6 ms·

If you look at the paper objectively even someone without the proper credentials should see red flags popping up left and right. He may have the credentials but

If you look at the paper objectively even someone without the proper credentials should see red flags popping up left and right. He may have the credentials but his social media activities and his blatant hate for the scientific community (as he repeated in the post) during the pandemic seems to be driven by anger and hate. If he despises the scientific community that much and sees his studies and pre doctorates as a waste of time but uses them to give himself credibility seems odd. The "we did what we could we did the data we have" is also strange even if 90% of scientists are in on the conspiracy you would find somene who could provide a proper dataset. He could have avoided all of this if he would have just waited for the peer reviews, but we mostly know how they will turn out if he is that angry now. There are certainly still "Heureka" moments out there in which a hobbyist can outshine the status quo of the scientific community but this is not it.

toomim 4y ago
> If you look at the paper objectively ... He may have the credentials but his social media activities So did you read the paper and come up with a substantive scientific critique, or did you judge him on his social media activities and social opinions?
- theCrowing 4y ago
  I read articles, got more intrested, read the paper, found some procedural mistakes that threw red flags, looked for scientists in the field to see what they think about it and after all that I looked at his social media and got annoyed real fast that it was just another nothing burger by an angry person.
  - ctoth 4y ago
    Curious, can you enumerate the red flags you saw?
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
      - postalrat 4y ago
        So you judged the science based on spelling in source code comments?
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could someone who knows nothing about the field be an expert in procedural techniques in this field? Something tells me you are part of a group who feels threatened by these findings.
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      The process of writing scientific papers is mostly the same no matter the subject. The biggest flag was probably that he stated that he is 99,9% sure in interviews but the number never shows in the paper and in the conclusion part he just states "more likely". You don't need a bioengineering degree that something like that throws a red flag.
      - reitanqild 4y ago
        So you didn't find a red flag in the scientific paper but in something that was said in one interview?
        theCrowing 4y ago
        He also stated it as fact in the shortform result (without the 99,9% number) contracdicting his own conclusion in the conclusion section. Sometimes providing information that has a clear correlation with the source material shows you that most people in this thread are trying to argue without reading the paper itself... helps sieving out if people are commenting in good faith or not.
amluto 4y ago
And those red flags are…? You seem to be criticizing the author of the paper instead of the paper itself, which, in my book, is itself a red flag.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
- dekhn 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/1583486403416969216 https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/15834864034169692... among other scientists has a long list of criticisms. I have not looked into any of this work and make no judgements about the relative believability, but many of the criticisms are entirely about the claims, not the pedigree of the scientist. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279281
rjmunro 4y ago
> his blatant hate for the scientific community Some areas of academia seem to do that to people. Nature even has a paper on it: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00663-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00663-2
logifail 4y ago
> He may have the credentials but his social media activities and his blatant hate for the scientific community (as he repeated in the post) during the pandemic seems to be driven by anger and hate. If he despises the scientific community that much and sees his studies and pre doctorates as a waste of time but uses them to give himself credibility seems odd. (Full disclosure: I have a science PhD) By the end of it, I hated my supervisor so much I could barely manage to speak to him and I went out of my way to avoid him. At the very end, after I'd done my viva and some minor corrections to my thesis I knew I've ticked all the boxes and the only thing left was to go in to clear out my lab space. At that point I simply didn't want to talk to anyone from the group so I went in very late one evening when I knew no-one would be around and packed up all my stuff and took it away. I didn't say goodbye and there was no leaving party. I was there for three-and-a-bit years, and then I wasn't. I have had no contact with the group, or my supervisor, since. I can easily imagine that someone with credentials / qualifications in a space might have issues with the system/community that appears to govern that space.

toomim 4y ago

> If you look at the paper objectively ... He may have the credentials but his social media activities So did you read the paper and come up with a substantive scientific critique, or did you judge him on his social media activities and social opinions?

theCrowing 4y ago
I read articles, got more intrested, read the paper, found some procedural mistakes that threw red flags, looked for scientists in the field to see what they think about it and after all that I looked at his social media and got annoyed real fast that it was just another nothing burger by an angry person.
- ctoth 4y ago
  Curious, can you enumerate the red flags you saw?
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
    - postalrat 4y ago
      So you judged the science based on spelling in source code comments?
- ipaddr 4y ago
  If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could someone who knows nothing about the field be an expert in procedural techniques in this field? Something tells me you are part of a group who feels threatened by these findings.
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    The process of writing scientific papers is mostly the same no matter the subject. The biggest flag was probably that he stated that he is 99,9% sure in interviews but the number never shows in the paper and in the conclusion part he just states "more likely". You don't need a bioengineering degree that something like that throws a red flag.
    - reitanqild 4y ago
      So you didn't find a red flag in the scientific paper but in something that was said in one interview?
      - theCrowing 4y ago
        He also stated it as fact in the shortform result (without the 99,9% number) contracdicting his own conclusion in the conclusion section. Sometimes providing information that has a clear correlation with the source material shows you that most people in this thread are trying to argue without reading the paper itself... helps sieving out if people are commenting in good faith or not.

amluto 4y ago

And those red flags are…? You seem to be criticizing the author of the paper instead of the paper itself, which, in my book, is itself a red flag.

theCrowing 4y ago
The biggest was probably stating the results as facts in the result section and only as "more likely" in the conclusion. Sample size, taking only part of the genomes. The code quality of their scripts on GitHub and especially the comments in them. Bad spelling and convulted sentences... there is a lot more have a look yourself.
dekhn 4y ago
https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/1583486403416969216 https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/15834864034169692... among other scientists has a long list of criticisms. I have not looked into any of this work and make no judgements about the relative believability, but many of the criticisms are entirely about the claims, not the pedigree of the scientist. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279281

rjmunro 4y ago

> his blatant hate for the scientific community Some areas of academia seem to do that to people. Nature even has a paper on it: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00663-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00663-2

logifail 4y ago

> He may have the credentials but his social media activities and his blatant hate for the scientific community (as he repeated in the post) during the pandemic seems to be driven by anger and hate. If he despises the scientific community that much and sees his studies and pre doctorates as a waste of time but uses them to give himself credibility seems odd. (Full disclosure: I have a science PhD) By the end of it, I hated my supervisor so much I could barely manage to speak to him and I went out of my way to avoid him. At the very end, after I'd done my viva and some minor corrections to my thesis I knew I've ticked all the boxes and the only thing left was to go in to clear out my lab space. At that point I simply didn't want to talk to anyone from the group so I went in very late one evening when I knew no-one would be around and packed up all my stuff and took it away. I didn't say goodbye and there was no leaving party. I was there for three-and-a-bit years, and then I wasn't. I have had no contact with the group, or my supervisor, since. I can easily imagine that someone with credentials / qualifications in a space might have issues with the system/community that appears to govern that space.