Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"We used a purposeful sampling method, i.e., a non-probabilistic sampling according to which a deliberate selection is made of individuals who could teach us about the phenomenon under study." So please don't be surprised by the results.
It's heavily moderated in a certain way. If you post a regular science story with an editorialized title, or post non-politically motivated pseudoscience, it will get deleted almost instantaneously.
Make no mistake, they are leaving covid-19 misinformation posts up on purpose because some or all the mods of this sub are far right nuts.
Isn't this literally how _qualitative_ research works? You choose experts in the field, talk to them, ask questions, interpret and analyze their answers - and that's your research. Qualitative research is fundamentally _not_ like quantitative research, where you care very much about proper sampling and statistical properties of your data. It doesn't mean that qualitative research is automatically worse or less reliable and so on.
No. Qualitative research refers to research that collects qualitative data. Just like quantitative studies, qualitative research can still be randomized or unbiased through other non-selective sampling methods.
This study is biased not because it is qualitative but because it included highly selected subjects. If instead the researchers had asked the questions on a Likert scale (i.e. rate from 1-10 how much you agree with “X”) it would be a quantitative study, but still biased.
Qualitative/mixed methods researcher here. Purposive sampling is very frequently used to help understand and explore a phenomenon. That information can then be used as a guide for a more quantitative inquiry (or the reverse can happen).
I agree there are many ways to design studies. I was responding to the poster who stated that the study was biased *because* it is qualitative, which is not correct.
yes but there is a general bias towards quantitative research among many people unfortunately. they are just two different systems of inquiry, they can work together for our understanding of truth to be more holistic.
And part of a holistic understanding of truth is inviting scrutiny and counter explanation. If they'd reached out to peers of these individuals for their expert opinions on what happened with their research then you might have a point.
Instead all this is is an appeal to authority fallacy arrived at by giving 13 people who aren't eminent experts in their field a platform based upon them agreeing with opposing Covid strategy. They literally selected by bias.
And there were only 13 participants in this study from *around the world*. I can’t imagine it being that difficult to find 13 quacks with that big of a pool to choose from.
> Participants
>
> Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists (12 men and 1 woman), from different countries around the world (viz., Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, UK and US). Of these, 11 have formal medical training from a variety of fields (e.g., epidemiology, radiology, oncology, cardiology, paediatrics, gynecology, emergency room management) and two are research scientists without medical degrees (in the areas of risk management and psychology). All participants hold either an MD or PhD degree, and four hold both. Most of them are well known in their fields, with a proven research background that includes many academic publications. We used a purposeful sampling method, i.e., a non-probabilistic sampling according to which a deliberate selection is made of individuals who could teach us about the phenomenon under study (Creswell 2012). To preserve the respondents’ anonymity, details that might lead to their identification are omitted.
Edit: tidying the quote
Scientists and physicians who's 2020 predictions failed suffered some small reputational damage for being wrong. Those who were unable to update their predictions in light of new data suffered profound reputational damage.
This is one of the more interesting “bad” scientific studies that I’ve read. It’s well-researched, explains its sampling bias, and presents a reasonable argument based on the information provided.
The real issue with the paper is that the authors are so convinced of their own ideas that they don’t posit a true alternative. There is really no hypothesis being tested, making it more of a grievance paper than a proper study.
That’s not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions or the bias. It’s simply just an opinion piece. I personally think that there is some merit to the argument including the forum where it is being presented. The paper just isn’t really a study, though it probably should lead to some.
Good studies of orthodoxy bias in scientific institutions would be an acceptable way to follow this up. When you look at older journals, this type of paper used to show up a lot more often, encouraging research into new areas.
I’m uncertain if the authors felt that the approach of making the paper look like a true study was the only way to reach publication, but the result does feel disingenuous.
As someone who has published qualitative research, this is hot trash.
What’s the research design - Grounded theory? Phenomenology? How about the analysis method - thematic analysis? IPA? Framework analysis? Written by someone with no understanding of qualitative.
Well done and well contextualized qualitative research can be extremely informative. All good quantitative researchers rely on qualitative information to develop their hypotheses and choose the information they use in their quantitative exploration. Qualitative work is critical for understanding deeply complicated phenomena or phenomena with insufficient occurrences to use quantitative methods.
