And now I have a partial explanation for how COVID-19 became what it was and how vaccines that don’t work came to be foisted on the world as “Safe and Effective” when apparently they are neither.
An ars Technica article is reporting 37 questionable studies at a Harvard affiliated cancer research center.
For goodness sake.
What the hell happened to data integrity?
Anyone incorporating these research papers into their own research might be led down a research dead end not because their original theory was incorrect but because they used “facts/proofs” from these papers.
That wastes time, money (in research grants) and potentially, lives of desperate people participating in clinical trials.
I suppose this is how we end up with snake oil being sold by “real” Doctors. I suppose it’s also how “real” Doctors can stand by, knowing that the “approved” treatment protocol for a disease, (For example COVID,) was doing more harm than good.
It’s how we get scientific “Consensus” that is almost entirely incorrect about a wide variety of things. Obviously, it’s not just medicine. The spooky thing is, if this is happening in medical research, where the highest level of diligence next to nuclear bomb research is supposed to be in place, then it’s probably everywhere.
Is current geologic research just slap dash and missing the signs of a 9.0 earthquake in Northern California where Mt St Helens, and the Yellowstone super volcano all blow at the same time? Are those signs being missed because the actual observation data doesn’t fit a shitty research paper, or papers and is being thrown out?
Have we missed new energy sources, or warp drive, because of some copy / pasted incorrect data dampening a brilliant mind that perceived an anomaly but decided not to research that anomaly because the literature said it’s an instrumentation or computational error?
SCIENCE is about truth! Above all else.
Science is observing and recording what is. Science is using those observations to predict behavior of the natural world and once that behavior is understood, science can tweak the input variables to change the outcome.
Science is also about understanding and accepting that when we’re on the boundary of the “known” sometimes science can go no further. That road block is not failure, it’s a sign that either we missed something fundamental, or our tools aren’t sophisticated enough to proceed. While the initial data is checked, the sophistication of the tools increases and the road block turns out to be only temporary.
If so called scientists and researchers are willfully fucking over the integrity of data and disseminating false results, then the basic underpinnings of science and scientific process are contaminated and at risk.
It is possible that Academia has sunk this low, and failed humanity in selfish pursuit of money over knowledge?
A reasonable question to ask at this point is:
“Is the lack of integrity and principals confined to Harvard?“
I strongly suspect that it’s not due to the competitive nature of grants and donors.
Can anything MIT, Yale, the entire UC system, Stanford, or in fact any “Top” research center or college publishes, actually be trusted?
Sadly, I think not. I say this with a heavy heart and ask you to consider the following.
Can we trust the climate change folks, or the climate deniers? We know that a large percentage of the “Climate Change Data” was falsified. The simulation used to claim the planet had 12 years left was rife with errors and inconsistencies where the data was manipulated to produce a dire outcome.
The reason for this appears to have been more research money, fame, & fortune! But it spawned the “Consensus” bullshit on the one side and the “Climate Change deniers” on the other.
The impact is that instead of having real data that was as good as it could be, presenting that data to the people of the world and using it to become better stewards of our beautiful planet. Really good and accurate research was thrown out with the contaminated data by 1/2 the planet.
There are a few people like myself who think we each should do our best to limit our long term effect on the planet. At the same time, we must intelligently assess and balance human needs versus planetary ecology. We should also be able to place our faith in our advancing technological capabilities, because if we’re all thinking about using our resources wisely then our “mistakes of necessity” today can and will probably be mitigated by technology of tomorrow.
That only works IF SCIENCE is indeed TRUTH.
There’s danger in bad or politicized research too. Look at COVID. We were actively shutting down scientists, real scientists who had actual data describing the dangers of mRNA. They weren’t blue skying or theorizing. These scientists had actually used and in some cases abandoned mRNA because of its inherent instability.
Instability mind you, that made mRNA unsuitable for their research on rats.
The world censored them, and ignored their real world experience in the matter. That’s like ignoring the man with the charred hand telling you that fire is hot.
Our society did exactly that. This is not to say that at some point in the future mRNA therapies won’t be safe, stable, and effective. However, right now we just don’t know enough to call mRNA therapy Safe. The scientists warning against the use of mRNA weren’t saying it should never be used, they were saying that it wasn’t ready to be used, YET.
What about CERN? Those folks are playing with stuff that could really go awry, can we trust that they’re not faking data, or worse yet unknowingly using falsified data in their experiments? If they are using bad data, where might that lead given the nature of their investigations and experiments? I’m not in the “CERN will create a black hole that destroys the world camp.” But there’s a whole lot of energy CERN uses, and directs, I’d hate to think their math is wrong.
I think that no scientist should be censored, and the politics has no place in scientific endeavor. I also think it’s time for cut / paste researchers or Phds to pay a price for their deceit. I believe they should be tossed out of their field and never allowed to work or teach their subject of study again.
I know that’s super harsh, but the consequence should be so terrible that no-one would risk it. Mistakes are one thing, actual deceit for a grant is criminal.
It’s the only way I can see to restore the integrity of science.
We all knew she would.
You’re Welcome!!!!
Hmm. 
In the more bread and circuses column. There’s this headline.
I expect Joe to “Decide” to step aside. By serving up Hunter, he has a plausible excuse to “Decide to spend more time with his family.” He can back out of the campaign without losing face and still be the “dedicated family man,” a character deserving of compassion and privacy.