35 Burst results for "Peer Review"
UK asks regulator to assess AZ-Oxford vaccine amid questions
"Astrazeneca is adding an extra trial of its covid nineteen vaccine to clear up confusion and questions over. What dosage yields the best results. Meanwhile the uk's medical regulator is set to conduct its own assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. That brings its roll out one. Step closer the bbc's medical editor fergus. Walsh has more. The oxford astrazeneca vaccine has an overall efficacy of seventy percent. But this rose to ninety percent in a group who were mistakenly given an initial half dose of the job followed by a full one. There has been some concern. Expressed that this subgroup. Fewer than three thousand people was comparatively small and contain no one over the age of fifty five. The detailed results of the vaccine trump have been submitted for peer review in a medical journal and when published the team at oxford hopes. This will help answer. Many of the questions which have been raised astra zeneca says it already has all the data it needs to submit the vaccine for approval around the world and this should happen imminently however it is hoping to amend a separate manager trial of the vaccine in the us around a third of the thirty thousand. Volunteers have already been recruited. But among many of those remaining it wants to try the initial half does formulation as part of the study to further explore. Why giving a lower amount of vaccine could yield more protection.
AstraZeneca manufacturing error raises questions about vaccine study results
"Ago, AstraZeneca and Oxford University announced that they're Corona virus vaccine worked in the majority of people who received in in trials. But now the company's admitted an error, which is raising lots of questions about its data. Ali Velshi is MSNBC anchor and economics correspondent, Allie Happy Thanksgiving to you. And to you? Yeah, thanks for taking some time with us. So to give some context here, Madonna and Visor announced great results with their vaccine. They still seem on course, This is AstraZeneca, which acknowledged a mistake in the vaccine dosage received by some study participants explain, so there was one group of 2741 participants when we need a lot of participants to make this work. They received a lower dose of the vaccine. It was a half a dose and then a full dose a month later. Now, all of those subjects all of the 2700 subjects who got this were under the age of 55, so they were considered the lowest risk group in the trial. And the trial showed 90% efficacy for them, which was really good. The 8895 participants who received the full dose Showed 62% advocacy now all of its pretty good because the FDA standard is 50% efficacy, But we've since heard from Fizer on we've heard from Moderna about 90%. Plus efficacy s so we don't really know what the answer is. When you combine this mathematically you get an average of about 70% efficacy efficacy, But that may not actually be true because you actually just have to have a trial. It's done properly. But that's what the problem is that it does appear that in the general population, the efficacy is substantially lower than what we originally thought. It would be. Well, there's that and you know, half a dose. Do they have any idea why that's working? Well, you know, this is the problem with vaccines. You've got to cover a lot of things. You got to figure out who your sample group is what they're under what the risk otherwise would have been and how much doses you want to give, because while they have most of these are reported to have very few side effects, they always have some side effects, and we don't have long term studies where we can say What happens a year down the road five years down the road, So companies generally want to give you the lowest dose possible initially for a vaccine, the lowest dose that's effective. So that's the problem that if you have the vaccine now with AstraZeneca That's about 75%. And then you got to other vaccines. There. 95% creates all sorts of logistical problems. Which one you're going to take. Which one can you get? Why would you take this one? If you could get the other ones, and part of the problem is you can't get the other ones is easily this one was going to be the easiest to be able to distribute. Well, we only have a minute here, but you're the business guy and, you know mark the markets are watching this in the American healthcare and biotech investment firm. Spb leering, said the Astra Zeneca trial didn't follow some FDA rules because of that it would never be licensed in the US putting that aside because, you know, we just don't know really. This is something we haven't really figured out what it is yet. It is this one of the problems of you know, we're doing this all by press release and not regulatory. Yes, it's a huge problem, and we will deal with this. I think after this, this Corona virus is over. But fundamentally, you're supposed to get your drug information from peer reviewed journals and from regulatory bodies, and we're getting these from press releases and the other thing that's happening. Robin is after all, of these things, the stocks go up. And some lot of insiders sell the stock on that thing, So there's you know, there's nothing illegal about it, but it does seem a little unseemly. We need to get back to the normal way of doing things because of the rush to get these vaccines were listening to what the company's air saying doesn't mean the vaccines are bad, but it's not the traditional way we go about learning about the efficacy of vaccines. MSNBC's Ali Velshi. Thank you.
What the immune response to the coronavirus says about the prospects for a vaccine
"With a number vaccine candidates against the corona virus sharing promising results in clinical trials and a growing number of studies elving into our mean response to infection. The spotlight has turned once again. On the body's defense mechanisms. I think two questions that really relate to the ability of the vaccine to protect us and our ability to fight off a second infection and so that is the quality of the immune response and the duration of the immune response this week. I'm joined by professor. Eleanor riley from the university of edinburgh to dove into these questions and more. I'm nichole davis. Welcome to science. Weekly ellena you came onto the podcast in july and talk to us about immunity and covid nineteen specifically the relationship between antibodies and immunity. So let's start with a recap on the major players in the immune system that are of interest when it comes to an immune response and potentially immunity so antibodies are protein molecules that are produced by immune cells kobe cells and these cells live in our spleen and narrow and they secrete antibodies off. They've been exposed to a foreign organism such as virus. There are two types of cells that produce. Antibodies on short-lived cells that produce. Antibodies for a few weeks national to the first line response and then some of those cells transition into lonely cells that goto a bone marrow and can produce antibodies for months years. Possibly even to case and then on top of antibodies. have that can kill virus. Infected host cells t cells the two types of t cells one of which we think of such of the conductor of the orchestra of the immune system and these kotei health cells and they very much help the b. cells to make antibodies produce. Growth factors may direct the direction in which the be cells developed and they will still give them signals to turn into cells and then there are the cdte cells and they actively kill virus infected cells and then Antibodies can also bind to these specific cells and help them to kill cells so they recognize little bits of virus on the infected cell bind to the infected so and kill it and then there are cells which are less specific cells that we call macrophages are neutral fills and they just recognized that. Something's not quite right with the cell. They don't necessarily recognize the infected with the virus and they kill it actually or bits of the immune system work together a little bit like you need a whole orchestra to make a good tune when you need all of these cells working together to make a good news arms. And i know you said in july that at that point it was too early to tell how quickly people were losing their antibodies. And we've got to remember here that it's a relatively new virus. What's the latest research saying that seems to have been some movement on that now. What we're seeing is if you all the data together. There's an early peek in the antibodies wants. Lots and lots of antibodies are produced to mop up all virus. That's in your body and then as that virus goes away the antibodies start to decline a little bit. Because you don't need them any antibodies anymore and they settle into a of steady class. O of antibody production. And that's very typical. This kind of two phase response the only peak lots of antibodies followed by sort of standing level of antibodies. That nick for a long time. That's very typical of an antibody response and it sort of relates to the short lived long lived cells. You have lots of short-lived cells making lots of antibody that off and then the long lived cells who that fewer in numba keep on producing. Antibodies for much longer so yes. Let's talk about these long-lived b. cells in the no said the t. cells. What is research telling us about what happens to them and how. How long do they hang around for. So we don't have much data on those are actually quite difficult to look at in humans. They tend to live in the bone marrow for example not very accessible and so we tend to rely on mathematical modeling of the change in the dynamics of the antibody concentration to predict what's going to happen even though we haven't actually been able to see it because it hasn't gone on long enough so the moment the infants is that we have suggests that things are probably okay these cells behaving as we expect them to the was one pay published early on suggesting may be a little bit of a fault with the production of these long midsouth. But i'm not sure that that's been replicated in other studies. I think i saw a preprinted study. That hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Which jested that these visas and t so's lost for at least six months is that. What are the problems here in terms of measuring this so we only have six months data at the moment and the virus really hasn't been around that long so what we can say the moment. Is that the cells assisting for as long as we are able to measure them at the moment obviously in six months or another twelve months time. We'll be able to go back to those people and say have they still got those cells. Yes or no. But in the meantime just looking at the change in the dynamics of the response and mapping it onto what we know the other viruses. My prediction is that these that there will be some long lift immunity to this virus. He said there might be some long term protection. How long term are we talking here. I mean i've seen a lot of people saying well current viruses such as that of course common code some codes of course by coronavirus is of course the protection only lasts for say a year or so. Do we think that our protection against the corona virus that causes covid nineteen mike baxter timeframe or or could it be longer. I think it's very difficult to say at the moment. Say all of the data. We have suggests that these antibody responses are going to be at least as long lived as response of corona viruses. And possibly i might think even probably going to last longer your immune response tends to be proportional to the level of threat that you face so the common cold corona viruses really only colonize our upper respiratory tract so on nose throat and so the virus doesn't go very deep into apology and we make rather grief that effective noon response nose and throat that controls it this coq nineteen causing virus goes much deeper into our bodies it goes down into our lungs into bronchial and therefore the immune response tends to be stronger and they struggle we call systemic immune responses do tend to last longer because they are recognizing that there is a more serious threat that has to be dealt with. Do we know if factors like ethnicity gender age factor in the scale of the immune response. She said stronger. Immune response to your first. Infection is is more likely to me. You have great protection against the second infection. Those factors correlated at all. There's very little day to so far on ethnic differences in the immune response the data. That's coming after the vaccine trials suggests that there aren't any major differences in at between ethnic groups in terms of whether the vaccine protects them will not but we haven't yet seen lab data on their antibody responses with at t cell responses. There is a lot of genetic variation in the immune response. People be aware that some people unfortunately have very severe genetically determined immunodeficiencies. That's just the tip of the iceberg of genetic variation in the immune response and some of those differences do have geographical and ethnic components to that certain genes that either make good or bad immune response on more common or less common in groups countries. But we don't yet know if any of that is going to influence really the totality of their immune responses. We just don't have any evidence much by age. It feels like ages is. It's very important given that the older you are the more risque from caveat nineteen so there are two components to that one is whether you are able to make an immune response again's a virus. You've never seen before and there is. I think really quite good evidence that you ability to make a completely new immune response does decline as you get older. The other component is that a lot of the disease we say in coke nineteen excessive inflammation. And there's also evidence that we get older with less good controlling inflammation so it's a little bit of a double whammy as we get older way are less able to make an immune response to a new virus such as the covid nineteen virus and if we then get the viral infection where less good at controlling the inflammation that it causes a so we know there are several different vaccines. Which looking very promising. You have the rene vaccines at you have vaccines which used a chimp. Virus to bring genetic material from the corona virus into cells. The question is is the immune response that generated the same as it would have been to a natural infection and do the t. cells and so on hang around in the same way. The vaccine is just a tiny component of viruses this spike protein which is on the surface of the virus and so if you vaccinated with spike protein. You make antibodies in tesol responses just to that protein. If you get the virus itself then you get many many more pro teams that you're exposed to a new may make antibodies to some of those. So you responded more limited but you might also say that your response is more focused because it's actually antibodies to spike coaching a really important for neutralizing the virus so the vaccine in juices a narrow immune response but one would hope it would also be focused on therefore stronger on the base the matter and would it be expected that this will provoke a stronger. Immune response natural infection. I've heard some people say that actually vaccine can producer a strong response it coun- if they initial infection is quite mild say with virus like sauce covy to which induces very mild infections in some people i would expect the vaccine to tobacco to jason mewes which is much stronger than you would get after nascent dramatic or mild infection. People get serious dose of coca to make a very strong immune response. And i doubt if the vaccine it doesn't need to be any strong national adopt if it is when it comes to and viruses the coups common code. It's been some concern that these viruses somehow elude the memory b cells. and so. that's why even though we have thousand cells to to the common cold viruses. We will often get reinfected with them. I wonder if they're those same concerns about the coronavirus behind covid nineteen so there is a little basic data. There's one paper that suggests that the sauce kofi to virus that causes covid nineteen disables particular pathway in the b. cell response leading to a poor long term memory response but these experiments done in the lab in a in a in a petrie dish. And i think it's too early to know if that's really what happens in humans so i think we do need to be a little bit cautious and we need to be aware that it might happen. Good news is that the proteins that are believed to cause that problem are not present in the vaccine so even if it's a problem in natural infection it shouldn't be a problem with a vaccine
Is COVID-19 seasonal after all?