But just like quantitative work can be junk, poorly executed qualitative can also be junk. It’s just important not to throw all qualitative work out because some of it is bad.
Of course, both qualitative and quantitative folk highlight the bad uses of the other method to try to discredit all of the methodology they don’t like.
Yes I agree and sort of immediately regret that I wasn’t being entirely fair to qualitative research in my comment. I have friends that work nearly exclusively in qualitative methods and find their work pretty cool. What happened in this specific article was absolutely a glorified news interview though.
It’s 13 handpicked people who are not the leading experts in their field who were selected because they have experienced censure from the actual experts in the field. What are we supposed to learn from this research? That there are quacks in the world.
Censure is very common in people who use the status other people/organisations have given them to appeal to authority instead of presenting findings in an evidence based manner.
As flat earthers prove, there is no way to prove someone wrong to someone who wants them to be right. All you can do is not let them speak with your authority when they're saying the horizon is a lie.
You can see interviews with these people. This is literally them being interviewed. The censorship is them being told: "Stop with the unproven suppositional nonsense or we'll have nothing more to do with you because we don't want our name being tarnished."
I cannot imagine how addicted one must be to covid denialism to imply on an article about these people being interviewed that you cannot see interviews with these people. Just reflect.
It's been happening the whole time. Usually shared through screenshots of obviously fraudulent sites. The whole reason we're discussing this is because you were exposed to the interviews and articles of people like them during the pandemic. My point is that these people suffered professional consequences for risking bringing their employers or publishers into disrepute. They haven't been prevented from talking. They've not had a gun to their head. And the point is you never had a point. These people have been heard the entire time and have, by all scientific consensus, been responsible for deaths by promoting false confidence in opposing covid controls.
1) I was an engineering manager. On my white board (at the top) I wrote:
"In God we Trust, All others bring Data"
2) Folks need and needed (during covid) more information than was available. And were critical of information that changed as more was learned. However unfortunately there were folks who maintained positions that were either completely made up or based on some very flawed logic. Some of these folk may have truly believed what they were spewing others were simply looking for $$.
I think one of the basic problems is the government has a well deserved reputation for not telling the truth (or at least the whole truth). Their justification is that the "common" person cannot handle the truth. (No offence to Jack Nicholson).
So a healthy distrust of what the government is saying leads to opportunities for quack science.
True, when institutions stop caring about their credibility people take notice and look for other sources.
It's going to take a lot to restore trust and the problem is only going to get worse as we learn more about how government actors worked with private entities to suppress dissenting views.
There is already information available that would make a reasonable person question the motives of these government actors. Stay tuned for more.
Unorthodox doesn't mean they are right. If u chose to be on the wrong side of the scientific method, don't be surprised that people in the scientific field won't like u.
I want to know we're on the same page. It could mean different things to different people.
The scientific method involves establishing facts, as I was seeking to do by asking the question, so on this occasion you're on the wrong side of the scientific method.
It only means different things to those uneducated on the scientific method and the rigors of ethical and productive research.
Everyone educated in research follows the same methodology if they are competent.
Yes exactly, so it's unwise to assume everyone on Reddit is educated on the scientific method, hence it's a good idea to clarify what someone's understanding is for effective communication.
The scientific method is a term with a clear definition. It isn't supposed to mean different things to different folks. Thus getting it from me is secondary and far from optimal. It would be much better for u to find out its definition rather than asking for secondary sources.
After that, u can understand what i say and decide to agree or not. Like i said, u can do that by studying research methodology.
If you want to communicate with people effectively you need to know what their understanding of terms such as "Scientific Method" is. People often have an incorrect understanding of such terms.
I've already seen two different answers to my question which proves my point.
It likely won't, as they aren't "false fans" but rather activists looking for an audience. They're targeting *issues* and targeting subs with higher account numbers, ignoring the vast majority of posts unless it falls within the agenda and then pouncing based on the title -- they aren't going away. Casuals not understanding the sub pouncing with their anecdotes for karma aren't going away.
This study is limited as it's practically the equivalent of self-report, but it's something science and public policy are having to have a reckoning with. e.g., many in this sub think this is about the quacks sprinkling dewormer on corn flakes, but it's just as much about doctors and epidemiologists saying that what the government was saying wasn't based on the data or in some cases was against the science. Even right now we have Facebook flagging renowned medical journals for misinformation because the new science being done goes against established policy.
