March 21, 2018

Most Published SCIENCE Research Findings Are False

Do enjoy the read;

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis Abstract Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies to the most modern molecular research. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof. Go to: Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings Several methodologists have pointed out that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. *Negative* research is also very useful. *Negative* is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” 
Also see: 

Scientists do lie a lot…

When Politics and Money come through the door the TRUTH goes out the window..


Death Is The Only Way Out Of This Containment Facility Called Earth

Obviously some folks have been trying to get out of this place into someplace else outside of this place.. Perhaps someone that is here, was once on the other side and was forcefully removed from there to here for starting a rebellion..



Book Review – “The Impact Of Science On Society”

By Bertrand Russell-1953 First Edition. The only way to accurately predict the future is to know that somebody intends to engineer it.. Falls right inline with the Iron Mountain Report, The First “Global” Revolution by The Club of Rome, Limits to Growth, The Origin Of Species, Our Global Neighborhood, Earth Summit Agenda 21{2100 conclusion date} And of course the United Nations “Environmental” Policies- Global Biodiversity Assessment.. Scientism is Eugenics on Steroids..

Pages 40-41

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology … Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part … It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship … The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

Pages 49-50

Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy … It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished … Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible …

The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia … If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method …

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

Page 54

After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.

Pages 103-104

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s. However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia … Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

Page 105

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.

Page 110

A society is not stable unless it is on the whole satisfactory to the holders of power and the holders of power are not exposed to the risk of successful revolution.

Pages 110-111

First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries … If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in – such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.

Second, as regards population … To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.


Appeals to Emotions, Hormones And Controlled Thoughts

A wide range of scientific possibilities when it comes to messing about with folks thinking, and of course appeals to emotions.. Yep, I read this stuff too.. It’s fascinating.. They put it all out in plain sight and nobody wonders and nobody cares.. Besides looking up folks ought to be looking things up. But shucks, nobody would want to mind control everyone using these methods.. Just because the scientific possibility exists to do it doesn’t mean anyone would be doing it… Who would ever be so evil as to teach people what to think and destroy their capacity to think with lies backed up by endocrine physiology using drugs to mess with the psyche of say entire societies.. Who’d be so nefarious that they’d chemically alter people into being comfortably numb.. Maybe even causing a boy to have girlish emotions and girls to have boyish emotions.. They could do all kinds of science with this science.. They could get people to believe anything..

“The field of basic endocrine physiology has advanced considerably since Martin’s earlier Textbook of Endocrine Physiology was published, and the 95% new material in this volume reflects how the entire concept of the nature and function of hormones has changed. The book takes a biochemical approach to vertebrate and particularly human endocrine physiology, and emphasizes methods of hormone action.”


Drones Cheering Drone Weaponry


Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.



Why Some Doctor’s Never Get A Flu Shot


Journey To The Center Of The Earth


Parasites “A Major Threat to Moose” But Leads “Occasionally to Death.” HUH?

Perhaps Cornell University is at it again. The last time I recall the antics of Cornell University, was when they, in their attempt to do something about the overrunning deer population on campus, decided to conduct some “tubal ligations” on some of the female population of deer.

When a university, or any other organization, is wallowing in liberal idiocy, stupid things happen to stupid people. What the brilliant wildlife department at the university failed to understand, in their blindness, was that tubal ligations on female deer only caused those female deer to go into estrus and remain in estrus until they had successfully mated. Now, without the ability to successfully mate…The result? Every buck within a hundred miles descended on Cornell looking for action.

And now, the $34,000.00 a year tuition at Cornell, has students who are conducting tests, and what they call research, to see what are killing the Adirondack moose. They say moose eating snails is how they contract “brain worm,” which ends up killing the moose. However, in one paragraph, the university writes: “…surveys in 2016 on 11 live moose and 22 necropsies and concluded parasites are a major threat to the moose population.” (Emboldening added by editor)

This if followed almost immediately by this: “Foraging moose then ingest infected snails, culminating in a diseased brain and spinal cord, and occasionally death.”(emboldening added by editor)

I may be wrong, but from my perspective, if I was going to state that parasites, from eating snails, are a major threat to the moose population, then it must be that death, and/or failure to reproduce, is at a level high enough the recruitment of new moose calves is lower than total mortality of the adult moose population.

If that is true, then how can the results of foraging moose, eating snails, lead to “occasional death?”

Maybe they should try some tubal ligations.

Understand that by reading Cornell’s own words, they are clueless as to whether moose are eating snails and if so, if it is killing the moose. “Our results show that moose foraging in areas with high soil moisture may likely encounter higher densities of gastropods – snails and slugs – which likely increases the risk of parasitic threats from deer brain worm if the snails are eaten.” (Emboldening added by editor)

I suppose it is just as LIKELY that moose MIGHT eat a truck full of cannabis a LIKELY die!

Here’s one more observation. The student researchers (give em a break, right? So they can graduate and fill our wildlife manager departments with more progressive, brainwashed, environmentalist, idiots.) said they are looking into wet and “water areas” where they think, perhaps they will find these parasitic-laden snails. One area of interest to them is described this way: “Since moose make use of water areas and eat in wet, dense pine forests, they’re susceptible to a large presence of gastropods …”

I grew up in Maine and lived the majority of my adult life here. Maine is the Pine Tree State. Pine forests are everywhere and for some strange reason, the people of Maine decided to call Maine the Pine Tree State. Maine also has moose…more than any other state in the lower contiguous states. I’m going to go out and search for moose eating in “wet, dense pine forests.” And all this time, I thought pine trees, like the hundreds of thousands I have on my small acreage, thrived in dry, sandy places.

I just can’t believe my own eyes!

Maybe I should try some tubal ligations.


War On Bad Science? Or Is It A War on Preferred Bad Science?

Arnold says that now, unless he trusts a researcher’s work, he no longer believes the findings of any scientific study until he or someone on the staff carefully vets the paper. “A new study shows …” are “the four most dangerous words,” Arnold wrote on Twitter.

Together with Taubes’ work, Arnold was also reading Ioannidis’ and Gold­acre’s equally devastating analyses. These critiques of science amounted to a deep philosophical quandary for the Arnolds, philanthropists who had dedicated their lives to a data-based approach to giving. “In everything they do, they want to be evidence-driven,” says Stuart Buck, vice president of research integrity at the Arnold Foundation. But if you look at the studies that can’t be reproduced and other issues facing science, “you start to think: What is evidence? What do we actually know?”

The Arnolds had already decided that, with decades of life ahead of them and almost unlimited resources, they had the time and money to evaluate charitable programs properly, even when that meant paying for expensive randomized controlled trials that could take years to complete. But now they were widening their scope. If they wanted to embark on truly “transformational change,” as their foundation literature states, it wouldn’t be enough to properly evaluate this or that education or criminal justice program. They would also have to take on a far more ambitious project: The Arnolds would have to try and fix science itself.<<<Read More>>>