A Covid Science Update

[VinnyVeritas]

"A total of 330 COVID-related papers have been retracted thus far.

"According to Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.

“'It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,' Grødeland quipped to Khrono, an academic news publication.

"Grødeland states that there were other reasons articles were pulled, including researchers using too small sample size and new media outlets being deceptive about what the papers actually concluded. Sometimes the data changed, and articles were later retracted.

"The lion’s share of these articles was released in smaller publications, but the prestigious Lancet got nailed a few times as well."


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...-many-over-lack-of-ethical-standards-n1698691

 

[VinnyVeritas]

FACT-O-RAMA! The Lancet used fraudulent research when stating that hydroxychloroquine caused an increased risk of heart arrhythmia and even death in patients with COVID-19. This publication was eventually retracted but not until the Norwegian government and the World Health Organization (WHO) used this article as a reason to stop their research into the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on COVID. Both have since resumed testing.

Chilling how politics can so dominate and corrupt Science. I guess they're just chasing government dollars and producing the results that government(s) desire. There really was a strong desire to prove that we could be locked down, our lives disrupted and our wealth destroyed if we don't obey our political masters.

 

[ll74]

How many cancer related papers have been retracted during the same time period?

Grødeland states that there were other reasons articles were pulled, including researchers using too small sample size and new media outlets being deceptive about what the papers actually concluded. Sometimes the data changed, and articles were later retracted.

How many "other reasons" were there and what percentage of retracted studies are included in those?

This article is shit. Lazy and agenda driven to obfuscate the truth. Then again, that's the entirety of pjmedia

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Don't confuse a directed political pancreases over any other issue.

I see that you do not have the numbers at your fingertips. As per usual.

And then you attack the source instead of even trying to address the facts, your basic MO.

 

[ll74]

Don't confuse a directed political pancreases over any other issue.

I see that you do not have the numbers at your fingertips. As per usual.

And then you attack the source instead of even trying to address the facts, your basic MO.

There should be numbers to compare in the article. Seeing 300+ means nothing when you dont know how many occur on average for other papers. It looks like a big number, but the number of papers on COVID is also a big number.

Lazy article....means nothing to anyone except the biased audience it's aimed at who don't care to see comparable data...like you.

If you can show that these numbers are abnormal or that they represent some scientific trend, perhaps there's something to consider.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Again, you offer zero counter proof. That's LAZY served on a Ritz...

 

[VinnyVeritas]

The "epidemic" was political

Glad you agree. There was no reason to kill all of those nursing home residents and end school for the least vulnerable population. The latter especially has set back a generation.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Again, you offer zero counter proof. That's LAZY served on a Ritz...

Says the guy trying to push a political agenda instead of actual science.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Where are your numbers?

 

[ll74]

Again, you offer zero counter proof. That's LAZY served on a Ritz...

Proof of what? The evidence shows there was 300+ retractions. What does that mean? It shows there were ethical violations. Again.....what does that mean? Certainly unethical submissions are bad for science. But is there a rise in the number of retractions due to this reason?

I am supportive of unethical scientific papers being retracted.

It's cool that you like shitty articles though

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Show me that which you clam is similar across other fields and put it in proportions, not raw numbers.

You're too intellectually lazy, so we all know that all you're going to do is flap your gums and make further unsubstantiated claims.

 

[ll74]

Show me that which you clam is similar across other fields and put it in proportions, not raw numbers.

I didn't claim that. The paper or article didn't claim otherwise either.

You're too intellectually lazy, so we all know that all you're going to do is flap your gums and make further unsubstantiated claims.

The claim I made is that the article is shitty and aimed at biased fuckwits who see a big number and make assumptions without sufficient information to do so.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Show me that which you clam is similar across other fields and put it in proportions, not raw numbers.

You're too intellectually lazy, so we all know that all you're going to do is flap your gums and make further unsubstantiated claims.

It’s your claim, YOU prove it.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

You have no proof other than a wistful claim.

I didn't claim it Spidey. You do moron so well.

It must be, has to be, your natural state...

 

[ll74]

Here's a good example of what would be helpful. This paper explains/discussed the rapid increase of COVID related studies. It does so by providing numbers of other epidemics. It gives the reader a baseline and clearly shows that not only were there a lot of papers, but that number was far beyond other paper topics.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210389

But the article doesn't care for anyone to have a reference point or comparison....just "omg, look at all the ethics retractions!"

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You have no proof other than a wistful claim.

I didn't claim it Spidey. You do moron so well.

It must be, has to be, your natural state...

FACT-O-RAMA! The Lancet used fraudulent research when stating that hydroxychloroquine caused an increased risk of heart arrhythmia and even death in patients with COVID-19. This publication was eventually retracted but not until the Norwegian government and the World Health Organization (WHO) used this article as a reason to stop their research into the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on COVID. Both have since resumed testing.

Chilling how politics can so dominate and corrupt Science. I guess they're just chasing government dollars and producing the results that government(s) desire. There really was a strong desire to prove that we could be locked down, our lives disrupted and our wealth destroyed if we don't obey our political masters.

Here's you claiming it.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

But what were the rates of rejections for those other fields?

You see, you really haven't proven anything because you provide no direct comparison that bolsters your contention.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Here's you claiming it.

Claiming what moron?

 

[ll74]

But what were the rates of rejections for those other fields?

That's a good question that the author should've already provided an answer to. Since the paper I provided was about numbers of papers and increases in that number, rejections weren't included.

You see, you really haven't proven anything because you provide no direct comparison that bolsters your contention.

My contention is that the author is lazy and doesn't care to provide information that might or might not reinforce their point.. it definitely is written for biased readers who jump to conclusions that aren't made.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

But you're too lazy to actually lay out any groundwork for such a claim.


Gotcha...

 

[ll74]

But you're too lazy to actually lay out any groundwork for such a claim.


Gotcha...

I've already proven my claim and you reinforced it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's a good question that the author should've already provided an answer to. Since the paper I provided was about numbers of papers and increases in that number, rejections weren't included.


My contention is that the author is lazy and doesn't care to provide information that might or might not reinforce their point.. it definitely is written for biased readers who jump to conclusions that aren't made.

And AJ bought it.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

 

[ll74]

https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

Yes, that's the first link in the article. And that was the first place I went to to find information that puts the article in any sense of context with it's numbers.

It does not.

As far as the article and information provided indicates, ethics are an issue in scientific papers and many are retracted. I agree with that point. They should absolutely be retracted if they are found to be unethically produced.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

In other words, and still the salient point, we were inundated with bad information, which, in turn, we employed by politicians in a naked power grab just because they could. Because we rolled over under the influence of faux fear and begged for a belly rub.

Again, it impoverished us in more ways that wealth, especially when it comes to the education of our youth.

Neither has recovered, but politicians pat themselves on the back and partisans gloat with them.

I see no concern here with the validity of Covid claims that resulted in a general panic,
just a concerning tendency to protect Big (Obtrusive) Government in our lives.

BASED ON HURRIED, BAD and CLEARLY FLAWED PSUEDO-SCIENCE.

Ah, the power of the politician over the life of the individual.

Intoxicating! Science pales in the face of Political Science.