That's supposed to prove something? I mean, other than don't go in New York city sewers? Or, at this point, get the heck out of NYC if you can. The government there is one of the poster children for bad, neofascist overkill.
Here is an example of a peer review file for "Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations" by Gakuhari et al. (2020). The study confirmed a southern route origin of the Jomon, who are genetically related to Onge/Hoabinhian people from Southeast Asia.
Rats infest every city in the world. There really is no way to end that, though trying is a great idea. The issue with rats and disease is that these animals are infected by human diseases and are a perfect place for new strains of those diseases to come into existence. The next US-wide biological attack could come from new strains of COVID that are more lethal that what we have experienced. The effort put into denying and squelching efforts to defend against disease is STARTLING! We go to WAR. Then, we lay ourselves open to domestic and foreign disease which is FAR more of a domestic threat - as if it doesn't even matter!!!
So take your case to New York. Out here we don't have a rat problem and we didn't have much of a COVID problem, vaccinations or not. And don't even think of coming out here and forcing crappy vaccines that were unproven and didn't seem to work all that well on us.
There are rat problems in every city of any size. And, that includes the USA and other countries. The viruses behind COVID are mutating throughout the rat population of the world. Guessing that we've seen the worst of it is flat out ridiculous. Besides the rat population, there bats, pangolins, and other animals in Asia that are known reservoirs of thousands of variants of SARS. The vaccines science based medicine created for COVID were safe, effective and low cost. They were used around the world. The question is whether we learned anything about defending against pandemic, and whether we're working on ensuring the facilities, staffing and supplies we'll need.
Yes, this is how a lot of people respond to military recruitment. We are all responsible for the defense of America. And, in the case of pandemic, the war is fought on our homeland, requiring participation by all.
But this man claims that other scientists do not conduct the same experiment. Perhaps you appreciate the concept of peer review while he sees that it is only a concept.
Peer review doesn't always include attempts at duplication. It always includes examination of methodology and comparison to other work done, but duplication takes time, money and the efforts of scientists who could better advance their careers by doing their own original work. My understanding is that journals usually are the ones who guide review. And, they don't necessarily have the time or money to fund duplication efforts. Quality studies aren't cheap. Especially in the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, etc.) where controls are limited by ethical treatment of humans it would really be good to increase duplication.
They aren't sciences at all. They are social sciences, or better, analysis of human behavior. I don't have a position about peer review. The idea makes sense. Whether it is done well or not is beyond me.
The fact that humans and human behavior is involved certainly does not mean that they aren't sciences.
I disagree. Analyzing human behavior results in opinions, not hard, consistent, predictable information.
The largest scientific experiment in history was Peer Review itself and it failed By Jo Nova Peer Review has been a sixty year experiment with no control group It’s touted as the “gold standard” of science, yet the evidence shows Peer Review is an abject failure. There are 30,000 scientific journals that publish nearly 5 million articles a year, and the only thing we know for sure is that two-thirds of papers with major flaws will still get published, fraud is almost never discovered, and peer review has effectively crushed groundbreaking new discoveries. By Adam Mastroianni, Experimental History The rise and fall of Peer Review Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that’s a great thing For the last 60 years or so, science has been running an experiment on itself. The experimental design wasn’t great; there was no randomization and no control group. Nobody was in charge, exactly, and nobody was really taking consistent measurements. And yet it was the most massive experiment ever run, and it included every scientist on Earth. It seemed like a good idea at the time, instead it was just rubber stamp to keep the bureaucrats safe. As government funded research took over the world of science after World War II, clueless public servants wanted expert reviewers to make sure they weren’t wasting money on something embarrassingly stupid, or fraudulent. They weren’t search for the truth, just protecting their own necks. Scientifically, there’s no evidence supporting peer review: Here’s a simple question: does peer review actually do the thing it’s supposed to do? Does it catch bad research and prevent it from being published? It doesn’t. Scientists have run studies where they deliberately add errors to papers, send them out to reviewers, and simply count how many errors the reviewers catch. Reviewers are pretty awful at this. In this study reviewers caught 30% of the major flaws, in this study they caught 25%, and in this study they caught 29%. These were critical issues, like “the paper claims to be a randomized controlled trial but it isn’t” and “when you look at the graphs, it’s pretty clear there’s no effect” and “the authors draw conclusions that are totally unsupported by the data.” Reviewers mostly didn’t notice. . . .
This is one more of your seriously pathetic assaults on science and NO MORE. As pointed out, this "study" includes no control. In most disciplines, having no control would simply invalidate the "study". There really isn't a more damning accusation possible. As for peer review, peer review is NOT projected as a gold standard. Nobody claims that errors don't get passed peer review. It IS considered an important step, as it does find errors. Without peer review, more errors would go undetected and published. Your object is clearly oriented to no more than assaulting the validity of science in general. Once again, even your CITES self identify as failing to be valid studies.
"Assaulting the validity of science "? Oh please. Cry me a river. Don't worry. Real science has done fine so far and will continue to do fine long after you stop weeping about it. Mostly because real science is useful.
Absolutely. But, I'm a little sick of the constant attempts to denigrate science, especially when the justification is preposterous.
Do not be silly. Your post was on peer review. Your cite even included that it was without controls, yet you cited it! I know it is tough to assault the validity of science using studies that ignore the elements of science that are seriously important. Plus, the false claims about the intent of peer review further show a disrespect for truth.
The cited work was a feature article, not a research paper. And btw, it was peer review that was specified as lacking a control group.
It also applies to the claims being made. Peer review turns up issues that must be decided, but not by the reviewer. The method of resolution is a separate issue. That is, a journal is free to publish papers for which there have been issues reported by peer review. The journal may take other action as well - as the authors often choose to do. Control in a scientific study is a very different issue. In medicine, it might include testing with a double blinded application of test drugs and placebos, for example.
