We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day A landmark study that endorsed a simple way to curb cheating is going to be retracted nearly a decade later after a group of scientists found that it relied on faked data.
– Stephanie Lee, writing A big study about honesty turns out to be based on fake data. I admit that I LOL’ed.
Next time someone tells you about The Science™, just because it is from a peer-reviewed & duly published paper does not necessarily make it true.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Another fun little example:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
Of course, that Lancet study was used to remove the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, which enabled emergency use authorization for the vaccines in USA.
The WHO also used that Lancet study to put out guidance regarding hydroxychloroquine that was latter proven to be incorrect based on dozens of reproducible scientific studies which demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is a safe effective treatment against COVID 19, when paired with zinc.
However, the WHO’s guidance regarding hydroxychloroquine was used by governments and bureaucracies around the world to recommend guidance against the use of hydroxychloroquine, warn doctors against prescribing it to sick patients who have COVID, smear doctors or scientists who disagreed publicly, restrict the supply of hydroxychloroquine, and even take away doctors’ licenses to practice medicine if they dared to prescribe a certain life-saving, safe, effective treatment to patients sick with COVID 19.
Millions of people died around the world as a consequence of malfeasance and fraud.
Never forget.
https://consentfactory.org/2020/10/13/the-covidian-cult/
Shlomo Maistre is correct. One of the Early Treatment options for Covid 19 is hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin (the last is needed for non Covid infections that may hit the lungs in their weakened state) – but it must be at the correct dosage levels and for the correct length of time. Always get seen by a qualified medical doctor who actually understands Early Treatment in individual cases – do not just try and treat yourself.
I used to believe that whilst dishonourable conduct was on the rise in many subjects, at least in medicine people would not fake studies and, in effect, KILL PEOPLE.
I was wrong – as the Lancet (and the international establishment in general) have done that in relation to Covid 19. Vast numbers of human lives lost – I did not believe them capable of such behaviour. I was utterly wrong.
The matter is not simple – always see a medical doctor who has detailed knowledge of the Early Treatment of Covid 19 in individual cases (going to see someone who chants TENET, there-is-no-early-treatment, is just wasting your money). Do proper research on the medical doctor – do not just hand hand over money without checking, they are well qualified and have a good record of dealing with this disease.
For a general description of the Early Treatment of Covid 19 see the America’s Frontline Doctors website (treatment protocols section) – but, again, this is no substitute for a qualified and experienced medical doctor examining you.
I can not escape personal blame.
I have known about the Early Treatment of Covid 19 for more than a year. What did I do to try and save lives? Virtually NOTHING – I kept waiting for governments, and other such, to act.
There is blood on my own hands.
– Not much, Paul. Without an impressive slew of abbreviations after your name ( – we’re talking Monty Python’s plastic surgeon sketch: a cosmetic specialist (Cleese), which has Professor Sir Sir Adrian Furrows F.R.S. F.R.C.S.F.R.C.P. M.D.M.S. (Oxon), Mall Ph.D., M. Se. (Cantab), Ph.D. (Syd), ER.G.S., F.R.C.O.G., F. FM.R.C.S., M.S. (Birm), M.S. (Liv), M.S. (Guadalahara), M.S. (Karach), M.S. (Edin), B.A. (Chic), B. Litt. (Phil), D. Litt (Phil), D. Litt (Arthur and Lucy), D. Litt (Ottawa), D. Litt (All other places in Canada, except Medicine Hat), B. Sc. 9 Brussels, Liege, Antwerp, Asse, (and Cromer) – ), nobody would’ve believed you; and if you’d gained any traction, the gov’t and NHS would’ve found a way to shut you up.
– As they did to others.
Y. Knott.
The end of the original “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” film.
The man shouting in despair at passing people that they and their families were in terrible danger (which they were) – and being dismissed as a lunatic (the film maker was actually thinking of his own efforts to warn people that the education system and culture was being taken over by totalitarian collectivists – the film is not really about alien pod people).
Perhaps totally hopeless – but at least the man at the end of the film TRIED. I did not.
I hate the term peer review, as it has been misused for far too long. Peer review was a way a publication had of making sure that a paper submitted for publication was not going to be an embarrassment to the journal. The editors of a chemistry journal might not be familiar with a particular area that a paper explores, and so would go to peers of the author(s) to get an opinion on whether or not it was credible. Not whether it was correct, just ‘yeah, it seems to be reasonable’.
The correctness of a paper or study depends on reproduction of the results by multiple independent researchers. Publication and peer review are nearly worthless in today’s politicised world.
I will apologize for going on about what most of you know already; it’s just that whenever someone says ‘it’s been peer reviewed!’ I want to get on my soapbox.
Paul:
May i remind you that the man at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers had seen the overwhelming evidence for himself, and you have not?
Is it too much to ask for at least some links? It is, after all, less work to provide links than to re-write very long comments with different words.
This is just friendly advice, as i am sure you’ll understand. I am skeptical about some of your analyses, but on early treatment you are probably right, in my opinion.
Yes: without replication, all what one can say about a report about new experiments, is that the methods are sound, there are no inconsistencies in the interpretation, and the results are compatible with previous findings. (But the previous findings might be wrong, of course.)
(I hope that i am not missing anything.)
Covid skeptics (and alarmists, if any is to be found here) please note:
That the results are compatible with previous findings is NOT, by itself, evidence that the experiments support your favorite conclusion. You also must make sure yourself (since you cannot trust the peer reviewers) that the methods are sound AND that the logic is sound.
– I did. Speaking from experience here, Paul; I’ve got a mittful of socialist SJW relatives whose eyes I spent several months trying to open wrt COVID and global warming, the result being they firmly believe everything the CBC tells them and nothing I do. And I always include my references – but you see, none of them have “CBC” printed under them so they’re all obviously bogus.
Yep, misery loves company. And I figgered it out myself, but waiting for them to do likewise is supremely depressing… “FAMILY – the original ‘F-word’.”
Snorri Godhi – I think you have a good elaboration of the point I was trying to make, which was itself an elaboration of Samizdata Illumintus’ point. Misinterpreted or faked data, and bad logic have always been a part of all sciences, but now there is the attempt to make the sciences into ‘The Science™’, that is, another tool in the authoritarian toolbox (and the exact opposite of what scientific inquiry is supposed to be).
ns: thank you for the kind words.
I have a friend in Italy who is a surgeon by trade, but has become increasingly involved in fighting quack medicine. A worthwhile enterprise, but from a comment that he made on HCQ last year, i fear that he might be turning dogmatic. But he is still a friend, and i trust that he’ll see that one can reject quack medicine while still distrusting the official narrative.