verdict：数据铁证HCQ被支持民主党的科学家做为target，政治化了科学研究。铁证出来了。

[贵圈]

 

[贵圈]

开眼界。shocking

 

[贵圈]

美国媒体和科学界，完全derail了。美国朝这个方向继续下去，没救，

 

[贵圈]

李查荷頓

柳叶刀头

自己承认

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

“反对科学的理由很简单：许多科学文献，也许一半，可能根本就不正确。 受样本量少，影响小，无效的探索性分析和明显的利益冲突的研究困扰，以及对追求可疑重要性的流行趋势的痴迷，科学已转向黑暗。"

很可惜，从地球变暖的小姑凉，到现代瘟疫时代老头子。科学确实已经转向黑暗。而普通百姓，根本没有基础知识，去识别所谓科学文献的真假。其中的问题可能门槛很高，也可能在玩微妙的逻辑游戏，巧妙地忽视数百个变量中的一个，就可以改变实验结果。

 

[贵圈]

刚刚出炉，锌在HCQ方案里的的作用终于被美国自己的学者证实（统计）

Zinc sulfate in combination with a zinc ionophore may improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Introduction. COVID-19 has rapidly emerged as a pandemic infection that has caused significant mortality and economic losses. Potential therapies and prophylaxis against COVID-19 are urgently needed to combat this novel infection. As a result of in vitro evidence suggesting zinc sulphate may be...

www.microbiologyresearch.org

 

[lindamy]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext

Copyright © 2015 Stuart Clarke/Rex Features
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don't add more layers of research red-tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

 

[ottawa_tj]

 

[贵圈]

正如一位与会者所说，“不良方法会取得成果”。医学科学院，医学研究委员会以及生物技术和生物科学研究委员会现在将其声誉重心放在了对这些可疑研究实践的调查之后。不良研究行为的表面流行性令人震惊。为了讲出一个引人入胜的故事，科学家经常雕刻数据以适应他们偏爱的世界理论。或者他们对假设进行改造以适应他们的数据。期刊编辑也应受到批评。我们帮助和教worst最恶劣的行为。我们对影响因子的默认设置加剧了一场不健康的竞争，从而在少数几本期刊中赢得一席之地。我们对“重要性”的热爱使许多统计童话都污染了文学。我们拒绝重要的确认。日记不是唯一的不道德行为。大学一直在为金钱和才能而奋斗，这是促进简化指标的终点，例如影响力大的出版物。国家评估程序（例如“卓越研究框架”）会激励不良做法。个别科学家，包括最资深的领导人在内，几乎无济于改变一种有时会变得不端行为的研究文化。

 

[贵圈]

可以纠正不良的科学做法吗？问题的一部分在于，没有人会激励人们去做对。取而代之的是，激励科学家进行生产和创新。希波克拉底誓言对科学有帮助吗？当然，不要增加更多的研究繁文layers节。除了改变激励措施，也许可以完全取消激励措施。或在拨款申请和研究论文中坚持复制性声明。或者强调协作，而不是竞争。或者坚持协议的预先注册。或奖励更好的出版前和出版后同行评审。或改善研究培训和指导。或执行去年发布的有关提高研究价值的系列建议。最有说服力的建议之一来自生物医学界之外。 Tony Weidberg是牛津大学的粒子物理学教授。在经历了几次引人注目的错误之后，粒子物理学界现在投入大量精力进行密集的检查和重新检查数据，然后再进行发布。通过独立工作组过滤结果，鼓励物理学家提出批评。好的批评是有奖的。该目标是可靠的结果，并且针对该目标的科学家激励措施也是一致的。魏德伯格担心我们为生物医学的结果设定的标准太低了。在粒子物理学中，显着性设置为5 sigma（ap值为3×10-7或3·500万中的1）（如果结果不正确，则这是数据可能达到极限的概率） 。研讨会的结论是必须做些事情。确实，所有人似乎都同意这样做是我们的能力。但是，对于确切地做什么或如何做，还没有确定的答案。那些有权采取行动的人似乎认为其他人应该首先采取行动。每个积极的行动（例如，资助功能强大的复制品）都存在反驳（科学将变得缺乏创造力）。好消息是，科学开始非常认真地对待一些最严重的失败。坏消息是没有人准备采取第一步清理系统。

 

[贵圈]

令人悲观的是，政治依然在影响着左派小白的脑子。即便他们中的大牛，霍顿承认了科学已经黑暗。这些小白红卫兵仍然不愿意睁开眼睛看看。

我个人感觉科学界，需要一个巨大的风暴，才能将重重的迷雾吹散。

 

[贵圈]

柳叶刀，都无法阻止，美国医学科学界明显的bias。柳叶刀自己都承认的黑暗，已经笼罩了柳叶刀自己，那片著名的伪作，刊登了，影响了世界，随后后来撤销了，但是伤害已经造成，病毒来袭，科学败退。虽然那一篇假数据文章撤下来了，但是已经杀人无数。

千千万万的新假数据依然可以服务于明显偏颇的左派的大脑。美国之所以凄惨，就在于此。政治已经将一批人的眼睛蒙住。科学蒙尘变成偏见。

 

[贵圈]

谢谢2015的霍顿。尚存一点良知。

 

[贵圈]

终于，左派著名科学家内部的顶尖人物，佐证了，圈儿哥近来不遗余力声嘶力竭地说的，科学已经蒙尘，美国之殇。学者的责任巨大！科学界的制度性腐烂，已经无法对付一次瘟疫。甚至无法做出最基本的判断（口罩，封边）。甚至，个见，这些人还在极力掩饰，他们与病毒起源的关系。悲哀。黑暗。很遗憾，这个领域被左派知识分子长期把持，真相已经无法呼吸。

 

[向问天]

中国成功控制了疫情，是靠科学还是靠政府？

 

[贵圈]

WHOKNOWS，我不谈中国。中国的事儿，看不透啊看不透。你们另外开楼说中国。