5 ms·

It's just a preprint and a literature review? Criticism: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-paper-really-establish-a-mechanistic-framewor

It's just a preprint and a literature review? Criticism: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-paper-really-establish-a-mechanistic-framework-for-mrna-vaccine-harm https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-pap...

mikeyouse 5y ago
Even if it's not a preprint, it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic (McCullough[1]) in a 2nd tier food journal and it's first author isn't a biologist but a computer scientist who's already published a bunch of antivax nonsense in "naturopathic" journals[2]... why are HNers so obsessed with being 'contrarian' to the point of promoting just pure scientific garbage? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 [2] - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vaccines_IJVTPR.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vac...
- loceng 5y ago
  > ... it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic )(McCullough[1] You mean one of the most highly credentialled and most demonized expert during the pandemic?
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Yes yes, repeatedly pushing for HCQ even in 2021, claiming there's no evidence of asymptomatic spread, claiming you can't be reinfected with Covid, and claiming there were "tens of thousands" of vaccination deaths -- all of which came after substantial evidence to the contrary is something an expert, and not a hack would do.
    - loceng 4y ago
      Didn't see your reply until now. Watch these, focus on refuting the content of their claims, not reacting to the names involved - as you've clearly bought into the smear campaign and other propaganda/misinformation: 5+ hour long discussion by highly credentialed domain experts not toeing the line: "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark) If that's too long for you to start, here's a 38 minute summary version for you to start with: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-highlight-video.html https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-... I'm guessing you're the type of person to not actually watch things like this "because they're all quacks!" anyway, am I right?
- j3th9n 5y ago
  You expected a science article like this coming from scientists paid by governments and the pharma industry?
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Yes, yes. The only truth seekers are computer scientists.
- zionic 5y ago
  >in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.
  - rzwitserloot 5y ago
    It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
  - loceng 5y ago
    Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
    - Izkata 5y ago
      Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...

mikeyouse 5y ago

Even if it's not a preprint, it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic (McCullough[1]) in a 2nd tier food journal and it's first author isn't a biologist but a computer scientist who's already published a bunch of antivax nonsense in "naturopathic" journals[2]... why are HNers so obsessed with being 'contrarian' to the point of promoting just pure scientific garbage? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 [2] - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vaccines_IJVTPR.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vac...

loceng 5y ago
> ... it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic )(McCullough[1] You mean one of the most highly credentialled and most demonized expert during the pandemic?
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Yes yes, repeatedly pushing for HCQ even in 2021, claiming there's no evidence of asymptomatic spread, claiming you can't be reinfected with Covid, and claiming there were "tens of thousands" of vaccination deaths -- all of which came after substantial evidence to the contrary is something an expert, and not a hack would do.
  - loceng 4y ago
    Didn't see your reply until now. Watch these, focus on refuting the content of their claims, not reacting to the names involved - as you've clearly bought into the smear campaign and other propaganda/misinformation: 5+ hour long discussion by highly credentialed domain experts not toeing the line: "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark) If that's too long for you to start, here's a 38 minute summary version for you to start with: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-highlight-video.html https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-... I'm guessing you're the type of person to not actually watch things like this "because they're all quacks!" anyway, am I right?
j3th9n 5y ago
You expected a science article like this coming from scientists paid by governments and the pharma industry?
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Yes, yes. The only truth seekers are computer scientists.
zionic 5y ago
>in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.
- rzwitserloot 5y ago
  It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
- loceng 5y ago
  Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
  - Izkata 5y ago
    Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...