"Hello this is corona cost a daily podcast all about the corona virus. I'm health reported teigen tyler. I'm physician and journalist alter norman swan. It's tuesday the twenty four. Th of november cinnamon one of the questions that we've gotten a lot from people about over the course of this pandemic so far is whether it's seasonal and on one hand yes. The melbourne second wave happened in winter. But it's hard to really taes out. What's the difference between seasonality and a new virus in globe of susceptible people but in the states which is going into its wind up and also in in other parts of the northern hemisphere was seeing a really straight upwards curve a really scary looking curve. so what do we know about the season -ality or otherwise of coronavirus were joining the first wave. It was said that there was so much corona virus around swamped the effects of seasonality. Although most people expected this to be a winter virus a seasonal virus but they couldn't guarantee it and you just weren't necessarily seeing the effects of it on this week's health report podcast. I've been talking to chris maureen maher. Who's these of health metrics and evaluation in seattle and they've been doing global modeling now on the covid nineteen pandemic which has turned out to be pretty accurate so for the world for different countries and for the united states and they say that when they look at the big data they do find a seasonal effect and they. It's actually quite strong and the fascinating thing is that they predict that the virus in the united states will start to peak deaths from the coronavirus will peak roundabout inauguration day and tail off towards the end of january into february without any vaccine. You'll see a natural peaking and tailing off. We won't go down to zero but it will start to ebb away so in the joe biden was like trump. he would take four credits on day. Two of his presidency for turning around the pandemic. but it'll be natural. What's the driver for it to pay them. Is it that people interacting with a set number of people and you just kind of run out of context. How does how does that pay. Start to come down again. No it's obviously a little bit of an effect of natural museum that but even by january you still not going to see the majority of americans infected with the covid nineteen virus so a little bit of an effect because what they say. Is that even twenty percent coverage of immunity associated with some social distancing cooed tailing off. Now i think they it's simply how their virus response to temperature and although it's still in the middle of winter and pretty cold there are plenty of viruses that have most of their fates in autumn early winter and seem to die way in midwinter and influences a bit like that where influenza unistrokes tends to hit more in autumn than winter depths of winter. Not that we have much of winter. So yep they think it's seasonal tending often and if you are lucky with the vaccine the vaccine does prevent transmission then have an even more dramatic faked as the year goes through. Yeah i suppose they were some early nickname mention. It starts came out earlier in the saying that the virus survived longer at lower temperatures and in low humidity are. Maybe that's the season thing. But what does it mean for us australia. Coming into next year's winter if a vaccine isn't widely available by that time well if we've kept our international borders secure and we haven't had too many outbreaks and we're still social distancing to some extent when we need to enroll able to control then maybe not very much because the won't very much virus around but if there is a significant say outbreak from hotel quarantine for still doing it at that point. Then you could see a major takeoff and victoria. Tasmania parts of south. Australia would be vulnerable to that. So i'm trying to cross my mind that because we have talked about season on corona's before and i feel like we said that it wasn't safe no so will be wrong or is this just more information. I think you feel the wrong thing. T very different. I remember that people saying that probably was a season paper. You couldn't see it. In all the noise of an strength of the pandemic the pandemic was so strong it was masking a seasonal fake underneath the name what they thought was as the pandemic turned into an epidemic and the virus became endemic in other words. Steady in the community and keeping on recurring. Then you would see the effect of seasonality which might mean then you'd see a surge as the goats colder. I like that vision of memory. Yes yeah but no doubts kirk listeners. Who got a much better than either you. Army will fix us up. That's the lately and speaking of other research related things that we've talked about before and we now have more information about Antibodies on the only thing in our immune system and this nearly such out of monash university that shows that perhaps immunity to the coronavirus is long lasting than we feed. Yes so little bit of physiology. Here there are two elements to attack or threaten sweep elements to attacking a virus delicious. Talk of two of them for the moment. The first wave is really the antibody those chemicals in the bloodstream that attach to the spikes of the corona virus and stop it docking with tissues in our body and hopefully kill the virus as well and they're called neutralizing antibodies. now they'll come out of nowhere. They're produced by white blood cells white blood cells that produce antibodies b cells and some b cells have memory for the antibodies. They need to produce. It was a waste of energy then producing antibodies. All the time to a virus that they're not seeing but if avars enters the body they wake up and they say oh hello. I've seen this one before and they start manufacturing. Antibodies and this study identify found a way through using monoclonal. Antibodies to actually attach themselves to these b cells. Identify them they to twenty five people in march who had corona virus and follow them through to september looking at these b. memory cells and what they showed was that they maintain themselves in other words. You can still find b. Memory cells at the end of eight months so that suggests that the body retain the memory and the ability to produce antibodies to the coronavirus sars cov e to. This is not a peer reviewed study hasn't been published in a major journal yet but it is an interesting finding very sophisticated study and great needs to people who've had coronavirus but also for the quest for vaccine. That's absolutely right
COVID-19 reinfection 'highly unlikely' for at least six months, Oxford study says
"New study finds that people may be protected against the virus for months even years but a warning. The study that i'm referencing here hasn't been peer reviewed just yet but it is the longest and most comprehensive done to date. It looks fairly solid to me. But you know i'm not really scientists. The study comes from the la hoya institute of immunology and took place over several months. It recruited one hundred and eighty five people ranging in age from nineteen to eighty one. These people have recovered from covid and most had mild symptoms not requiring hospitalization. Thirty eight of them donated blood samples over the time span of several months. Now before i go forward. Let's remind ourselves how our bodies fight infections. They have some immune cells. The first is a t. cell which kills other infected cells and be sounds that make more antibodies as needed. And of course the antibodies themselves. This study found that. Antibodies were fairly durable. They showed modest declines six to eight months after infection but the amount that was found in each of the volunteers was dramatically different. So it's hard to say about that. The t. cells on the other hand only showed slight decay in the be cells actually increased which researchers can't explain. And that might be if you're looking at this unbiased. Might be a reason for concern so as to keep an eye on that so big picture when people are infected again with the virus your immune system recognizes it and kills it. The good thing about covid is that it's very slow to start doing real damage so your immune system has plenty of time to catch up and produce these cells and antibodies which helps in providing long-term immunity. This potentially means that we will not have to vaccinate against this every single year. Like a flu shot. This could be a one and done scenario. Which would be amazing. Like i mentioned in another story cova dues mutating very slowly compared to the common cold which is actually another corona virus. This low mutation could be helping this theory and it could make vaccines much more. Effective story also brings up. Who had sars are still carrying immune cells and then outbreak was seventeen years ago. Sars had a death rate of ten percent pretty much across the board across all ages. Covert is still under about one percent overall depending on the country of course in the quality of medical care. Another thing from a previous show. If you'll remember a while ago. I mentioned that some south korean guy was the first confirmed reinfection of covid. Which seems like it might go against this story. Well maybe his immune system was just getting ready to kill it again when he tested positive but these researchers say that the amount of virus that people are exposed to also matters so if they didn't get a huge viral load they may not be able to produce the same amount of antibodies and immune cells however with vaccine that variables taken out. Everyone gets enough to produce the antibodies and immune cells that are required so again. This could be a game changer. And really good news especially for a
Trials show Oxford's COVID vaccine works well in older adults
"The coronavirus vaccine that's being developed by the university of oxford and astra zeneca was found to be safe and that triggers an immune response among all adults that's according to preliminary findings of peer reviewed phase two trial phase. Three trials are already underway. Matt news comes just a day. After the united states reached a total of two hundred and fifty thousand covid. Nineteen deaths joining us right now. Is marta leany. He's former aetna chairman and ceo an markets. Great to see you. It's been a while since we've talked to you but obviously the events that we've seen now you have an understanding of how things play out of developing those vaccines has been the really hard work but the next step isn't going to be all that easy either. We need to figure out how to safely. And effectively distribute the vaccine to millions of americans. And i know. Cvs is going to be playing a role with that. Aetna is going to play a role with that. Where where do you think we stand. What are the challenges that we face. And how do you think this will play out to see becky. Joe raw andrew. I think the real issue here is vaccines great. More the more than area. I think we need more innovation And it's been amazing but the pharmaceutical companies able to do but it's one part of an arsenal they're really goes back to a broader and democ mc framework. Where we i have to. I'd early identifies so get back into the wall. World health organization get get active there again. Secondly have the diagnostic antibody testing strategy the population. So whose immune we also know who we need to protect so that we can keep working while we protect americans that are at risk and then is the vaccines come along. You need to have the ability to track and trace diagnostics. Antibodies and the vaccine is because we don't know yet in any of these vaccines along the media's and when that immunity wears off you need to understand when it happens. What kind of booster shot. The people need a man. How do we keep that going over arm. So the amount the enormity of the data and the framework around doing that is going to be really important to build. We don't have that yet in large part because we don't have a national plan. There's a lot of things that we can kind of jump into their. I want to start with one thing. You said that we need to figure out who is going to be most affected by this. I mean i think that's part of the question. We know the demographic split that older people happen to be in worse shape with this that people with co morbidity have a worse time with this but are we any closer to being able to figure out why some people are so greatly impacted even if they don't have co morbidity even if they're younger while others seem to do just fine with it. I think we're learning more everyday day. Becky i'm i we'll continue to learn. It's gonna take a while you get a real deep understanding of this disease and of the vaccine impact. But i think it's important that is as long as we have a national framework around this. You begin to approach all the public health issues but even more importantly the capacity models we need to understand. Mpp e hospital beds skill sets and in ventilators and other things that along have a buffer economy. So we're not doing just in time. Responses depend as emerged. This is not spend Will have more mark. Were pretty long in the tooth in this pandemic at least feels like if you're sitting at home. Why do you think we don't have a better plan at this point at least for the testing and at least for contact tracing. We don't have a framework to do nationally across the board. We could be learning so much every part of the country if we had a way of aggregating the information or understanding. And who's sick why they're sick. What kind of. Antibodies are we seeing out there can be used for their units and as the vaccines developed our these vaccines working which ones are best for which population that requires a national database. A national way of looking at this information and we've decided to allocate up to the states. I think that's wrong headed.
New study suggests mouthwash may quickly kill the coronavirus in human saliva
"In a lab within 30 seconds. That's according to a new study at Cardiff University. Findings have yet to be peer reviewed, and they come ahead of a 12 week clinical trial to see if over the counter mouthwash can reduce covert 19 in saliva. Amazon is launching its online
"peer review" Discussed on WGN Radio
"The V, a website, they say at this time research does not show evidence of long term health problems. From exposure to burn pits via continues to study the health of deployed veterans. Do you agree with that? I did not agree with that. And I've called for the Via to remove that from the website. It is not only inaccurate, but frankly, it's insensitive to those who have served to go when they seek help, and they read the statement like that. There is clear data and published Peer review studies that show that there are adverse health consequences, most of them respiratory, but that have demonstrated the relationship between burn pit exposure and poor health. And what's worse than not helping somebody and telling them that you're not gonna help them is holding out false hope many of the veterans who served in these post 9 11 wars With prolonged exposure to burn pits. Say this is their generations. Agent orange. Do you agree with that? I do. I think that that is the case. For 3.5 million of our veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been documented burn pit exposure now not all of them, fortunately or service are suffering from adverse health consequences. But many of them are and that's very similar to what we saw in Vietnam, where it was not intentional, but it was clearly a situation that we exposed our military to, and we as a country have a responsibility to deal with that the Commonality between this generation's Would we called this generation's Agent Orange compared to the Vietnam era? It's like history repeats repeats itself. What is there an easy fix of us? Yeah, I do think there. I do think there is a big story. First of all, I think we have to be much more aware. Of the adverse health consequences both physical and mental via needs to treat our returning service members better. By taking care of them by doing early screenings. The answer is you give the veteran the benefit of the doubt rather than make them suffer or worse, never get the help that they deserve. And I really want people to know about this. The injustice of it all, because my family my four year old son has to grow up without his dad. Stop with the price of war. Huge, huge. LeRoi tourists in west Black are just.
Divide and Conquer Could Be Good COVID-19 Strategy
"Health experts shake their heads at the chaotic political divisions and inconsistent policies that have undermined attempts to control the spread of covid. Nineteen through much of the world but a new study by mathematicians in germany and the uk has applied the tools of chaos theory to show that divisions of a constructive kind could actually bring the pandemic under control much more effectively. The research was done at the university of oxford girding in university. And the max planck institute for dynamics and self organization. The group built a mathematical model of corona virus transmission that accounts for the inherently random ways that the number of infections fluctuates over time they noticed the case counts within small populations. Sometimes drop all the way to zero. As long as people are wearing masks social distancing and taking the other standard precautions though spontaneous extinctions of the disease made them wonder if the small towns or counties did more to isolate themselves from neighboring communities would that sometimes extinguished covid nineteen enough that they could lift restrictions and resume more of normal life for longer periods until the disease popped up again a rigorous mathematical analysis showed that indeed. This kind of divide and conquer strategy can work at least in theory. They published that result in the journal. Chaos then in a follow on study published in a reprint which has yet to be peer reviewed. The group ran simulations using county level data from germany england. Italy new york state and florida for each place. They compared to scenarios in the first leaders impose statewide or nationwide restrictions like those that western european countries have just put back into effect in the second scenario restrictions on movement kick in whenever infection rates rise above a threshold but the restrictions are applied county by county or even neighborhood by neighborhood within large cities. So that the population is effectively. Subdivided into groups no bigger than two hundred thousand people for example under this alternative strategy a big outbreak could force the upper west side of manhattan to restrict non essential movements for several weeks but in other neighborhoods on the island. Schools offices and restaurants could remain open so long as case count stayed low the researchers found that even when they allowed for modest intermingling among communities this approach of local control could cut by about eight percent the number of days that most people would have to spend living under tough restrictions. Their models predict that these benefits of local control might take a few months to become obvious but they also suggest that a subdivision strategy could save many many lives over the long
What we still don't know about the vaccine announcement (but it's ok to be excited!)
"Hello this is corona cost a daily podcast all about the coronavirus. I'm health reported. Teigen tyler an emphasis journalists dr norman swan. It's wednesday the eleventh of november. And we've had some really exciting coronavirus news in the last couple of days. Norman fiso the drug company has announced that their vaccine that producing maybe ninety percent effective in stopping the virus. Do we all just pack up corona costing go home now to. We don't need it anymore. No because has doesn't operate on press releases scientific papers that have been pure reviewed where we know what's going on you'd have to say pfizer's a bit out on. Its own here at least so far. Anyway they've announced this Interim analysis but it's not been peer reviewed and it's quite hard to work are exactly what's going on both fighters the one who hasn't actually joined the same platform of some of the other vaccine manufacturers. Who are out in trial. And they've got their data safety monitoring board which looked the analysis of this raw. The common one is what the monitoring board is being shared by. Some of the vaccine manufacturers. So it's not entirely transparent. There's also see you have to say also commercial element in this that they want to get a jump on it and the water here is that they're going to push for emergency use authorization before their presumably earlier than the other vaccines but the question is. Is it too early to know absolutely for sure that they're safe so they sort of questions to ask here are well. What does it mean. They've said nine more than ninety percent. Effective well you gotta read between the lines. Because it's not entirely clear from their release but it's been something like ninety four covid nineteen disease cases so this is not infections. Forty thousand people yep in the boats so this is these vaccines are not designed to pretend to fiction as we said many many times on corner cast they're designed to prevent covid nineteen disease which is fair enough because if you've protect against nineteen disease then all the sars cov to becomes is a bad cold. Let's assume that we talking about which is that has been ninety four cases thereabouts. I think that's what the announced and that they're more than ninety percent effective. It's should probably mean that something like eight or so of the cases of covid nineteen occurred in the placebo group and the remainder are six or seven or whatever it is six occurred in the vaccine group. But we didn't have those numbers. Stay away from visa. We don't have those numbers but you can assume then that from from that crudely of that ninety four percent ninety percent or more occurred in the placebo group and ten percent or fewer occurred in the vaccine group. That's what that means. And therefore is a significant gap between the two groups which is protection against covid nineteen disease. That's what i assume an endless things. No major safety issues. The ninety percent number A lot higher than what we've been talking about on corona causton in all of the full out around this announcement. I heard a lot of experts. Say that's amazing. That's a really big number much higher than we expected. So that's good news right. What's what's much higher than the regulators were willing to approve. Everybody was hoping it'd be much higher than fifty percent because fifty percents pretty disappointing and so this is really great news. If it's all right and you get superior review study of the data and goes on long enough to have a proper analysis and it's really good news for the other mini. Vaccines are just just to be clear. What this vaccine is and just a little bit of a revision on the vaccines the so the oxford vaccine and this vaccine and the moderna vaccine three scenes around the are the lead. They do the same thing in the end. Which is they put a genetic message into the cell to tell the cell to produce part of the spike protein of the corona virus and that goes into the bloodstream and the immune response the immune system reacts to that creating immunity. How the vaccine does it is uses a chimpanzee virus to take the genetic message into the sale and what bio and take the pfizer vaccine does and the moderna vaccine is. Is that parcells up amorini. Which is a parcel of genetic messaging and it goes straight into the salad self and tells the cell to produce the part of the spike protein. So this is a name are a vaccine and it's really good news because there's another mirani vaccine on the blocks which is the moderna vaccine which isn't too far behind the problem with these vaccines is that there are very low. Temperatures to transport around minus eighty of madeira. People say there's may not require that depth of temperature this makes it a very impractical vaccine for poor and middle income countries and also does make it a bit impractical even for countries like australia. Where you're going to have to coaching at minus eighty on the coaching standard frigid temperatures and the university of queensland vaccine for example will only require an a standard vaccine fridge province minus eighty. So they are vulnerable it. They do first mover advantage so that they can get out there because they know they're vulnerable to other vaccines. That might come along. Which don't require that cold chain infrastructure.
"peer review" Discussed on Pro Rata
"I have to admit that. I ain't never hope that it will be because there's not ninety. I said this more than nyunt. So i never hold that. We'd be more of a nine percent And that's a very very strong overwhelming an indication of africa. Not you guys keep saying over ninety percent we take that to mean like ninety point zero two percent or able to give us a more specific number be region wire giving a specific number of all we are not even telling our teams what specific memories and also the number would sane so example if it is ninety one could become mandatory because nine deflore could become anti five or vice by one point. So we don't want to confuse people with different numbers it is more than ninety and I believe will remain more than nine. This all just have to say what will be the final number when bill jobs over the past several months when when you talk to folks in the field particularly the politicisation of this they all say the same thing which is so long as a company comes out and there is a vaccine and the data becomes publicly available and people outside the company and outside of even the independent review boards at the company can review it. at what point should outside physicians outside virologist etcetera. Feel that they are going to be able to see your data. I think there are two bunch of data's here the wanted these submit to fda. And there's a question mark. The study will be completed by the time because social responsibility exists those day thought. Whatever honored the dime will be given to if the fda based on what they have said they will analyze them and they will give them to an external group advisors. They are meeting publicly so those days that would become public. Notice the second one once we Ourselves complete one hundred sixty four quits. The end of the study as the pro vow those days that we will bob bobelis in a peer review magazine as we do always which is a magazine scientific magazines up the high caliber scientists out of you and the day before accept them for publication and then the entire world will have is built on their snaith. Pfizer didn't take operation warp speed money for the development of this vaccine just from a fiduciary standpoint. Why not it was kind of free money or were there major strings attached from your perspective. There were money and the but always I think that there's never freelance. When you take money from someone they are always still got thoughts but the it was needed this season from a fiduciary point of view because the level of investment events early is approaching the two billion dollars event but the The reason why did dot was go. I wanted to liberate our scientists for any bureaucracy that comes with having to give reports agree however gun the money. Spend the money in bottelier altogether and without i l. List the power of science. And the in retrospect looking back i. I'm very happy that i did this. Decision because resolves i think much faster than otherwise a we were not unencumbered and everyday costs while thousand lives in the us right now..
Magic mushrooms could help treat depression, study finds
"Trials focusing on depression concentrated specifically on treatment resistant depression a clinical classification that categorizes patients suffering from md who have not responded effectively to at least two different pharmacological antidepressant treatments during a current depressive episode so to translate that that means that that standard allopathic medicine methods of treating depression are not working for these people. I'm really curious as to what kind of therapy. They're doing cognitive behavioral. Good question that they were doing with addicts that had would. That was having great response with both silla. Simon and lsd in this case they say this mdd which is again major depressive disorder Is much more common with some estimates suggesting over three hundred million people worldwide suffering from this debilitating condition while a larger face trial before or after the planned. Amick to good question while a larger phase two trial testing silla cyber dd is currently underway. This new study in the journal of jama atri and i think that's journal of american medicine. Association offers the first peer reviewed published data showing efficacy for this particular mental health condition. This small preliminary trial recruited twenty four subjects with at least two years of documented history of depression. All of the subjects were required to wean off of any antidepressant treatment before the trial commenced so they were clean from the medications they've been on and the story here says depression was assessed using the standard grid. Hamilton depression scale rating the severe depression scores of twenty four or higher on the scale while seven or less is classified as no depression. At the beginning of the study. The average score for the cohort was twenty three. So these were severely depressed people. The treatment process resembled the general protocol used in most suicide. Simon studies two doses of silla. Simon were administered to each subject spaced two weeks. Apart a number of psychotherapy sessions both preceded and followed the active solicitation sessions. The results were undoubtedly impressive with seventy one percent of the cohort displaying more than a fifty percent reduction in depressive symptoms at the four week. Follow up so wow four weeks. After the treatment seventy one percent of these people had a more than fifty percent reduction in symptoms. That's pretty significant. Ya and it's not and the reason big pharma hates it. is it actually cures. that's right. it's not something that you have to keep growing and taking every single day for the rest of your life. I mean you could. But i mean you you couldn't. You'd probably have good old time. You'd also micro dose on sivan fairly effectively and not even
AstraZeneca to deliver vaccine trial data by year's end
"AstraZeneca expects to release data on the Corona virus vaccine it's developing by the end of this year. A British pharmaceutical giant, saying it anticipates having results from late stage trials by the end of December. AstraZeneca's says it will submit data readouts to regulators and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. AstraZeneca is working with the University of Oxford to develop a
AstraZeneca to deliver vaccine trial data by year's end
"AstraZeneca expects to release data on the Corona virus vaccine It's developing by the end of this year. The British pharmaceutical giant said today. It anticipates having results from late stage trial later this year. AstraZeneca says it will submit data readouts to regulators and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. AstraZeneca is working with the University of Oxford to
AstraZeneca Expects Covid-19 Vaccine Trial Results This Year
"Though, expects to release Dad on the Corona virus vaccine It's developing by the end of this year. The British pharmaceutical giant said today. It anticipates having results from late stage trials later, AstraZeneca says it will submit data readouts to regulators and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. They're working with the University of Oxford to develop their vaccine
The final countdown: Trump campaigns in swing states
"Now less than 48 Hours. President Trump and Joe Biden are concentrating on swing states in their final pushes to sway voters. CBS has been Tracy the president is holding 14 rallies in the final three days of the campaign. Even as U. S Corona virus cases surged to record highs and now a new analysis by a Stanford University economist that is not yet peer reviewed claims that 18 Trump rallies may have led to an estimated 30,000 covert cases. 700 deaths. CBS's Michael George on the rising cases nationwide infections, hospitalizations and deaths up across the country. The Minneapolis E R physician reminded his community how covert patients can take weeks to recover. One patient with covert being admitted to the hospital in a way takes up as many places in the hospital as a few patients. The death toll in the U. S is now over. 230,000 CBS News Brief on Wendy Gillette. Well,
A New NACL League and HSEL Partnership
"And academic Journal focused entirely on e-sports has released its first issue. This thing is legit the team behind the journal spans a wide array of academic areas and for articles to be published. They had to meet stringent requirements. The journal is an open-access double-blind peer-reviewed academic study in all four articles are published in this first edition. I'll summarize was off today and we'll pick up the rest over the coming weeks, but I'll link all of them below and encourage you to read them whenever you get a chance. The first article is titled how to e-sports companies support their communities Wellness the goal to see how Esports operators protect their players wellness and identify areas where protection is lacking that could cause future issues down the road to understand those issues the author and anemia from the University of Salford and off. Chester identified seventy major gaming companies spanning for tournament organizers to game developers. He found that quote. There's a varied and fragmented approach to Wellness monitoring and support across the Esports in a street. Mostly the approach is reactionary with little evidence of cross-platform conversations on minimal or ideal standards or monitoring processes to determine their effectiveness the paper argues on behalf of an integrated in platform solution, which provides comparability and shared-ownership with the health care sector and quote game developers and game titles did the best with about half having some sort of policy program or partnership in place to support Community Wellness 43% of streaming platforms 25% of gaming platforms and just 16% of tournament platforms had a community Wellness initiative player health is a big focus on the show and I found the paper a really interesting
"peer review" Discussed on Talking Biotech Podcast
"That showed shocking images that can never be reproduced by four other laboratories that did. Very rigorous experiments. So she's got this backwards it's the people that have been lying to you for twenty five years that are represented here on this panel. It is they're bad science. So if you don't believe what academics have vetted from, you know maybe corporate science may be economic size. What is survived? Peer Review survived academic vetting the maybe you do have to check yourself for anti-scientific bias. The stuff that is being done the technology that's in the field has been shown to be good. And I want to even take it. And challenge us to consider that there are other really valid ways of knowing other than even science. So even though it yes all of the science is showing that we should be concerned, but it's super chaotic and unpredictable. What's happening were playing with fire and also I just want to represent the majority of people who are concerned about this technology. Don't necessarily understand these technique, a level of depths that were discussing this conversation. But. There's an intuitive knowing I'm speaking to this as out not a scientist I'm a mom of three year old and a six year old I. Really Trust may own intuitive of knowing of what is natural and how do I take care of myself and my family and the connection and the web of life, and in this critical moment that we're in planet earth with climate change loss of biodiversity knee have really through. A lot of systems based on weight supremacy really disconnected ourselves from the source of all life, which is nature and we are part of. So I just I I want to that interest of helping people feel empowered that if you just feel a little bit like at that just seems like it don't like that's okay. That's valid. Your tuition is valid and also if you want to get into all of it just no as you've seen in this conversation, there is a lot of science that can show that this is not at all precise and that corporate biotech science is not. Very legitimate fans and it's certainly not something that should go unquestioned. Let's start at the end. There's not a scientist on this earth that says that this technology should be unquestioned. And there's not a regulatory agency on this earth that says that it should be unquestioned. In fact, over the years, historically, this technology has been the most question in the most rigorously tested of any technology ever known in food. So Her argument falls. Apart. there. But she says that her icky feeling is as good as my data. And I'm sorry to say that that's just not true. Mommy intuition is wrong about vaccines. It's wrong about autism and all other places where the Jenny McCarthy's of the world have put people's lives in danger because of their. Feelings that were contrary to scientific data. This is a real problem. No your intuition is not as good as my data they'll. I Sad. Watching reductionism of the.
"peer review" Discussed on The BreakPoint Podcast
"The fact that some things are called science and some things are not has a lot more to do with worldview than science for the Call Center I'm John Stonestreet this breakpoint. In his book, The blind watchmaker Richard Dawkins defined biology as quote, the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose though our generations arch atheist recognizes the tendency of human intuition to attribute things wonderful and complex to the work of a designer. He then went on to argue that life is not designed at all. You see his prior commitment to a worldview one that understands the universe to be the product of accidents and natural selection that only imitates design that's reflected in the title of his book the Blind. watchmaker for a long time. Now, the scientific establishment has shared that same assumption in classrooms impure review journals only naturalistic explanations for life are allowed the US National Academy of Sciences. In fact, openly admits this presumption insisting that quote creationism, intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. Of course, that assumption itself is not testable by the methods of science. But still what if the claims of design are in fact testable? What if our intuition? That pyramid and porpoises and people are just too exquisitely complex to have arisen by mindless purposeless forces of nature could be expressed in say mathematical terms with the authors of a groundbreaking new paper that appeared recently in the Journal of theoretical biology. Argue exactly that in it to scientists one from Norway and the other from Sweden neither of whose name I can pronounce asked a very simple question. Can we detect fine tuning in biology like we can in physics and other words do the chemistry and construction of living things give Darwinian evolution any wiggle room For mistakes or do overs or are they precise? Will they like a puzzle piece only fit in one place in one way playing an awful lot of math math certainly too complicated for me to understand or articulate the authors answered the question and in doing so they're using definition of fine tuning will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the language and work of the intelligent design movement. Something in biology can be described as fine tuned. The authors say if it's unlikely to have occurred by chance and if it conforms to an independent or detached specification. As an article over ever Lucien News pointed out this is nothing other than what I d fierce William Dempsey called specified complexity. In fact, the authors of this scientific paper published in the Journal of theoretical biology. They even sight Danske by name and if that weren't risky enough, they also invoked the concept of erase. Complexity, as a measure of the fine tuning in life, they credit Michael Be he came and they mentioned other intelligent design notables like Douglas Accent, Stephen Meyer, and then these. Scandinavian scientists offered for the first time. A statistical framework for determining whether certain features and living things are fine tuned or were perhaps evolve -able using this method they demonstrate how functional protein cellular networks and the biochemical machines found in cells exhibit evidence of Design Fine Tuning. Say, the authors is a clear feature of biological systems indeed fine-tuning even more extreme in biological systems than an inorganic systems and then at a shot over the establishments bow, they say this bluntly, it detectable within the realm of scientific methodology. Now, the only were the arguments in this paper compelling enough to be publishing a major scientific journal. It challenges the long held assumptions that design just cannot be tested using scientific methods, of course, the real. Reason designed to so controversial within the scientific establishment is because of a deeply embedded and very unscientific pre commitment to the idea that every effect in nature must be explained by causes within nature as expected under pressure from critics who were deeply unhappy about the fact that this paper was ever published. The Journal of theoretical biology was pressured to issue a rebuttal a week one by the way to this paper of course, that's just a sign. Of the vulnerability of materialism materialism that is most vulnerable when scientists arrive at the edges of nature and then find that it points beyond itself. Those committed to fine tuning out the ever increasing evidence of the world's fine-tuning will demand that papers like this. Never make it past peer review but those willing to follow the evidence where it leads will find themselves in a small and growing company of scientists who find that observations are confirming intuitions. For breakpoint I'm John Stonestreet..
Experiment shows risks of air travel while masked
"With United Airlines conducting 300 tests over six months. A manic in reproducing, breathing and coughing with and without a mask. When the dummy war mask the results were encouraging, Though they haven't been peer reviewed, the risk of transmission is virtually non existent. Virtually non existent and again, this is this is this is a U. S military study. Here's how the tests worked. The mannequin was equipped with an aerosol generate, technicians would have it. Breathe and cough with a mask on and off. Using more than 40 sensors throughout the plane to detect the spread of droplets. The researchers found that with the mask on on Ly 0.3% of particles actually made their way into another passenger's breathing zone, But the team didn't attempt to replicate what might happen when the infected person stands up or move through the cabin. I'm not standing here telling people that I know exactly what they should do. But what I am telling people is if you are inclined to travel or thinking about air travel. There is a reason today based on this independent study that you can feel confident that you could travel safely on. The study also reflected similar earlier studies that found the plane's unique airflow helps minimize risk on a plane. Air flows down from above each seat, not front to back. This helps limit person a person airflow. Ah, HEPA filter eliminating 99.99% of airborne particles, including viruses, every 2 to 3 Minutes. Just last week, the International Air Transport Association released new research, saying the risk of contracting the virus on a plane appears to be in the same category as being struck by lightning. Along 1.2 billion travellers, they found just 44 published cases of potential in flight transmission, mostly in the early days of the pandemic when masks weren't required. This study is conforming that among all the different places where One can get infected flights might actually be one of the safest places to be. But remember, Flying involves more than a plain as more people start traveling for the holidays. Airports will also get busier. So experts remind us. It's critical toe. Wear that mask as you walk into the airport, go through security board that airplane sit through the flight and land at your destination. And there are some caveats to the study. They use only one kind of mask a surgical one, and they simulated just one sick passenger on a completely full plane. But this was an extensive study and it gives us a real clue. One of the hot
Wildfire smoke in US exposes millions to hazardous pollution
"Out dense plumes of smoke as they scorch parts of the West Coast and they've exposed more than eight million people toe hazardous pollution levels. We get more from comas. Franklin's Associated Press analyzed government air monitoring data, unhealthy particles carried by the smoke smoke caused caused emergency emergency room room visits visits to to spike. spike. Oregon Oregon resident resident Barb Barb Trout Trout is is among among those those who who ended ended up up in in the the hospital. hospital. My My recollection recollection is is my my husband husband called called the the ambulance. ambulance. Can they came and they give me oxygen administered some drugs, and this happened a couple times during the course of all of this smoke. Last month, major cities in Oregon suffered the highest pollution levels they've ever recorded. Based on prior studies of pollution related deaths and the number of people who were exposed to recent fires. Researchers at Stanford University estimated that as many as 3000 people over the age of 65 in California alone Died prematurely after being exposed to smoke during a six week period beginning August 1st and you double, researchers say hundreds more deaths could have occurred here in Washington over several weeks because of the poor air quality caused by the fires. The findings for both states have not been published in peer reviewed journals, and no such estimate was available for Oregon. Frank Lindsay
What is an IPCC report?
"When you read about climate change, you may come across mention of an IPCC report, but you may not know what that is or why it matters. Assessments of the intergovernmental. Panel on Climate Change. The IPC are written by scientists who were nominated by U N member nations from around the world basically tasked with providing the world with an objective scientific view of climate change and its impacts globally. Virginia Burkett is chief scientist for climate and land change at the United States, Geological Survey, and she was a lead author of the three most recent IPC assessment reports. The latest report was written edited and reviewed by more than two thousand scientists. It's based on data presented in more than nine thousand scientific studies. So Burke says, these reports reflect far more than any one individual's perspective on climate change they represent the consensus of the science community globally there based on peer-reviewed publicly available literature. She says the goal is not to provide policy recommendations, but to give lawmakers and citizens the information they need to make smart decisions and find solutions to this global crisis.
"peer review" Discussed on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
"To puree viewers to over it and make recommendations in terms of like accepted rejected, accept it with these modifications or they didn't address these issues. Most of the time they fixed certain things. Accepted only after fixes. It's good quality control mechanism for science, but it's not perfect and we've exposed a lot of instances where stuff got through pure view absolutely shouldn't have if you. A follow retraction watch retraction watches like. The great the graveyard of articles. Peer Review but shouldn't have, and then they had to get fixed after the fact. And it runs the gamut from outright fraud all the way to like honest mistakes honest mistakes, outright fraud, and then a lot of hacking in the middle. Right. Deception. Just like you're saying carrots actually Y- accidentally dovetails very nicely with Europeans piece in that the most common category are people we were fighting just a little bit but you have plausible deniability but they know they're cutting corners sort of. And as we discussed underestimate, statistically the impact that has on their study they think that they're just making the day to look a little bit nicer when in fact they're making a negative study positive and they don't. And so. Working in a fit in here. In a number of ways I think this is a fantastic idea. We definitely will see this in the future and I think this is something that that collectively journals and whoever we would do his needs to put resources into this. Universities or what have you because think about? This. I'll let you I think there are things that is better at than people right and that's where it's going to have the greatest impact. People are not great at wrapping their head around vast amounts of data. Are, they're not great at distinguishing real patterns from fake. Patterns. And they're not greatest statistics. You know they don't have. We don't have in good intuition for statistics. and. So. If. We're as AI algorithms could become really really good at it. You know they could become very, very good at that sort of deep learning especially if you give them access to vast amounts of data and so they could. Could do things like not only pick out. Plagiarism for example. But also could compare a study to all the published studies in real time and say, well, you didn't account for A. B. C.'s. Or. Could detect things like this. These statistics are deviating from a natural statistical pattern like remember we talked about that law where like the the incidents of Leading digits and numbers, for example like. Say Yeah. Yeah we're. We're genuine numbers should follow certain statistical rules and numbers that were fabricated or biased or whatever. Something Hanky was going on. Will reveal the manipulation? Yeah. This to clean your outcome is either like it's it's yeah it's to clear rare. It's yeah or even going beyond individual study looking at the literature it's like, yeah you could see like the funnel plot thing where you could see that there is publication bias or you could detect p hacking because p values cluster suspiciously around zero point five point zero five. and. It could also exactly kind of like based on that hacking. Application, it could do what a lot of people hire statisticians to do because they simply aren't as knowledgeable as they should be in this area where let's say your. Your sample is not normally distributed will then you're supposed to correct that data before you run certain types of statistics on it, but some people just ignore that step and that's bad. So it might be able to say you did the wrong statistics based on your data. Right exactly, and so there's a lot of things that can happen that do happen and you know that should happen means status Titians can do all of this. But the idea is a software a journal had access to the software they could run everything through it and It would give you a much more thorough. Evaluation of submitted papers and really raise the bar in terms of quality control. So this could be wouldn't replace people. This would be an expert system that informs the experts so that they could then know what to look for and know what red flag things that need to be evaluated, etc. So I think this could be a really really important tool, and again, I can say I it's like off the shelf technology would do it just needs to be adapted to this particular application, but we certainly have the quote unquote technology. To do this, it's also a matter of political will of journals. wanting to invest in this and I do think that you know pressure could be brought to bear. But also this could be a bragging point for journals and. They could say, yeah, we ran this through our AI algorithms to detect for these three hundred you types of bias and fraud and plagiarism, etc, and. Really provide a layer of quality control is more haphazard now, right? That's cool and anybody listening who's like a young student, right? Like a millennial student or somebody WHO's gone back to school knows that we have like baby versions of that in many classroom settings. When you write a paper, you have to put it through turn it in. Or some software like that where it looks like basic things like plagiarism. And it's pretty cool like that's almost the norm. Now for you know in wireless standards for like a kid in a college class writing a review paper in some cases higher than than some journals like that's not okay. Yeah. All the journals journals are doing that they are putting their papers through the plagiarism detection now that's already. Good. Journals are good journal. Prefer me. One of the most interesting things would be like doing really thorough statistical deep learning kind of analysis and coming up with some kind of. Marker of this how likely this hypothesis is to be actually true and I think that that answer would be radically different than what most scientists would come away with reading the paper most scientists. Come Away with an accurate view of how likely it is that the thing is to be true at least in the field of medicine, we greatly overestimate the probability that treatment works based upon preliminary evidence. Just you know in the aggregate a great when a more thorough statistical analysis you have. Now it's actually quite unlikely to be true taking all things considered things. We don't do all things that we look at the P value and if it's significant. Okay, it's probably true. It's like no, it's still probably not true hopefully. A lot of journals are mostly moving away from peeve alison basically just looking at effect sizes but I think also, it would be interesting to see if the effect size is so so big and something is so striking and like so basically rare I guess you could say and strong effect those papers require more critical is to say, Oh, my you're making a very bold claim compared to norm. Now we can say let's see if this holds way or and if it does hold weight like that's massively important finding. Yes. So If I had to get to the nub of why I am optimistic for in this role, people are not inherently good at what we call predictive value knowing how one piece of data affects the predictive value of whether or not something like they be true or not for example. Whereas Deep Learning Mechanical Turk type Algorithms are really good at it. So you guys have done the Mechanical Turk thing where like think of anyone ever in existence and then we all ask you a series of questions and then guess who you're thinking of. Gets to the answer very quickly with seemingly. Scattershot questions because the Algorithm knows the predictive value of each of those question. Yeah and they're very counterintuitive winnowing. Yeah. It's very counterintuitive. So in the same way and a I puree viewer could know the predictive value of things like effect size and p value and a basin analysis and number of different. Multiple comparisons and the particular physical evaluation that they did. They just put all of that together and say, yeah, there's a one percent chance. This thing is actually true. This will hold up in subsequent research given all of these variables and no person can do that. We do not have. That's not how our brains work and that would I think that would be a that could be a game changer especially in a field like medicine where we are constantly trying to translate preliminary studies into practice imperfect data into practice. Okay let's move on Jay who's that noisy time right guys. Last week I played.
"peer review" Discussed on UX Podcast
"Let's run some experiments on that and in design we almost never do that. Right there's no part of the process where we're supposed to stop and say, okay, it looks like this design works. Let's try to break it now and find a better designed by completely ruining last week's work you. I actually I actually tweeted I. Think he was last week a call for that. Why don't we start an open hypotheses movement Because I completely agree I think we. Totally like I kind of Peer Review type of with working I mean we're getting to the point now where there is lots of hypotheses been built and we're being data driven were even Red Blue Red team blue team is a great idea but I think we lacked openness about what we're doing. So much gets hidden algorithms get hidden under the surface and design ideas get hidden under the surface and. Get, shown to be right get validated, but we don't. Check them without the checks and balances and to a certain extent there are economic motivations and not to be open rights to be proprietary and like. I'M NOT ANTI Per Se but I can't say that I'm not I don't know but there is a version of capitalism. We'll put it that way where. You are motivated to not share. That's one. That's one problem. You are motivated to lie frankly. Because if someone's paying life or something and you know it doesn't have any real value, it's not in your best interest to look for to to prove yourself wrong. It's not your best interest to say, Oh, this person wants to invest ten million dollars in my company. What motivation can I? have to make sure product is good. Right to test that and say what motivation possibly have to ask myself if I'm wrong but also might be true when someone's about to give me ten million dollars, right? That's. So it, it's very easy. I'll put it this way. It's very easy when you have nothing but capitalism driving the design process to make some very bad choices. You kind of want these other elements. So if you look at something again to science, like there is definitely capitalism making science funding science and making it work, there are a lot of other factors as well. My wife is a pediatric psychologist, and so she does research and there's something called the I R B, which is a review board that if you want to be some research, they have to sign off and say, this is valid research like you are taking into account all these different factors you're making sure it's not going to be biased and and.
"peer review" Discussed on Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard
"To be a mature responsible seventh-grader and starts smoking from my health, so so set these habits when we're young usually and then we had a patient who came to me who'd been smoking forty years and you know we mapped out the number of times he'd reinforced this habit loop ready for this two hundred and ninety three thousand. Oh my God. He had reinforced this loop. Roughly two hundred ninety three thousand times, and of course he couldn't think is way out to. Compare it so vastly more than his reward system for eating at that point I'm sure he had not eaten two hundred ninety thousand meals, not for sleeping now for having sex now for anything is probably the number one loop. He had participated in Yeah Yeah Twenty Times a day, so we reinforce these things, and that set and forget actually freeze brain to learn new things right so imagine if we had to relearn everything every morning from walking to putting on our close to talking to making food to eating to everything, we'd be exhausted by breakfast. So we have to learn habits as a way to help us survive. It's a good thing in general. Yet we see all of these things especially in modern day where you can totally engineer things to be addictive right, so there are these things that are food like I won't even call them food because they're not really food, but you can make things like the Doritos. Peer Review Journal, the onion. That says dorito celebrates its one millionth ingredients right, not ha. Yeah, because this thing is totally manufactured to get you addicted. Yeah, my wife and I were watching sixty minutes about eight nine years ago, and they had brought these food chemists to an orange grove, they repealing the oranges, and they were tasting. It and they're all into. Watch them tasty. You know it's kind of like watching as or something where they're really really good at thinking about. About and breaking down the different characteristics of eating this orange. One of the guys said so. This is good. It's got this components. Got This component why this is not good for us. Is that the tastes last too long? So what would ideally like to do in the laboratory is recreate this exact hit, but it dissipate immediately so that you'll want another bit of the product. So, one of the goals in the engineering of the taste that it goes away immediately so that you crave another one. I was like Dude House, a human, going to compete with that one of the probably one of the. Chemical engineers in the world is figuring how to make me eat more chips..
"peer review" Discussed on Healthy Thinking
"I I'm going to pay attention to this, and that can be everything from fat, recognizing them or having someone who's a socially influential Talk about the importance of what's being done to sometimes introducing. Sticks if you will you know some slightly threatening things that that could get people's attention and we would advise using those very sparingly, but but it's a part of the mix. and then the the third pieces. How do you actually support the transfer of skill? How do you? Help large groups of adults learn from each other very very quickly through application of new models or new practices and. Here again. The name of the game is just having lots of facility with lots of different methods and approaches and I think that You know one of the things that I'm repeatedly struck by is that we have a list of of a fifteen or so methods for for reaching more people, and you can see people feverishly taking notes because I just don't think it's in our training. Not many people know these methods these approaches. And it's so contrary to a real dominant myth that if I can just get this published in a Peer Review, journal or we're going to build an APP and then boom. We do a viral video and Bam. It's GonNa Change..
