To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CS2-6

I agree with you that many journals need to improve their peer review process, but I don't think it would do most of us any good to get any closer than a peer-reviewed publication.

The closer a person gets to the truth, the less able they are to interpret it. Even scientists aren't able to understand raw data from outside their training. Ask a cell biologist to make heads or tails of a ellipsometry readout, or judge the quality of an experiment's NMR methodology, for instance.

I wish endeavors seeking to reproduce published experiments from other labs weren't so scoffed at by the scientific community and funding organizations. Validating results is as important as it is unsexy.

---

Oh I agree--raw data is for govt agencies, maybe peer reviewers if there is skepticism. Certainly not for the average person. And most people probably will have a hard time making sense of peer-reviewed journals. Depending on the subject even scientists will have a hard time reading outside of their field. I can make sense of epidemiological data if it's not too complex but when they start talking about mRNA structure or the complexities of the immune system I'm lost.

As somebody who has done plenty of peer reviewing of submitted articles, I gotta say it can be difficult and thankless and time-consuming work in order to do a good job in what is (usually) a purely voluntarily capacity. This is atop all the other shit you gotta address as part of your daily grind. You do it for the greater good of science, but sometimes you just don't have the time to make the superlative effort, what with all your other responsibilities, be they lab, clinical, teaching, research, management, executive, whatever.

If you're not some kind of pattern-recognition Rain Man savant like Bik, more often than not you end up giving the submitter of the manuscript the benefit of the doubt (that their findings are bona fide) when going over what is purported to be the primary data.

...and CS 2-6's point is well taken - often you're trying to assess data that is slightly or possibly significantly outside your area of expertise, even though a good journal (and editor) will try to send you stuff in your field. Then if it's too close to your field, it may be a competitor's or colleagues' work, which opens up a whole 'nother can 'o worms in re: potential conflict of interest.

You guys don't really wanna know how the sausage is made in the academic sausage factory. It ain't exactly Upton Sinclair, but it's complicated.

Fuck me if I’m wrong, but don’t the submitters often pay a fee to have their article published?

Not always, but often, yeah. But rarely does any of it go to reviewers. At least in my limited experience.

I wouldn't expect peer review to catch plagiarism, faked images and the like. Seems to me the job is to verify that the methodology is sound and that the data justifies the conclusions. I don't see how a peer reviewer would be able to catch out and out fraud. The gold standard for verifying research is for the work to be repeated and the original findings confirmed. I suspect that's how most fraud is eventually detected.

More commonly misleading research is honest but the findings are anomalous and when the work is repeated and all the studies are added up it turns out the original conclusions are not confirmed. The usual standard for statistical significance is a 5% chance of the results being the result being do to chance alone. Most papers will show a much lower chance than that, but given the enormous numbers of research papers published every year it is inevitable that some will reach erroneous conclusions, only to be debunked over time, if we're lucky.

None of the reputable journals charge a fee afaik but I've been out of the loop for a long time. I've published 3 articles in peer reviewed journals and never paid a fee. I suppose there are vanity publications that accept articles for a fee--I don't know about those.
I've never been a reviewer for a journal, only peer reviewed a few malpractice cases. That's fun. (A bunch of us got a dinner at a great restaurant after which we were supposed to discuss our opinions with the defense lawyer. As we sat down to eat the lawyer said--the case settled. Enjoy dinner.)

Edit--I see what triungulate wrote about fees. My papers were all published when I was a resident so maybe my university paid and I didn't know about it. Or maybe things have changed in the last 45 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

As somebody who has done plenty of peer reviewing of submitted articles

---

Thank you for doing the Lord's work. I think being a reviewer is tantamount to charity: the only reward for doing the work is the work itself. I'm sure there are those who are in it to network, politic, and curry favor, but I hope they are a small minority??