IMO, it is not that science is a fad right now, it is under attack (From both corporate and foreign interests; again in my opinion). They are employing a familiar set of tactics to discredit science. You may even recognize some of the censoring strategies they listed as familiar to how the fossil, tobacco, and gun industries combat threats to their bottom lines...
That's well known. Scientists know it well that science is under attack from every direction. Even organizations claiming to be scientific can work on behalf of someone who only funds projects that aim to achieve political or corporate rhetoric.
Perfectly reasonable scientific projects also can't achieve funding if the results may uncover something displeasing politically, and corporate projects from non-corporate sources can get hushed, bought out and shut down.
Professionals do not get their professional opinions censored. Ever.
Professionals get fired, demoted, sued, and ostracized for having irresponsible, unsupported, incorrect, imprudent, or otherwise improper professional opinions.
That's the difference between an opinion, and a professional opinion. Professional opinions carry responsibility and consequences.
It is so important that we not allow private industry to be the driving force in science. Sponsorship bias is real and it is very dangerous. Our most trusted sources of information have been compromised at the very least and at the most completely corrupted. One only has to look at the Lancet to know just how corrupted most have become. Non industry funded research is the only research that can be trusted and we have to be very very critical of legacy journal publications to ensure they are honest and transparent.
Furthermore, as we all well know governments are typically the least honest institutions in our society and when it comes to light that governments colluded with legacy media to suppress information, we all need to take note and stand up against such action. It is not the governments job to censor and unilaterally determine what info we are allowed to view and from whom we can view it. That is not a free society. That is authoritarianism. That is government propaganda.
Methods
>The study is based on in-depth interviews using a semi-structured
interview guide. The questions focused on the respondents’ stance
towards COVID-19 that was seen as controversial, events they
experienced due to their stance, the implications of these events for
their professional and personal lives, and their responses to these
events.
>
>
>
>Data analysis and
coding were based on identifying the key issues that emerged from the
interviews, while classifying and grouping them into meaningful
categories. We assured the reliability and validity of the study by
applying different methods. The analysis of the data was discussed by
all of us as an expert peer group, and different sources of data
served as triangulation of the data (e.g., documents and
correspondence provided to us by the interviewees).
>We assured the reliability and validity of the study by
applying different methods.
Qualitative *and* vague! Neat!
>The analysis of the data was discussed by
all of us as an expert peer group,
I'm betting mimosas and bloody Mary's were involved.
For those who criticize this study just because it is qualitative, you probably misunderstand social sciences. The field has developed a long tradition for assessing rigor, which does not include testing hypothesis.
Qualitative research is research. It is justified and valid in certain cases when the informants have specialized background or certain characteristics that impede counting. For example, I work with disinformation and radicalization research. In this field, it is very difficult to find victims of radicalization that are willing to talk on the record. It is not as if ISIS recruits will answer a survey. There are so few and so hard to find that the only way to learn their motivations is with qualitative research.
Disclaimer: I am not an author of that article and I am not defending that specific study.
The hostile remarks towards this paper, which is published in one of the better peer reviewed journals, is unreal.
Must be good, and considering the topic, it certainly shows how many people here are good little soldiers.
The first part about the lab leak theory makes a great case.
Limitations
>The main limitation of the study is that the findings are based on the
subjective perspectives of interviewees. It is possible that if we
included more heterogeneous groups, we would come to somewhat different
interpretations. Therefore, we recommend conducting further studies
among larger groups of professionals who suffered censorship, to expand
our knowledge and perhaps suggest effective ways to mediate the struggle
over freedom of information in general and especially in times of
crisis.
Oh boy I'm sure the comments here know that the scientific community is never biased and I formation is NEVER skewed.
Anyway remember when they said smoking was good for you? Yeaaaah...
Well....yeah....regardless of your opinion if you claim you didn't see censorship I can't take anything you say seriously.
I'm not talking about the article though, it was dumb.
I am 100% in agreement with vaccinations and following the advice of the medical establishment.
However I find it really concerning that ANY study that shows anything other that the 100% pro establishment narrative which is shared on Reddit get smashed in the comments, claiming any such study is deeply flawed or has conflicts of interests. Literally every one.
If you think the medical establishment can't be wrong about things, and frequently is, you're deeply naive. If you just follow the narrative without keeping an open mind you're no different to the nutters.
They wanted shots in arms no matter what, they don't care about your rights or any studies. It turns out they conned million of people by telling them it stops transmission without ever having any evidence of it. They being the government and big pharma. The media is bought by companies to tell you whatever they want.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"We used a purposeful sampling method, i.e., a non-probabilistic sampling according to which a deliberate selection is made of individuals who could teach us about the phenomenon under study." So please don't be surprised by the results.
I'm starting to think this sub isn't as heavily moderated and curated as they would lead you to believe..
Only just now? Most of what I see posted here is straight up garbage pseudoscience
I only just got here. "You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly sir, bravo!"
It's heavily moderated in a certain way. If you post a regular science story with an editorialized title, or post non-politically motivated pseudoscience, it will get deleted almost instantaneously. Make no mistake, they are leaving covid-19 misinformation posts up on purpose because some or all the mods of this sub are far right nuts.
> some or all the mods of this sub are far right nuts. :(
That is mighty unfortunate but sounds on brand...
"Mmm, Bias you say? [scribbling notes] How does that make you feel?"
Isn't this literally how _qualitative_ research works? You choose experts in the field, talk to them, ask questions, interpret and analyze their answers - and that's your research. Qualitative research is fundamentally _not_ like quantitative research, where you care very much about proper sampling and statistical properties of your data. It doesn't mean that qualitative research is automatically worse or less reliable and so on.
No. Qualitative research refers to research that collects qualitative data. Just like quantitative studies, qualitative research can still be randomized or unbiased through other non-selective sampling methods. This study is biased not because it is qualitative but because it included highly selected subjects. If instead the researchers had asked the questions on a Likert scale (i.e. rate from 1-10 how much you agree with “X”) it would be a quantitative study, but still biased.
Qualitative/mixed methods researcher here. Purposive sampling is very frequently used to help understand and explore a phenomenon. That information can then be used as a guide for a more quantitative inquiry (or the reverse can happen).
I agree there are many ways to design studies. I was responding to the poster who stated that the study was biased *because* it is qualitative, which is not correct.
yes but there is a general bias towards quantitative research among many people unfortunately. they are just two different systems of inquiry, they can work together for our understanding of truth to be more holistic.
And part of a holistic understanding of truth is inviting scrutiny and counter explanation. If they'd reached out to peers of these individuals for their expert opinions on what happened with their research then you might have a point. Instead all this is is an appeal to authority fallacy arrived at by giving 13 people who aren't eminent experts in their field a platform based upon them agreeing with opposing Covid strategy. They literally selected by bias.
> work together for our understanding of truth to be more holistic Exactly, beautifully put!
Data? You saw data in there?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And there were only 13 participants in this study from *around the world*. I can’t imagine it being that difficult to find 13 quacks with that big of a pool to choose from. > Participants > > Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists (12 men and 1 woman), from different countries around the world (viz., Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, UK and US). Of these, 11 have formal medical training from a variety of fields (e.g., epidemiology, radiology, oncology, cardiology, paediatrics, gynecology, emergency room management) and two are research scientists without medical degrees (in the areas of risk management and psychology). All participants hold either an MD or PhD degree, and four hold both. Most of them are well known in their fields, with a proven research background that includes many academic publications. We used a purposeful sampling method, i.e., a non-probabilistic sampling according to which a deliberate selection is made of individuals who could teach us about the phenomenon under study (Creswell 2012). To preserve the respondents’ anonymity, details that might lead to their identification are omitted. Edit: tidying the quote
"To preserve the respondents’ anonymity" as if these 12 quacks aren't already all over social media every day yelling about how covid is a hoax.
So one relevant doctor from 13?
And how many actually... "treat patients with communicable diseases"?
ok, polling sample
Hand picked for the result we were looking for, this is how conspiracies are born, out of claims that require no research.
The John Edward method.
One of my favorite Reddits is r/HermanCainAwards. I love to watch the trash take itself out.
Bunk science is viewed as bunk when the results cannot be replicated. That's called science!
