Posted on 01/31/2024 7:13:36 PM PST by bitt
p
Soon A.I. will out a lot of professional liars.
Paper Review by potential patients.
The corruption goes deep. My guess is this barely scratches the surface.
He will be busy...I saw a study of “research” that said, I think, 80+% of research is faulty
after a British blogger flagged problems in early January.
So everyone at Havard at around the year 2000.
That’s a British Blogger worth his bling!
They should hire him. Oh, wait! They usually don’t even want to know if mistakes were made, and sometimes. they get really crabby and ungracious when such blunders are pointed out.
.....a plagi-snoop presented suspicious images from more than 30 published papers by four
Harvard-connected Dana-Farber scientists, including CEO Laurie Glimcher and COO William Hahn.
Many images appeared to have duplicated segments that would make the scientists’ results look stronger.....involves lab research on the workings of cells......and bone marrow from human volunteers.
.....
The plagi-snoop certainly has his work cut out for him.....
They shouldn’t accept any of those medical papers unless they have be replicated twice by separate groups.
No doubt.
The scientific community and peer review has taken a real beating these last couple years what with the fraud being exposed in it.
It's about time. Scientists are not above corruption, no matter how pure someone thinks their intent is.
Harvard’s losers ride the reputations of people who earned t respect based on merit.
The school is so creepy today.
How many patients have been damaged by this “research”.
“ He will be busy...I saw a study of “research” that said, I think, 80+% of research is faulty”
******************************************************************
There is so much money riding on academic and scientific projects/studies (and follow-on studies) being successfully conducted that there is immense pressure to come up with “positive” results. And that is a shame because a study investigating a hypothesis that come up with results that disproves a hypothesis shoukd be considered a success.
Very good point! Live by the AI, die by the AI!
I know academics have been cheating and falsifying data for decades, they didn’t get caught because it was too hard to detect - and (probably most importantly) - no one was looking.
No one was looking because the lookers would have been just as guilty.
Just like political polls...which don’t even bother with the smokescreen of “peer review” - they just print whatever their sponsors want to hear.
“The blogger, 32-year-old Sholto David, of Pontypridd, Wales, is a scientist-sleuth who detects cut-and-paste image manipulation . . .”
Hmmh - interesting - I’ve got a birth certificate from Hawaii I’d like to send him.
“...are keeping researchers and science journals on their toes...”
That’s one way of putting it.
Another way:
“...are revealing researchers and science journals as total hacks and utter frauds...”
Or make us believe even more lies...
So much for the crack quality of the so called experts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.