All of us recognize the consequences of data manipulation are potentially huge, the article old goat linked mentioned the Wakefield MMR vaccine --> autism paper and even though he was caught, discredited, retracted, and barred from practicing, his fraud still spurred a massive anti-vax movement and changed thousands of lives for the worse (yeah, anti-vaxers have existed for as long as vaccines have, but they were never given this much legitimacy before). But I don't think the popular media understands that the impetus to falsify data isn't usually to get rich and famous; not when publishing is required to earn a PhD, and a robust publication record is demanded for favorable R01 percentiles. Furthermore, the higher impact the journal and the more earth-shattering the claims, the greater the scrutiny (I'm depending on yall to correct me if I'm hopelessly naive on this). Any falsification of results is a sin, but I think there are way more small time crooks than there are supervillains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I wouldn't expect peer review to catch plagiarism, faked images and the like. Seems to me the job is to verify that the methodology is sound and that the data justifies the conclusions. I don't see how a peer reviewer would be able to catch out and out fraud. The gold standard for verifying research is for the work to be repeated and the original findings confirmed. I suspect that's how most fraud is eventually detected.

---

Right on, I absolutely agree with that and wish there was more respect given to this part of the process (hell, if I had my way, that's all grad students would do, as opposed to chasing novel research), "Me Too Science" my boss used to derisively call it, before that phrase went on to mean something else. But even then, with the variability from lab to lab (reagent stocks, genetic drift in lab-maintained animal colonies, undetected contamination of cell lines, etc.) unreproducibility, inconsistencies, and even wrong conclusions in good faith are possible, and even expected.

It's a complicated problem and I'm sure as shit not smart enough to solve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Fuck me if I’m wrong, but don’t the submitters often pay a fee to have their article published?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

maybe my university paid and I didn't know about it. Or maybe things have changed in the last 45 years.

---

My brief experience was a lot like yours. I don't remember any fees being associated with my submissions, but maybe the PIs' grants picked up the tab and I never knew/cared about it.

I have what I hope is a cold. Fully vaxxed since April. I called my doc office because I have a physical appointment for today and wanted to know if they wanted to wave me off. Come on down they said. Ok. Good thing because this feels like it is becoming a sinus infection. But I'm in no mood for the prostate exam. Not getting a cold for over a year was really nice. Now that VT is fully open we all gonna die because I feel like death warmed over. I feel KQs pain. Although my wife bought bananas when she went shopping on Sat. So there's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

I have what I hope is a cold. Fully vaxxed since April. I called my doc office because I have a physical appointment for today and wanted to know if they wanted to wave me off. Come on down they said. Ok. Good thing because this feels like it is becoming a sinus infection. But I'm in no mood for the prostate exam. Not getting a cold for over a year was really nice. Now that VT is fully open we all gonna die because I feel like death warmed over. I feel KQs pain. Although my wife bought bananas when she went shopping on Sat. So there's that.

---

If they want to do a prostate exam for your cold just tell them you already did it yourself and it was normal, except for the hard nodule on the right side but you aren't worried about it because you'll die of something else probably the Covid you caught,

Prostrate exams are more fun once you get a hot female doctor

congrats on being the worst part of her day

I actually did get my physical done one year by a hot redheaded PA. She was not as happy about it as I was. And yes, she put her finger up my bum after squeezing my balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Striker

No clue. Both articles were a little light on specifics, and the wsj one had the second half behind a paywall.

---

Reading this thread I see the three major newspapers quoted the most are NYT, WaPo and WSJ. By my own counts. Not surprising since these are the three biggest non-tabloid dailies in the US.

Got a heads up on WSJ subscriptions, they are having a nice subscription sale through 04July, $4.00 per month for 12 months, online only. Huge reduction from usual rates. Renews at a much higher rate after 12 mos, cancel anytime.

The $4 per month includes one hardcopy weekend edition paper delivered to your door for the term of the subscription. The weekender WSJs cost $5 each at local convenience and grocery stores. Kinda of a no brainer if you even buy one weekend edition once a month.

I used to read online via a county library system, library stopped their patron subscription online access, so I'm about to pull the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody Famous

Reading this thread I see the three major newspapers quoted the most are NYT, WaPo and WSJ. By my own counts. Not surprising since these are the three biggest non-tabloid dailies in the US.

Got a heads up on WSJ subscriptions, they are having a nice subscription sale through 04July, $4.00 per month for 12 months, online only. Huge reduction from usual rates. Renews at a much higher rate after 12 mos, cancel anytime.

The $4 per month includes one hardcopy weekend edition paper delivered to your door for the term of the subscription. The weekender WSJs cost $5 each at local convenience and grocery stores. Kinda of a no brainer if you even buy one weekend edition once a month.

I used to read online via a county library system, library stopped their patron subscription online access, so I'm about to pull the trigger.

---

IMO the WSJ went to shit once Murdoch purchased it. I wouldn't waste your money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

IMO the WSJ went to shit once Murdoch purchased it. I wouldn't waste your money.

---

Agree. But I do part with $5 for a weekend edition a few times a month. So I see it as saving a few dollars.

Californians can access their covid vaccination record from the state registry. https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/
You get PIN access to a website with a QR code and a text record of your vaccine status. So maybe more convincing than a paper vaccine card. In the 2 weeks we've been open I have not been asked my vaccine status in any business, let alone asked to prove it. I suppose it will be an issue for international travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

IMO the WSJ went to shit once Murdoch purchased it. I wouldn't waste your money.

---

Agreed. I used to buy the WSJ all the time but since Murdoch bought it fuck no. Pay for Wapo, NYT, and the local rag. Already more than I have time to read.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

congrats on being the worst part of her day

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

I actually did get my physical done one year by a hot redheaded PA. She was not as happy about it as I was. And yes, she put her finger up my bum after squeezing my balls.

---

For her it’s just work.

But having a man stick his finger in my asshole?
That’s uncomfortable.

https://youtu.be/CfZiAiYNcI8

you wana get an MD with small fingers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

I actually did get my physical done one year by a hot redheaded PA. She was not as happy about it as I was. And yes, she put her finger up my bum after squeezing my balls.

---

One of the few bennies of getting older was when my primary care doctor said the ball squeeze was no longer needed. Then last year the cute NP told me the but hole poke was optional with a blood test. We both agreed to forgo it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cat in january

One of the few bennies of getting older was when my primary care doctor said the ball squeeze was no longer needed. Then last year the cute NP told me the but hole poke was optional with a blood test. We both agreed to forgo it

---

I'd let that PA do it all over again. I do like them redheads. My doc didn't poke me or squeeze me this time. Plenty of blood tests. However, I'm due for a colonoscopy. So it's not really a victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

I'd let that PA do it all over again. I do like them redheads. My doc didn't poke me or squeeze me this time. Plenty of blood tests. However, I'm due for a colonoscopy. So it's not really a victory.

---

I was able to forego the colonoscopy with ColoGuard this last time around. That won't last with my doc for too long but got me through this cycle, thankfully. I hate that shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldMember

I was able to forego the colonoscopy with ColoGuard this last time around. That won't last with my doc for too long but got me through this cycle, thankfully. I hate that shit.

---

Ya, no. Not a candidate for cologuard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

I'd let that PA do it all over again. I do like them redheads. My doc didn't poke me or squeeze me this time. Plenty of blood tests. However, I'm due for a colonoscopy. So it's not really a victory.

---

Put off the poop scope for five years
Finally did it last year. Propofol is a hellava drug.
The procedure ain’t that bad.
I did give the anesthetist a michael Jackson woo hoo before she pushed the plunger.

Johnny the neighbor used to ski like a madman, para glide off cliffs, kayak widl rivers, all kinds of crazyness to point he should have died from an accident instead of Colon cancer but cancer doesnt care how healthy you are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser3

Ya, no. Not a candidate for cologuard.

---

What does it take to be a "candidate" for Cologuard.

Asking for... a friend. :fmicon: