Tell me a joke! The OF humor thread [No politics/religion]

Tony C.

You don't believe that the corruption of scientific research is a real, and serious issue? You don't believe that some well-credentialed scientists and doctors whose views were at odds with the mainstream narratives were, at least at times, essentially blackballed from popular media outlets?

There is plenty of available evidence for both, which makes them anything but "tinfoil hat memes". As to the obvious exaggeration in the referenced joke, well, that's how humor often works, and no one would take the numbers literally.

M'Bob

Poking fun at scientists is one thing, and I agree, registers very low on the amusement meter. But to say that it is “nearly in as bad taste as joking about school shootings, where little kids lose they’re lives because of some deranged maniac? No, sorry, not even close.

Tony C.

The way you phrase it (above), few would argue with your position. Unfortunately, though, it is not that simple. Even the very organizations that are expected to give the best medical guidance (e.g. the CDC, WHO, etc.) have made some dubious claims relating to COVID, and some well-trained and educated doctors and scientists (nothing "pseudo" about them) presented different views, which were subsequently proven to have been correct, or, minimally, more accurate. And some of those doctors and scientists were punished (fired, etc.), while others were blackballed from media outlets.

I don't wish to derail the thread much further, but there is a lot of evidence of corruption of scientific research, particularly by Big Pharma. And here is just one example, which touches on both the corruption of scientific research, and the attempt to silence knowledgable critics in social media.

BMJ = British Medical Journal

Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.

In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.

The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1]

But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]

We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

***

You can read the rest here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

and a good summary of the Pfizer research issue:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/202...ntegrity-issues-in-pfizers-vaccine-trial.html

Tony C.

As Al says, publicly funded is much more reliable.

Vercingetorix

ConElPueblo

I would like to excuse for the serious tone of my last post - the attack on scientific standards and the surge of pseudoscience to the detriment of the well-being of all is a major concern of mine and to be frank, I find it as nearly in as bad taste as joking with school shootings. I would argue that pseudoscience is most likely the cause of more deaths than mass shootings.



That corruption of scientific research happens is a given as no field of employment is completely free of it; stating otherwise would be stupid. Government officials, small business owners, nurses - there are plenty of examples of persons working in all kinds of environments who have acted unethically.

Do I believe that it is a "real and serious issue"? That would depend of the definition of "serious", I guess. The research that comes from accepted, mainstream sources generally have high standards for transparency, both in the quality of research and regarding funding. The metastudies building on individual studies and concluding broadly on the basis of those findings have access to all that information and take it into account. They too have to publish their own sources, metadata, etc if they wish to be taken seriously by the academia and get published by anyone serious.

I would say that the problem with poor studies most often arise when laymen inexpertly try to conclude very specificly from them or data read from them gets scewed or misunderstood in order to either promote a certain ideology or to make some headlines for news outlets.

The "exaggeration" part of it I don't care about, it is the notion that all sponsored science is part of a conspiracy to shut up those "independant" scientist. I find that derogatory to the many scientist in various who are trying to make this a better place for us all, sponsored or not.

If there are issues with sponsored research, I would suggest that those are probably more in the range of more narrowly formulated hypotheses and most likely less promotion of the findings, should those not be to the liking of the coorporations. Again, due to the transparancy of the most regarded institutions, this is not something that are simply getting swept under the rug and it will be taken into account when evaluating the study.

Will fraud happen still? It would be extremely optimistic to suggest otherwise. However, because of the scientific method, findings that are spectacular will be tested again and the findings form only into the established view on the matter; an extreme result varying significantly will usually be weighed less authorative than those trials or studies that don't and claims made with a basis in the scientific method can be disproven by science - as opposed to pseudoscience where fantastic claims can stand undisturbed by evidence disproving them - in part because of the distrust against the establishment, an example of which was posted here.

I have much more to say about the subject, but I am afraid my English skills are just not up to conveying my ideas concisely enough 🙁

I'll leave now and let the stage be home for more jokes and uplifting posts 👍