"peer review" Discussed on Go Beyond Disruption
"The things at the firm needs to consider and should be doing as part of how they work. All of this research really applied towards the way on point. Tci was built for instance. So things like being able to say We we know. I think Richard. You mentioned early in the conversation. That one of the things you've seen regularly and I think you mentioned top three most common things. You mentioned Engagement waters and may have that replicator soup but letters in general and language and so forth and this is the kind of area where we saw that and we said well. What can we do to help? And how can technology help and the product essentially was built in a way that says well when somebody goes through their methodology. Let's connect that methodology to the actual language that ends up flowing into the letters and it helps automate some of the steps even though the firm obviously has a responsibility to reviewing and making sure everything does it here. Technology is one of these areas that earns can get lost in it. And if you take a process that just really isn't very efficient in the first place and try to apply technology towards it. It's surely not going to fix the problem. it's probably magnifies it. I think A lot of firms understand that to be true. So there's a there's an approach towards technology I think is really important that firms build into this plan man. I'll jump in. I think something like that important because here review comes in after the fact and so. There's only so much we can do. It reminds me of the joke or years ago describing an audit than an audit comes in after the war's over and staff all the wounded people And so to that end period. You comes in after engagements already out the door. And so that's not really a tool that's GONNA help identify issue before it happens. It comes in after the fact and points that out of the Foreign Ben. They have to respond to an engagement. It's already been issued So I I think something that gets out in front of that type. Issued firms are dealing with his more helpful more affixed in real time that peer review is eh. Couldn't agree more. I think the role of reviews. Obviously he important to kind of keep consistency across the profession in terms of the approach. And the comments. You made earlier Richard around the improvement in the audit quality And so forth. I think many firms don't realize and then fishes mentioned a little bit but anders haven't really changed significantly in quite a while and it simply the rigor in terms of how do we approach Peer Review and making sure that there is appropriate rigor and accountability in the process. That's really what's changing. It's it's a very good thing for the profession. I know I think it was a Gallup poll from two thousand eighteen That I recall seeing talking about the most trusted free professions excuse me and the profession of accounting was they believe top five or six in terms of most trusted and one of the reasons..
"peer review" Discussed on Not Another Anxiety Show
"Parks part of my health maintenance crowd you know. Throw everything on there a regional thing. I think yeah. I want everything on there hotdog when you get right on that. GonNa make on what situation? You're going to be making me a hot dog but if you are throw everything good to know earth okay. I wish I had like one hundred more questions. But at that made sense it always makes sense but sometimes I'm like what I know once you get past the mouthful. That is the Peer Review Journal. Article like fighting a pass that mouthful but listen. I've been in like you know I've been back in getting my like post masters in Grad School. So it's like I feel like I've really got like site this you know you're lucky. I didn't include the issue number volume. It is rescinded in five years because any good articles sites gotTa be recent so you guys are just lucky Adam. Throw that in there. You gotTa that that recent Article Jazz going. That is cool and in has changed. I mean what we've been doing this three years. Skipper take and I feel like the. It's almost rain. It'll be that's true. No no no no no but we started recording in July. We didn't publish Admiral. Babies four years old age is macaroni. Necklaces Ati trained in our age. But still to poop a little bit and talking about my own now That is really cool though. I think this is. It's it's nice to know we're not completely helpless. And just that it it. It may just like our genome our genetics whatever we inherent from our inherit from our parents grandparents may play a piece. But it's it's just that it's it's a piece in. Its so far from how we used to think about genetics. We used to really. It's like I remember like the genome wide project project had so many goals in mind but really what they found out is like genes are not set in stone. They are multifaceted. They're dynamic. They're changing and you know it's what we thought. We knew about genetics. Even ten years ago is It's different yeah. Well speaking for friend but that that really has eased my mind. Okay thank you. That is our episode. Thanks so much for tuning in today. If you're joined the show please subscribe to take a minute. Were pleased I am sorry. Guns enjoying the show. Please subscribe and take a minute to write a review on itunes so that we can reach and support more people. If you're looking for more resources like one on one coaching I have a question like on the show. Please visit not another anxiety. Show DOT COM. And until next time remember. Be Kind to yourself at me. Erica favorite part of the show..
"peer review" Discussed on Further Together the ORAU Podcast
"I believe my <Speech_Female> information on <Speech_Female> the website <Speech_Female> dot <Speech_Female> org person <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Female> awesome <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Female> <Speech_Male> anything else <Speech_Male> you wanna tell us about <Speech_Male> peer review about <Speech_Male> your amazing team <Speech_Male> because i know <SpeakerChange> it is <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> we do have a really amazing <Speech_Female> team made <Speech_Female> up of of <hes> <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> not <Speech_Female> just you <Speech_Female> know the research associates <Speech_Female> in the project <Speech_Female> managers but then <Speech_Female> the project support <Speech_Female> teams <Speech_Female> and the technology <Speech_Female> support teams <Speech_Female> and we've got certified <Speech_Female> meeting planners <Speech_Female> <hes> <Speech_Female> you know so it's <Speech_Female> really <Speech_Female> it takes a village <Speech_Female> to to make <Speech_Female> these reviews successful <Speech_Female> in the <Speech_Female> actually mentioned <Speech_Female> that were involved in <Speech_Female> that front end <Speech_Female> <hes> with brooke <Speech_Female> workshops <Speech_Female> but <Speech_Female> we're also involved in the back <Speech_Female> end so we <Speech_Female> help facilitate <Speech_Female> the principal investigators <Speech_Female> meanings <Speech_Female> where they're coming <Speech_Female> back reporting <Speech_Female> on the <Speech_Female> progress that they're making <Speech_Female> with their research <Speech_Female> and so <Speech_Female> you know our complete <Speech_Female> involvement <Speech_Female> in the process <Speech_Female> <hes> <Speech_Female> requires that <Speech_Female> village of <Speech_Female> experts <Speech_Female> and have <Speech_Female> this very fortunate <Speech_Female> <hes> <Speech_Female> people <Speech_Female> i typically. <Speech_Female> I'll be in a meeting until <Speech_Female> everybody at oh. Are you <Speech_Female> that that's in the room <Speech_Female> that i have the <Speech_Female> best team <Speech_Female> at are you <Speech_Female> <hes> <Speech_Female> no one's argued <Speech_Female> the point yet <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> correct <Speech_Music_Female> <Speech_Female> for even <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> of course we you know <Speech_Female> or <SpeakerChange> out we <Speech_Female> have great <Speech_Female> employees across the <Speech_Female> entire company but <Speech_Female> yeah <Speech_Female> i'm very <Speech_Female> fortunate <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> will <Speech_Male> thank you so much <Speech_Male> for spending some time <Speech_Female> with us today. Thank <Speech_Female> you for having me. <Speech_Male> We'll hopefully have <Speech_Male> you back again soon. <Speech_Male> Thanks <Speech_Male> thank <SpeakerChange> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> you for <Advertisement> listening to <Speech_Music_Male> further <Advertisement> together <Speech_Music_Male> the o. r. a. you <Speech_Music_Male> podcast <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> to learn more <Speech_Music_Male> about any <Advertisement> of the topics <Speech_Music_Male> discussed <Advertisement> by <Speech_Music_Male> experts <Advertisement> visit <Speech_Music_Male> w._w._w. <Speech_Music_Male> Dot o._r._g. <Speech_Music_Male> You dot <Speech_Music_Male> org <Speech_Music_Male> you can also find us <Speech_Music_Male> on facebook twitter <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and linked <Speech_Music_Male> in <Advertisement> at <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> a you <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and on instagram <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> at <Speech_Music_Male> ori- are <Advertisement> you <Speech_Music_Male> together.
