problem should go back to reading hard books.

Yeah my guy wasn’t throwing it out. He was questioning it and may be in the minority but made some solid points I thought which came from his experience.

I’ll stick by Russ Robert/Econ talk but I don’t love every podcast. This one was actually of modest interest but given the timing of this debate here it was worth tossing up. The ones I generally avoid is when he brings a homeboy of his in who works at Duke and I just don’t love named Michael Munger. His thinking is elevated by lots of knowledge but still applies “paint by numbers” philosophy to
It. I doubt he gets the type of love Rogan or Jordan whatever that Canadian tool sheds last name is. I tripped across it shortly before moving to Atlanta. Those first few years were like recording a on a dial up modem.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commki ... rspective/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9902019856

https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/19/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... r%20review.

I am going to pull a Tech move (except I provided the link)

"The benefits of peer review are real, whereas the alternative—giving up peer review in favour of a scientific ‘freedom of expression’—would create many problems of its own. Novel findings or ideas might not move into the mainstream of our understanding of biological processes if they are viewed as simple statements from the discoverers, since peer review adds additional weight to claims that challenge our current understanding. Moreover, spectacular, but ultimately spurious, claims without the due process of peer review would confuse the public and raise expectations that eventually cannot be fulfilled, particularly in the biomedical sector. The consequences on society are real, as a false claim could give rise to erroneous treatments for patients or to unjustified movements in the stock market. And correcting the error by careful experimentation is a time-consuming and costly alternative." ...NIH

Pretty sure like most things there are flaws. I am waiting for someone to suggest how to take peers out of the process and how it will advance science.....

I agree. Question is can peers control it absolutely with no outside review simply because of domain knowledge and no public demonstration of understanding the real world from the abstract. I think many do but some don’t and we don’t have insight or controls over that.

My approach here is process improvement. Their approach is to tear down, obfuscate and grates nonsense out of reality so they can be more comfortable in their alternative realities.

[Typical Lax Dad]

How to eliminate “peer review” without eliminating “peers”…

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/1 ... jps/axz029

Still haven’t read how peer review leads to bad science and inhibits innovation…. Process improvement is a good thing.

[jhu72]

Not wearing a mask in a health-emergency when ordered by authorities IS NOT A MATTER OF FREE SPEECH!

[youthathletics]

So True. I could see TLD, ggait, and MDLAX giving Cosmo the noise: https://x.com/thehealthb0t/status/17565 ... 19548?s=20

[Farfromgeneva]

So True. I could see TLD, ggait, and MDLAX giving Cosmo the noise: https://x.com/thehealthb0t/status/17565 ... 19548?s=20

“High functioning empath” is just a postmodern attempt at humble bragging, guys used to call it “renaissance man”. It’s to the fake beard wearing proud boy crowd what the PC fraternity in South Park is to liberals

[youthathletics]

So True. I could see TLD, ggait, and MDLAX giving Cosmo the noise: https://x.com/thehealthb0t/status/17565 ... 19548?s=20

“High functioning empath” is just a postmodern attempt at humble bragging, guys used to call it “renaissance man”. It’s to the fake beard wearing proud boy crowd what the PC fraternity in South Park is to liberals

jealousy will get you nowhere.

[Farfromgeneva]

So True. I could see TLD, ggait, and MDLAX giving Cosmo the noise: https://x.com/thehealthb0t/status/17565 ... 19548?s=20

“High functioning empath” is just a postmodern attempt at humble bragging, guys used to call it “renaissance man”. It’s to the fake beard wearing proud boy crowd what the PC fraternity in South Park is to liberals

jealousy will get you nowhere.

Have you seen who was president from 2016-2020?

[jhu72]

Research shows at home COVID tests do as well as clinician tests in healthcare facilities.

[youthathletics]

Uh oh…..this is not going to sit well, after we’ve been told over and over by the FanLax mRNA pumpers that all that incidental news about cardio issues was hogwash.

https://wtop.com/coronavirus/2024/02/ne ... -problems/