So it turns out that an organization I thought was doing good work, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (associated with Center for Inquiry, James Randi, and Martin Gardner) was actually caping for pedophiles. Uhhhh oops?

The number 666 relates to the carbon atom, and man. Carbon-12; one of 5 elements in the human DNA is composed of 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons, which equates to 666. 
.@realDonaldTrump
.@GenFlynn
.@RudyGiuliani

Extremely excited today to reveal the first of two great works (magnus opera?), just posted on bioarxiv, applying regulatory network analysis techniques to PDAC expression data to dissect the underlying biology of the disease. Tweetorial time! 1/

Eight years ago I launched an enduring collaboration with Andrea Califano @ColumbiaCancer to apply his regulatory network analysis techniques to #pancreaticcancer. So many amazing scientists have contributed to this work: @paslaise @hc_maurer @AlvaroCurielGa1 @ElyadaEla 2/

What is “regulatory network analysis”? At it's heart, it's a way of extracting more useful information from expression profiles. A fundamental flaw of differential gene expression (DGE) analysis is the assumption that each gene is independent. Biologist KNOW this is not true! 3/

DGE treats all ~25K detectable genes as SEPARATE variables, performs 25K T-tests, and then slaps on a multiple hypothesis correction to make the statisticians less dyspeptic. There is no consideration of the relationships between genes! 4/

Yet we KNOW genes are co-regulated in SETS by transcription factors and other REGULATORY FACTORS. Biologist: “p21 is a target of p53”. DGE: “Shhhh”. These relationships are completely ignored by expression analysis. THIS IS A TRAVESTY! 5/

The distinction of measuring the time in a scientific manner is achieved only by Bhāratīyas. Time has been measured from the smallest dimension to infiniteness. Even Time is envisioned as God and venerated. Paramēśvara was extolled as ‘Mahākāla’, the very embodiment of Time.

Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad envisages Nārāyaṇa as ‘Kālaśca Nārāyaṇa:’, the very embodiment of Time, ages ago. The measurement of Time by Bhāratīyas is as ancient as the very God Himself. Count of many future ages has also been done even from very ancient times.

Since these calculations aren't dependent upon the birth & death of any individual, but are done based on astronomical science, they are thoroughly scientific. Unfortunately, during the British rule, the Bhāratīya way of Time measurement was casted as an illusion...

...with an evil intention to establish their command. Though it is 70+ years since independence, blindly time is still measured as BC & AD or CE in this religion-less land without even making any attempt to comprehend the magnanimity of Bhāratīya Time measurement methods.

Time measurement based on inhalation and exhalation : (image)

Cognitive Bias in Forensic Pathology Decisions was published today by Journal of Forensic Sciences

From the abstract “We examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six.” /2

We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on fo- rensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. /3

The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. /4

“Participants read a vignette describing a not straightforward or simple case in which a 3.5-year-old child was presented to an ED with diminished vital signs and who died shortly after arrival. /5

1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll help you understand the basics of Binomial Thinking.

The future is always uncertain. There are many different ways it can unfold -- some more likely than others. Binomial thinking helps us embrace this view.

2/

The S&P 500 index is at ~3768 today.

Suppose we want to predict where it will be 10 years from now.

Historically, we know that this index has returned ~10% per year.

If we simply extrapolate this, we get an estimate of ~9773 for the index 10 years from now:

3/

What we just did is called a "point estimate" -- a prediction about the future that's a single number (9773).

But of course, we know the future is uncertain. It's impossible to predict it so precisely.

So, there's a sense of *false precision* in point estimates like this.

4/

To emphasize the uncertainty inherent in such predictions, a better approach is to predict a *range* of values rather than a single number.

For example, we may say the index will return somewhere in the *range* of 8% to 12% (instead of a fixed 10%) per year.

5/

10 years from now, this implies an index value in the *range* [8135, 11703]: