1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against...
They think legit scientists are stupid, too.
Highlight reel-
REAL scientists examine the (non-)science behind the "Official", Corman-Drosten et al Report-
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific
1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against...
The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient...
Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfills the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally,...
Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.
There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper which...
The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2...is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [1], because at the time neither control material...
The focus here should be...a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory...
...only a protocol with maximal accuracy can be the mandatory and primary goal in any scenario-outcome...Critical viral load...
...these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model...
The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our...
“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific...
More from Science
What are the classics of the "Science of Science" or "Meta Science"? If you were teaching a class on the subject, what would go in the syllabus?
Here's a (very disorganized and incomplete) handful of suggestions, which I may add to. Suggestions welcome, especially if you've dug into relevant literatures.
1. The already classic "Estimating the reproducibility of
psychological science" from the Open Science Collaboration of @BrianNosek et al. https://t.co/yjGczLZ6Je
(Look at that abstract, wow!)
Many people had pointed out problems with standard statistical methods, going back decades (what are the best refs?). But this paper was a sledgehammer, making it impossible to ignore the question: what, if anything, were we actually learning from all those statistical studies?
2. Dean Keith Simonton's book "Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist". If an essentially scientometric book could be described as a fun romp through science & creativity, this would be it
Here's a (very disorganized and incomplete) handful of suggestions, which I may add to. Suggestions welcome, especially if you've dug into relevant literatures.
1. The already classic "Estimating the reproducibility of
psychological science" from the Open Science Collaboration of @BrianNosek et al. https://t.co/yjGczLZ6Je
(Look at that abstract, wow!)
Many people had pointed out problems with standard statistical methods, going back decades (what are the best refs?). But this paper was a sledgehammer, making it impossible to ignore the question: what, if anything, were we actually learning from all those statistical studies?
2. Dean Keith Simonton's book "Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist". If an essentially scientometric book could be described as a fun romp through science & creativity, this would be it
Read this thread from @lilithsaintcrow. I really mean it. Just read it. Because if what she is saying is true (and I happen to think it is) it explains *so much*
An example using the Flat Earthers: A thread of many parts:
I'm firmly convinced that the flat Earth thing was started by some adolescent trolls with nothing more productive to do. They didn't believe it, but they thought it was entertaining to keep pretending that they did.
You can't engage with them, because they *are playing a game*. They think it's fun to see if they can get anybody to engage with something completely stupid as though it's true.
If you challenge them, the rules of the game state that they have to argue as hard and a spuriously as they like, but *never* to admit that the Earth is not in fact flat. I suppose you have to make up your own entertainment on 4chan or whatever hole this was conceived in.
It's annoying as hell, but I suppose it doesn't do much harm.. except to folks like this:
An example using the Flat Earthers: A thread of many parts:
Let me explain something to those of you who didn't grow up around violently abusive white supremacists.
— Lili Saintcrow (@lilithsaintcrow) January 7, 2021
*They absolutely do not believe their own bullshit*, but it's useful for them to pretend they do.
I'm firmly convinced that the flat Earth thing was started by some adolescent trolls with nothing more productive to do. They didn't believe it, but they thought it was entertaining to keep pretending that they did.
You can't engage with them, because they *are playing a game*. They think it's fun to see if they can get anybody to engage with something completely stupid as though it's true.
If you challenge them, the rules of the game state that they have to argue as hard and a spuriously as they like, but *never* to admit that the Earth is not in fact flat. I suppose you have to make up your own entertainment on 4chan or whatever hole this was conceived in.
It's annoying as hell, but I suppose it doesn't do much harm.. except to folks like this:
