Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

Lucas Buck

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
5,169
Thanks for posting what most of us have already read and know about how the site you referred to works.

It is not as if I or other's on this thread are new to the game of accessing and posting links to the site.
No problem glad that I could help as you seemed to have a memory lapse.
It is not as if I or other's on this thread are new to the game of accessing and posting links to the site.

and what a fun game it seems to be, one that everyone can play.
 

Lucas Buck

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
5,169
And here is the major misconception. People keep holding on to peer review as if it's this golden standard of correctness when passing or not passing peer review does not allude to that at all. Journals mostly use peer review to decide if something meets the standard for publication and not as a matter of correctness or trustworthiness.
You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than none at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that the goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).
 
Last edited:

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
37,124
giphy.gif
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,785
You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than non at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that there goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).
You make several assumptions that often don't pan out. People in a field can be so invested in a particular paradigm that they miss anything that contradicts that. But that is not the point. Articles get published based on whether or not they meet a set of criteria set out by the journal. That criteria does not say that something is correct or not. I'm not saying that it's about simple mistakes but it's also not that it's a testament to something's correctness.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,990
but it's also not that it's a testament to something's correctness.
Or, that what was valid yesterday is still valid/not valid today. New information and insights arise and are developed all the time.

The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and errors of logic on the part of researchers.

It is NOT about well the obvious stuff mentioned. That is the job of the proofreaders and editors, And based on the number of errors we see all the time on pre-print servers, it appears that no one is doing that anymore ---- I have the feeling that there is an assumption the peer-reviewers are supposed to do those tasks, while the peer-reviewers quite rightly are assuming proofreaders and editors are doing it. The glaring mistakes we see all the time are just too numerous in most articles posted on the pre-print servers.

Even the latest Pfizer vaccine document has some terrible examples.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
Or, that what was valid yesterday is still valid today. New information and insights arise and are developed all the time.

The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers.

It is NOT about well the obvious stuff mentioned. That is the job of the proofreaders and editors, And based on the number of errors we see all the time on pre-print servers, it appears that no one is doing that anymore ---- I have the feeling that there is an assumption the peer-reviewers are supposed to do those tasks, while the peer-reviewers quite rightly are assuming proofreaders and editors are doing it. The glaring mistakes we see all the time are just too numerous in most articles posted on the pre-print servers.

Even the latest Pfizer vaccine document has some terrible examples.
In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

People died of acute radiation sickness.

So is it still valid today?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,990
In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

People died of acute radiation sickness.

So is it still valid today?
What has that to with a debate on the peer-review process?

Or maybe you want to offer some of your insights into this seeing we are on a path to derail all discussions?

Syphilis emerged in Western Europe in 1494-1495. The origin of the disease is still debated, but the most prevalent theory suggests that it was brought from the Americas by the returning crew of Christopher Columbus. Early treatments included botanicals, particularly guaiacum, a tree discovered in the New World. Mercury was in use by the early 16th century, and remained the primary treatment for syphilis until the early 20th century. Syphilis led to stigmatizing disfigurations that were treated with surgery, including pioneering attempts in rhinoplasty.
 
Last edited:

Howdy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
1,101
You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than non at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that the goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).
Valid comments. I also highlight a certain portion.

Consider an environment where X amount is available for research. We have two competing groups. Obviously group A and B could compete honorably, or not. Let's take this a step further. What if group A has a "secret weapon", knows how to use/abuse other tools. Or that this knowledge was abused previously? Or the actual environment or tools are contaminated?

People like Katherine Stovel and others are doing some interesting work in this field.

Echo Chambers in Science? The Impact of Academic Recommender Systems on the Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge

The Influence of Changing Marginals on Measures of Inequality in Scholarly Citations: Evidence of Bias and a Resampling Correction

Something to chew on.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
Yes actually.
In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate logic? How does it eliminate logic?
 

Howdy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
1,101
In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate logic? How does it eliminate logic?
Error of logic. As per your post

You're welcome.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate errors of logic? How does it eliminate errors of logic?
FTFY, troll.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
You've been posting troll like remarks repeatedly. How does "Troll" advance the conversation?
Points out the disruptive posters so that others will know not to engage with them, duh.

Can you explain to me what it is you like about posts where posters intentionally misunderstand the posts they're responding to for the purposes of disrupting constructive conversations?
 
Top