I cannot believe in 2022 this has to be spelled out, but here we are …
After the pandemic hit, there were innumerable studies regarding Covid such as on effectiveness of treatments/drugs, effectiveness of vaccines, etc., etc., etc. The results of many of these studies were written up and submitted to various places. This includes preprints which as its name suggests have not yet undergone any rigorous peer review. As everyone knows, authors frequently exaggerate their findings and/or the importance of their findings.
A cottage industry of sorts emerged to “curate” preprints and other not-yet-published results. Some times the curation was sincere and the results of the study were presented in an accurate and ever-handed manner. Other times the curation exaggerated or misinterpreted the results of the study and made no attempt to be even-handed. After many repetitions, some “curators” got the reputation for practicing the second type of curation.
Okay, what about traditional media? They have their own team of curators who curate the front-line curators. Typically they are not experts in the field (either) and search for the results that will have the biggest impact on their bottom line (most clicks, if it bleeds it leads, etc.) regardless of any questions about the study or its results.
That leave consumers of media some of whom post on internet forums. It seems that there are people who then curate the curators who curated the front-line curators who curated preprints. You can see that it could resemble the children’s game of Telephone, where at each stage the possibility exists for misinterpretation and/or embellishment (not necessarily nefariously, but that is always possible).
Generally speaking this all can be chalked up to “the way of the world”. But in a global pandemic of new origins and possible treatments, I think I’d rather some controls/caution be exercised.
He thought it was important thing when he assumed the paper wasn’t linked. He agreed, as far as I can understand, that had the paper been linked it is not important.
The paper, according to church, had been linked.
Do you follow now? I think me and Haste made a decent progress in the discussion. Now I am willing to go further with you to understand why YOU think the screengrab is important WHEN the preprint is provided.
You admitted that you haven’t followed the Covid thread and therefore aren’t familiar with Churchill’s posting history. Now are analyzing one incident in a vacuum and don’t understand why some posters reacted the way they did. You see that Dr. Nurse John Brokenclock happened to be not completely wrong this one time and wonder why people are up in arms that Churchill once again regurgitated his content.
Churchill had used up all good will way before that and that’s why posters stopped treating him kindly.
I didn’t blame you; I’m sure that was an honest oversight. But Church lying his ass off does seem to be relevant to the “is Church a bad poster “ discourse that is all the rage nowadays.
CN spent much of yesterday lying his ass off about how his enemies were all trying to get him banned, and then walking that back. Not one of them asked for moderation of his posts.
It’s always telling when one side holds a bar higher to others. Nobody from Team B is calling for more moderator action. If Team A wants more moderator action including perms, it’s on your team to show the actions are out of the norm.
It is not an oversight. That’s a weird phrasing. I saw what church wrote, I saw what you claimed. You didn’t prove he was lying in any way. I saw many many opinions change. I saw a post where Wookie makes fun of the idea that a variant can cause the vaccines to be less effective. I’m sure there are posts where Wookie clearly agrees that the vaccines were less effective vs certain variants.
I never overlooked what you wrote, it’s just that you didn’t show any proof (nor did church of course, which in this case the burden is on him). It seems irrelevant he said / he said situation that I don’t have the time or resources to look into further.
because it will cause the people in the forum to disregard the paper which has big enough importance that Science decided to publish it
(I will say that i haven’t actually checked if Science published it, I’m taking greg word on it i hope it’s true).
Seems like he was right in this case.
It seems obvious that Church watched this Dr John fellow. It seems also obvious that Dr John is being accused of providing false information at times. That’s not great for Church, but that’s his right. As long as he provides the studies Dr John is referencing for you guys to dissect, his source is irrelevant. I can’t see how this point can even be challenged in anyway, unless the conversation is churchill good or bad. It shouldn’t be the conversation.
Why would they get so angry about the screenshot, indicating that vaccine waning may be a thing, the first from a US study of (just) 680,000 people. Why would I post that study, if it was well known at the time. All of Trolly’s ‘hey I believe in waning posts’ were generated by me posting the study.
No waning apparently, just 4 weeks ago (but keep choking that chicken) Vermont nonetheless, 90% against infection. must be peer reviewed. I chose not to respond.
Funny, just today I acknowledged that CN’s “Dr. John” bit was out of line. Him railing about that monkeypox article was needlessly abrasive. He’s a dock quite often.
Go ahead and flag his posts when you think he’s being inappropriate, see if I complain.
Your sentence seemed like it got messed up, so maybe edit?
I find this discussion so strange and anti-science. What is the meaning of a source when regarding a paper? A paper is a paper. That’s the source. It has authors. Their name is out there to be examine. Their work is out there to be examine. This discussion makes no sense if indeed a link was provided.