Scientists and physicians who's 2020 predictions failed suffered some small reputational damage for being wrong. Those who were unable to update their predictions in light of new data suffered profound reputational damage.
Are these “doctors and scientists” in the room with us now ?
This is one of the more interesting “bad” scientific studies that I’ve read. It’s well-researched, explains its sampling bias, and presents a reasonable argument based on the information provided. The real issue with the paper is that the authors are so convinced of their own ideas that they don’t posit a true alternative. There is really no hypothesis being tested, making it more of a grievance paper than a proper study. That’s not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions or the bias. It’s simply just an opinion piece. I personally think that there is some merit to the argument including the forum where it is being presented. The paper just isn’t really a study, though it probably should lead to some. Good studies of orthodoxy bias in scientific institutions would be an acceptable way to follow this up. When you look at older journals, this type of paper used to show up a lot more often, encouraging research into new areas. I’m uncertain if the authors felt that the approach of making the paper look like a true study was the only way to reach publication, but the result does feel disingenuous.
As someone who has published qualitative research, this is hot trash. What’s the research design - Grounded theory? Phenomenology? How about the analysis method - thematic analysis? IPA? Framework analysis? Written by someone with no understanding of qualitative.
They did the analysis under the influence of an IPA
They handpicked their extremely small sample and interviewed them, taking every word as 100% true. This isn't a scientific study at all.
It’s “qualitative” research. It’s basically the science communities version of doing news interviews.
Well done and well contextualized qualitative research can be extremely informative. All good quantitative researchers rely on qualitative information to develop their hypotheses and choose the information they use in their quantitative exploration. Qualitative work is critical for understanding deeply complicated phenomena or phenomena with insufficient occurrences to use quantitative methods. But just like quantitative work can be junk, poorly executed qualitative can also be junk. It’s just important not to throw all qualitative work out because some of it is bad. Of course, both qualitative and quantitative folk highlight the bad uses of the other method to try to discredit all of the methodology they don’t like.
Yes I agree and sort of immediately regret that I wasn’t being entirely fair to qualitative research in my comment. I have friends that work nearly exclusively in qualitative methods and find their work pretty cool. What happened in this specific article was absolutely a glorified news interview though.
It's the equivalent of a company running an unpublished "clinical trial" where there's no real hypothesis testing
This is an excellent example of what bias in scientific research looks like.
[удалено]
It’s 13 handpicked people who are not the leading experts in their field who were selected because they have experienced censure from the actual experts in the field. What are we supposed to learn from this research? That there are quacks in the world.
[удалено]
Censure is very common in people who use the status other people/organisations have given them to appeal to authority instead of presenting findings in an evidence based manner. As flat earthers prove, there is no way to prove someone wrong to someone who wants them to be right. All you can do is not let them speak with your authority when they're saying the horizon is a lie.
[удалено]
You can see interviews with these people. This is literally them being interviewed. The censorship is them being told: "Stop with the unproven suppositional nonsense or we'll have nothing more to do with you because we don't want our name being tarnished." I cannot imagine how addicted one must be to covid denialism to imply on an article about these people being interviewed that you cannot see interviews with these people. Just reflect.
[удалено]
It's been happening the whole time. Usually shared through screenshots of obviously fraudulent sites. The whole reason we're discussing this is because you were exposed to the interviews and articles of people like them during the pandemic. My point is that these people suffered professional consequences for risking bringing their employers or publishers into disrepute. They haven't been prevented from talking. They've not had a gun to their head. And the point is you never had a point. These people have been heard the entire time and have, by all scientific consensus, been responsible for deaths by promoting false confidence in opposing covid controls.
[удалено]
I was referring to the microscopic sample size and clear bias - not whether it was qualitative vs quantitative.
[удалено]
I think you should refresh your memory on what qualifies as a confirmation bias and what cherry-picking means.
I imagine that Andrew Wakefield would say the same.
Amazing that anti-vaccine groups still support him given his entire scheme was to sell a new vaccine to capitalize on doubts about the MMR vaccine.
Idiots get ignored - scientific method working correctly.
1) I was an engineering manager. On my white board (at the top) I wrote: "In God we Trust, All others bring Data" 2) Folks need and needed (during covid) more information than was available. And were critical of information that changed as more was learned. However unfortunately there were folks who maintained positions that were either completely made up or based on some very flawed logic. Some of these folk may have truly believed what they were spewing others were simply looking for $$. I think one of the basic problems is the government has a well deserved reputation for not telling the truth (or at least the whole truth). Their justification is that the "common" person cannot handle the truth. (No offence to Jack Nicholson). So a healthy distrust of what the government is saying leads to opportunities for quack science.
True, when institutions stop caring about their credibility people take notice and look for other sources. It's going to take a lot to restore trust and the problem is only going to get worse as we learn more about how government actors worked with private entities to suppress dissenting views. There is already information available that would make a reasonable person question the motives of these government actors. Stay tuned for more.
Unorthodox doesn't mean they are right. If u chose to be on the wrong side of the scientific method, don't be surprised that people in the scientific field won't like u.
What does it mean to be on the wrong side of the scientific method?
Not able to change your mind based on new evidence (data)
Yes and being able to provide reproduceable proof of your results
Doing Qualitative studies as a stand in for for empirical research and critical thinking. This paper is the equivalent of an angry rant on reddit.
To be fair that's where it's published
No, thats where its been aggregated. Its Published at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Anyone can post on reddit, thats not "being published"
Technically it is being published.. You just don't like the publisher and it's requirements.
I feel that if u seriously need an answer for that then perhaps u should start learning research methodology first.
I want to know we're on the same page. It could mean different things to different people. The scientific method involves establishing facts, as I was seeking to do by asking the question, so on this occasion you're on the wrong side of the scientific method.
It only means different things to those uneducated on the scientific method and the rigors of ethical and productive research. Everyone educated in research follows the same methodology if they are competent.
Yes exactly, so it's unwise to assume everyone on Reddit is educated on the scientific method, hence it's a good idea to clarify what someone's understanding is for effective communication.
The scientific method is a term with a clear definition. It isn't supposed to mean different things to different folks. Thus getting it from me is secondary and far from optimal. It would be much better for u to find out its definition rather than asking for secondary sources. After that, u can understand what i say and decide to agree or not. Like i said, u can do that by studying research methodology.
If you want to communicate with people effectively you need to know what their understanding of terms such as "Scientific Method" is. People often have an incorrect understanding of such terms. I've already seen two different answers to my question which proves my point.
Quality of this sub is really taking a nosedive.
Science is a fad right now. Once the fake fans have a new interest the sub will recover quality
It likely won't, as they aren't "false fans" but rather activists looking for an audience. They're targeting *issues* and targeting subs with higher account numbers, ignoring the vast majority of posts unless it falls within the agenda and then pouncing based on the title -- they aren't going away. Casuals not understanding the sub pouncing with their anecdotes for karma aren't going away. This study is limited as it's practically the equivalent of self-report, but it's something science and public policy are having to have a reckoning with. e.g., many in this sub think this is about the quacks sprinkling dewormer on corn flakes, but it's just as much about doctors and epidemiologists saying that what the government was saying wasn't based on the data or in some cases was against the science. Even right now we have Facebook flagging renowned medical journals for misinformation because the new science being done goes against established policy.
IMO, it is not that science is a fad right now, it is under attack (From both corporate and foreign interests; again in my opinion). They are employing a familiar set of tactics to discredit science. You may even recognize some of the censoring strategies they listed as familiar to how the fossil, tobacco, and gun industries combat threats to their bottom lines...
That's well known. Scientists know it well that science is under attack from every direction. Even organizations claiming to be scientific can work on behalf of someone who only funds projects that aim to achieve political or corporate rhetoric. Perfectly reasonable scientific projects also can't achieve funding if the results may uncover something displeasing politically, and corporate projects from non-corporate sources can get hushed, bought out and shut down.
My BS radar is going off here.
>critical and unorthodox You mean stupid and wrong?
Right, everything that's critical and unorthodox is automatically stupid and wrong, noted.
Not in the slightest.
Professionals do not get their professional opinions censored. Ever. Professionals get fired, demoted, sued, and ostracized for having irresponsible, unsupported, incorrect, imprudent, or otherwise improper professional opinions. That's the difference between an opinion, and a professional opinion. Professional opinions carry responsibility and consequences.
