The fact that the paper was published, after fixing the exact flaw that was spotted, is not some vindication against so-called Team Science. It is good that it is published after being fixed, and I support that. It would have been better to catch this error prior to publishing a preprint, but catching things prior to formal publication is how the process is supposed to work. What isn’t scientific is piggybacking on a dodgy youtoober to trumpet a flawed result without either evaluating it or qualifying about the preliminary nature of the work.
2 Likes
Wtf is wrong with you guys? I run a Finnish punk forum with ~3000 users who are mostly fucked up, used and abused people and still we don’t have this kind of bickering and personal attacks. We get along just fine. Please someone give me the discord invite, maybe the talk there is less hateful?
1 Like
There is one significant demographic difference in the two forums lol, well one that immediately springs to mind
I see many. Yes I know most of us are well-off white guys in our forties and I like you guys. I know I don’t post much but I’ve learned a lot from you in 20 years I’ve been a part of 22 and this. Would be sad to see this end but that’s the way it goes.
1 Like
Is it that surprising? Some of us have been chatting for 20 years now. Each side thinks the other fucked up something great and we’re/they’re pissed.
I appreciate the reply. As you probably know, in order to even have your paper reviewed in Science your study have to impress the editor enough as a body of work that has a chance to be published. Then to pass two reviewers who decides the study is worth publishing after certain questiond are answered and corrections are made (you usually don’t argue to much with a reviewer in Science). Usually conclusions are not the part that gets massively edited in something that gets accepted so quickly.
Now i wouldnt be shocked if the entry barrier for massive covid studies during the pandemic wasnt as high as say a astrophysics paper sent to the same journal, but it is still relatively high when compared to almost any other paper published in the field during the time. Tbf, looking briefly at the published data it seems fairly close to the original very flawed article but i’m no epidemiologist. Barbara is.
The only important point is that the editor of Science immediately recognized this is a worthy and important work while UP was demanding sources for the whereabouts church even came across it. This should be a major red flag for how biased the thread had become.
2 Likes
Less talk more finnish punk band yootoobz links
This works?
1 Like
I’ve written this post ten times but all I can say is no, I’m not surprised.
1 Like
Not when the information is presented with the author. He got it from Barabara Cohn from Berkeley University and Oakland public health department.
I said in my very first post that a mere screenshot isn’t worth any discussion to begin with.
Hahahahahahahaha
Then why did he post the screenshot?
1 Like
Then why’d I have the bowl Bart?
1 Like
Probably he thinks it’s good enough for a discussion perhaps? A teaser? A click bait? He’s a mediocre poster? The response should be it isn’t valuable at this point, we can’t tell much from it (regardless of the source, it could be published by Bill Gates, it’s meaningless). The fact that you had a dog barking at a paper that is quite a few levels above your pay grade (i’m being generous to all team science) and continued to ridicule Church after the paper was linked is on you guys.
At no point in any conversation should the goal be to prove Churchill is a top notch poster. It only should be if moderation is needed in this case (and I understand moderation was enforced). It was clearly a mistake on your end and should be something the forum need to reconsider. It appears you were so blood thirsty that an ER doctor has called a paper that was published in Science with the same conclusions he read as “Useless”. Again, this should spark a pretty big discussion among yourselves how it happened.
Is there a term for how fans of both teams can watch the same replay and both be one million percent certain that the call should go their way?
3 Likes
Only one team is determined to have the game decided by the officials.
1 Like
I already proposed to call NY for an official permaben review to trolly. I’m also willing to reach out to Barbara Cohn to judge.
Yea, this is the most interesting thing to me about this thread, seeing how people can be looking at the exact same posts and perceive them in such wildly different ways
1 Like
Maybe Churchill is wrong sometimes, maybe he trolls sometimes. He’s not a dangerous anti-vaxxer. No one believes he is. This isn’t about whether he’s a good or bad poster. He almost got perma-banned. Certainly not all bad posters or trolling posters are getting permaban votes.
Which reminds me about Sabo who was permabanned. Why was he permabanned? Do you really feel like you had a right to permaban him? He did something so beyond the pale that you thought you should throw him out?
2 Likes
A curious guess, because you know he specifically dodged discussing the screenshot.
You and I both know that the easiest and most honest way to “tease” or “bait” something from a preprint is to directly quote that preprint. Digging up a screenshot of a youtube video that is wholly separate from the preprint is extra effort, and you have not offered up any explanation for why he would do so and also refuse to say why.
Not a single person you’re accusing of misreading that paper has said a single false thing about that paper. The only one who may have misjudged it is churchill.
The conclusions he read WERE USELESS. Conclusions based on obviously flawed methods are useless. Maybe things upstream of those conclusions are still worthwhile, but the conclusions themselves are literally useless.
i think it’s an odd question. he did it cause he got the info from Dr John and wanted to discuss it or wanted to gloat, i have no idea what the motives are, as i keep repeating, but i find this questioning dishonest at this point after I explained multiple times.
Was it moderation worthy once the preprint was provided is the only question that should be answered. You, I think, have deemed it as such, which really requires some explaining at this point. If i’m mistaken and no one has moderated Church in this case I apologize.
Regarding your paper analysis, I really find it to be a tall order to say with a straight face that you think a Science editor has approved a “useless” study to go to review. It is borderline dishonest to claim that a “useless” study has gone through the review process and published within weeks in Science while keeping the exact conclusions and it was “asinine” when you read it. Not lacking, not extremely interesting and a great addition to the discussion while needing some fixes, but useless.
If Barbara Cohn or the Science editor were in a discussion with you or ikes, do you think they would agree with you in regards to this description:
The paper does not make a compelling case whatsoever that this is related to fading vaccine response, and they found a relationship to the month of the year, not to time after the vaccine.
The paper also failed to do basic things like ‘make sure your control group doesn’t disproportionately have covid’, which makes it useless. Hope that helps you.
Will they agree with the Anti Vax dog barking at their published work?
At some point will you take a step back and realize how poorly this shows on you guys?
Edit –
paper literally makes the case it’s not vaccine waning in the abstract churchill. You should read the things you cite.
This was a big red flag for me, as we know the vaccine is effective against delta at least in the beginning, and we should expect to see a dose/time relationship. That means this paper is a big outlier.
btw, is this paper a big outlier? (i won’t make any assumption as to the first sentence, but it sounds sus in regards to trolly’s claims earlier today).
More pushing the point that this paper is anti-vax related, which should look fairly bad now given what we know, the authors and the publication it received:
Oh and churchill, this paper is all over the antivaxx twitterverse now so I’m really wondering how you just happened to stumble upon it.
It’s the amount you posted from a nonsense antivaxxer who read a very poor paper that is controversial.`
Those percentages are also from obviously flawed preprints that you parrot without an ounce of critical appraisal. Woof woof
Amplifying trash is not helpful to this forum regardless of you personal vax behavior.
That pre-print also won’t ever be published in it’s current form in a reputable journal for the reasons I’ve posted.
Now i will give you credit that the criticism on the preprint you took from Avi is correct, i haven’t read the paper thoroughly like the science editors. Can you imagine the response if ikes said those things in a real conversation with an expert researcher? Can you imagine how much an ER doctor would be ridiculed for the language i just quoted?
1 Like