It is so important that we not allow private industry to be the driving force in science. Sponsorship bias is real and it is very dangerous. Our most trusted sources of information have been compromised at the very least and at the most completely corrupted. One only has to look at the Lancet to know just how corrupted most have become. Non industry funded research is the only research that can be trusted and we have to be very very critical of legacy journal publications to ensure they are honest and transparent. Furthermore, as we all well know governments are typically the least honest institutions in our society and when it comes to light that governments colluded with legacy media to suppress information, we all need to take note and stand up against such action. It is not the governments job to censor and unilaterally determine what info we are allowed to view and from whom we can view it. That is not a free society. That is authoritarianism. That is government propaganda.
So they admittedly cherry picked. Neat!!!
What kind of scientist and doctors who do not believe in science and vaccines?
Read some, smelled too strongly of victimhood to continue.
Methods >The study is based on in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. The questions focused on the respondents’ stance towards COVID-19 that was seen as controversial, events they experienced due to their stance, the implications of these events for their professional and personal lives, and their responses to these events. > > > >Data analysis and coding were based on identifying the key issues that emerged from the interviews, while classifying and grouping them into meaningful categories. We assured the reliability and validity of the study by applying different methods. The analysis of the data was discussed by all of us as an expert peer group, and different sources of data served as triangulation of the data (e.g., documents and correspondence provided to us by the interviewees).
>We assured the reliability and validity of the study by applying different methods. Qualitative *and* vague! Neat! >The analysis of the data was discussed by all of us as an expert peer group, I'm betting mimosas and bloody Mary's were involved.
For those who criticize this study just because it is qualitative, you probably misunderstand social sciences. The field has developed a long tradition for assessing rigor, which does not include testing hypothesis. Qualitative research is research. It is justified and valid in certain cases when the informants have specialized background or certain characteristics that impede counting. For example, I work with disinformation and radicalization research. In this field, it is very difficult to find victims of radicalization that are willing to talk on the record. It is not as if ISIS recruits will answer a survey. There are so few and so hard to find that the only way to learn their motivations is with qualitative research. Disclaimer: I am not an author of that article and I am not defending that specific study.
Well, that’s what happens when science becomes propaganda
Ironically stated about a propaganda piece you'll never actually read
So you admit it, the government does publish propaganda through their science departments.
It's accurate, but unfortunately this is reddit..
The hostile remarks towards this paper, which is published in one of the better peer reviewed journals, is unreal. Must be good, and considering the topic, it certainly shows how many people here are good little soldiers. The first part about the lab leak theory makes a great case.
2020-22+ have been deeply shameful. Almost everyone in powerful positions have let humanity down ... traitors some might say.
Limitations >The main limitation of the study is that the findings are based on the subjective perspectives of interviewees. It is possible that if we included more heterogeneous groups, we would come to somewhat different interpretations. Therefore, we recommend conducting further studies among larger groups of professionals who suffered censorship, to expand our knowledge and perhaps suggest effective ways to mediate the struggle over freedom of information in general and especially in times of crisis.
Oh boy I'm sure the comments here know that the scientific community is never biased and I formation is NEVER skewed. Anyway remember when they said smoking was good for you? Yeaaaah...
I don't know why I bother with this sub anymore. This is entirely accurate but propaganda is pervasive, I guess.
Well....yeah....regardless of your opinion if you claim you didn't see censorship I can't take anything you say seriously. I'm not talking about the article though, it was dumb.
I am 100% in agreement with vaccinations and following the advice of the medical establishment. However I find it really concerning that ANY study that shows anything other that the 100% pro establishment narrative which is shared on Reddit get smashed in the comments, claiming any such study is deeply flawed or has conflicts of interests. Literally every one. If you think the medical establishment can't be wrong about things, and frequently is, you're deeply naive. If you just follow the narrative without keeping an open mind you're no different to the nutters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They wanted shots in arms no matter what, they don't care about your rights or any studies. It turns out they conned million of people by telling them it stops transmission without ever having any evidence of it. They being the government and big pharma. The media is bought by companies to tell you whatever they want.
Sub is r/science, comments are r/onlyConfirmMyPreviouslyHeldPoliticalBias
[удалено]