"peer review" Discussed on Further Together the ORAU Podcast
"Oh are you podcast. I'm michael holtz in the communications and marketing department here at o. Are you with my colleague. The wonders jenna harpen al morning. How are you. I'm doing great. I'm happy to be here again this morning. This is a good way to start our morning. It really is a good cerna morning always find we get to learn about our colleagues and more about the company and absolutely suffering don't always know chat going on. I like at the time we'll coffee so speaking of people who work for our company. Our guest today is carrie cagle fine. How are you glad to be here so kerry. Tell us who you are and how you got to our house. Here's carrie legal. That's that's a very good question. I'm really one of those operations compliance leaders <hes> that's really my background so being the associate director over our scientific peer reviewed apartment <hes> a lot of people had you get there and sometimes ask that same place so what's happened here <hes> but i've been at i worry you for fourteen years. <hes> and i've had an interesting journey at ory you so i started in two thousand and five as a internal auditor with viki carin yes maritime and then my path progressive me over to become a you know what we call it or u._b._s. Say which is kind of the financial budget analyst and i was actually doing that in our stride program which is now saw awed but still you know under haraz called the stroppy w s and <hes> really became interested in what they were doing with peer review and the support they provided added <hes> in in soon moved into becoming a project manager and really just worked my way through. I was the operations manager. So you know making sure everything that we did did. I'm had high integrity quality and compliance behind it so that's really what has gotten me where i am today. <hes> my edification background <hes> so i have a bachelor's in organization management a master's in organization leadership and i'm currently pursuing doing my doctorate from vanderbilt in education leadership and learning that's good so we had <hes> jim bosberg in here the other day and he gave a very brief description a regarding what peer review is but can you kind of give your your own since you are in the trenches and you know this is your thing you do this day in and day out just really briefly for listeners. Describe what you're yeah so what is peer review. <hes> it really is an evaluation. It's a very very important evaluation process. <hes> in it really does not get the credit. It deserves <hes> and that's because it's kind of way back behind everything. It's not actually the research being done. It is it is a in evaluation of research funding proposals or research project proposals. <hes> requesting funding for research <hes> <hes> all federal research federal and state research is required mandated by law to be peer reviewed <hes> so what that means is we identify and recruit subject matter experts based on the proposal topic to come in and evaluate proposals that have been submitted and then based on on the feedback from the subject matter experts important funding or project decisions are made so i mentioned funding and that's a large part of our work but one of the cool things we get to take part in is the project reviews requesting time on the national app supercomputers so that's career cloudy exciting stuff so we were not involved in the actual research but we are a very important part of the research being conducted did and the stri group for our peer review group is actually involved in the entire research funding life cycle so we help facilitate and coordinate <hes> advisory committee meetings and workshops where the decisions are being made as to what should be research search were what should we fund over this next year and that moves into that proposal process <hes> where we have the ability using our peer knit system to collect proposals or or customer system <hes> collect those proposals and then as i mentioned recruiting and identifying the subject matter experts. I'm coordinating the whether it's an in person panel review or women are review <hes> all all the way through to the point that we're providing the results of that review over to our customers and they're using that information to make that important decision to a two on what's the best value proposal that's been provided and should be funded absolutely. It's very very important you know and i i. I use the analogy of if i think about it. If if you won the lottery today one of those almost billion dollar lotteries and all of your cousins families uncles nonprofit organizations are gonna come out of the woodwork with handout and you know you're you're giving person what how do you know what's the best to give your money to and that's what this is. Just kind of you know in in simple terms. It's trying to to help make the best decisions about and to be good stewards of our federal and state dollars and not directly like you said in the research but you you guys are having a direct impact on major research. That's happening for this nation and moving us forward absolutely yeah. It is a very important role. I completely lately agree and we have. We have some really great staff. <hes> who are subject matter experts themselves in in the process and you know our our our research associates czar all p._h._d.'s or their information scientists and have the background to identify and recruit these reviewers so it's a it okay pretty special team a very large list of reviewers. Don't you yes. We have a database of over eighteen thousand reviewers that we've identified and recruited created all kinds of subject matter absolutely absolutely i would i would i would want to defer jim malone on all of those subject the subject areas <hes> because i've seen you know by have the list but it is a laundry list a lot of biomedical research <hes> but even beyond that with commercialization and shooting so in it's not just federal customer correct you also state international so we work with the pennsylvania department of health <hes> this florida department health <hes> as well as nazerbayev university university in kazakhstan. That's yeah that's pretty interesting. Actually <hes> dr dave duncan is on his way back from there. He just went to their their graduation this past week wow so here he would have a very interesting story feature podcast super for cool and i'm sorry it just trying to thought is the other customers so we actually work with the universities and <hes> you know veteran affairs as a new one as well so you mentioned pure net which is is our proprietary proprietary platform <hes> four that are pure reviewer used to score judge <hes> the proposes does that they're looking at talk a little bit about to the extent that you can because i know it's proprietary you know how it works and how that enables you to really work with peer reviewers around the world who don't necessarily have to be gathered in a room to do the review and we actually have a great vision vision with for pure net right now so it's it's <hes> it's it's growing and which is really exciting so pure net today is is <hes> as a as a is an evaluation system and it allows <hes> those identified rick reviewers from throughout the world to have a secure log in <hes> from their home computer or personal device <hes> to once they've been assigned to a review to log in and breathe the proposal and score it evaluated their adding their comments based on the review criteria that established <hes> the peer now also it has the ability now which is a fairly new feature to <hes> collect proposal so we can actually create the u._r._l. For the call for proposals those include <unk> collect them directly into peer net and so that super cool it is it is super bowl <hes> it's it's. It's really great that rolled out old little over a year ago. We've got some really great developers after throw out there that we have a great deal of development team <hes> here at o. Are you <hes> and in so now what they're working on which is that's my passion. I'm super excited about it is worth longtime coming. We're turning it into a full grants management management system so what that means is currently pure net you can use to to to the point that the evaluations been done in reports can determine provide help make that decision and beyond that then the grants could be awarded and try to all the back in and project tracking can be would be able to be done in <hes> impure net nice more value for customers absolutely absolutely and then the the you know the next thing is to become best best in class and we've not define best in class but we will look. I've used randomly internally for or a few projects and it is <hes> wonderful. It's very easy to use <hes>. It's helped us score. We have some projects where we collect proposals and i have a small team that scores in it's been great. It's been very helpful. <hes> and like you said michael the ability to have people look at the proposal and score or and not have to have everybody sitting in one room has been phenomenon so yeah i even even internal you know inside of our a u it's been it's been a great tool tool. It it really is a great deal and you know we we tend to always focus on the research funding or the research projects that it actually can be used for any type of evaluation. We also use it for a ward nominations in an agenda. That's that's how you've used it internally but we actually do award nominations for the department of energy offices society as well as whatever you need evaluate you win the lottery start using which john <hes> we know peer reviews important. It's an important part of the scientific process what makes for good pure review integrity number one and that means not just integrity the actual view that all all of the process surrounding that review <hes> that means the the products that we're putting together the service that we provide i'm needs to be of the utmost hice this quality <hes> at any point. If we're not providing quality service how can we justify the integrity of that revision so so the entirety tired of review <hes> means that it's conflict of interest free <hes> hopefully minimal bias it's kind of hard to control biased but <hes> we do monitor for conflict of interest interest <hes> and have a process around that to help avoid that or viewers if declare conflict conflict of interest you know no longer can say the the proposal conflict of interest in this case would be. I'm a reviewer who maybe i knew the researcher. Absolutely absolutely i in in different agencies. Agencies may have different requirements around conflict of interest but typically. That's what it means. You've had within the last five years. You've had some form of involvement with the researcher or the research team proposing <hes> so it's really you truly the most important part of a peer review is is at integrity because going back to being good stewards of research dollars. The last thing you want is for someone to come back can question the award may and so being able to have that that's that's one of the benefits of using you know with the individual user loggins. There's all these variety of justifications along that you could provide to prove there was no conflicts and we've done our due diligence to maintain the integrity throughout the process. I've been a peer reviewer. Isn't you know <hes> little less on the scientific excited more on the more on the patient advocates but <hes> i know in some of the in person meetings that i've attended in one you have to declare the conflict of frontier don't even look at the proposal title and then when you're having that meeting if you if you're the person with the complex you have to leave the room sign out when he left sign out when he came back look into the as you said there's prove all along the way the conflict was avoided absolutely and typically <hes> for the majority of our peer reviews. We'll we'll have have one of our project managers in in the panel itself and that's one of the main reasons why they're there to help monitor for conflicts and you know i have personally stopped a review discussion because i knew someone in the room had been asked to leave yet to remind the panel chair that this person has conflict and needs to leave the room so important part so if someone is interested in working with you guys what is the best way to get in touch with you. They are welcome to reach out to me. Carey dot com or dot org org <hes> and that's k. e. r. a. dot c. A. g. l. e. at dot oregon..
"peer review" Discussed on KCRW
"And sent it out for peer review, and I was told it was locked from editing, which meant it was going to be released any day. Now Zimmerman press releases were drafted to send to the media. This is may twenty seventeen they were about to publish and then something came up, and they chose to delay the delay seen temporary. And then I was notified again in September that they wanted to release it. But then hurricane Harvey hit Texas followed by Irma and Maria pummeling, the Caribbean in Florida. And they didn't release it after all Maria was left guessing why the repeated delays were frustrating for her. But she was distracted by another big project. She gave birth to her first child at the end of December twenty seventeen and went on maternity leave. Okay. So we're up to twenty eighteen Trump's been president for more than a year. And this report still hasn't been released. Yeah. That's a long delay. I got curious if her research was getting ensnared by the Trump administration. I e mailed a park service spokesman who said the report was still an internal review. So I filed public records requests with the park service. And the university of Colorado Murray is home base the park service stalled but the university responded pretty quickly and gave me eighteen different drafts of the report dating from August twenty sixteen to March twenty eighteen eighteen different drafts. What did you find? There had been. Lots of changes the early drafts had many references to humans causing climate change and flooding the national parks then about a year after Trump became president. After the report had been considered final for months. The changes started showing up park officials commented that this was really unusual. For instance, the first sentence of the executive summary read anthropogenic climate change presents challenges to national park managers anthropogenic, meaning humans, right? It's the scientific term for people causing something aversion from January twenty eighteen dropped the word anthropogenic and other references to people causing climate change. I can see that those changes were made by park service spokesman and the head of the park service's climate change response program. That's the part of the park service. That's supposed to help parks. Get ready for climate change. They'd scrubbed the report of all mentions of humans causing climate change. An Email exchange showed their boss had just communicated. His quote anthropogenic concerns I called Maria and told her about the draft side scene. What would you do if your report came out as I side edited without any reference to the human causes of climate change? I'd be very disappointed. If there will words that will being attributed to me that I didn't. Right. So have you been under any pressure from colleagues to delete words from your report that you think are important to have in your report?.
"peer review" Discussed on The BreakPoint Podcast
"The the joke was playing on academic journals, but the politically correct corruption of higher learning is no laughing matter. Stay tuned to breakpoint from the Colson center for Christian worldview. Here's John Stonestreet with breakpoint. Twenty years ago, mathematician Alan socal setup to prove that post modernism and academia was fashionable nonsense. And so he wrote a gibberish paper that combined post-structuralist lingo with physics terms and then submitted it to the journal social tax. Not only was this deliberate drivel accepted, but over fifteen hundred papers have since cited source material. Now, fast forward to two thousand eighteen three other professors decided to see if they could get past the peer review process and to reveal that fashionable nonsense still lives on professors. James Lindsay, Helen pluck, rose and Peter begazi all profess liberals wrote and then submitted baloney researched academic journals, specializing in a brand of social activism. These highly credential pranksters call grievance studies, their mission to demonstrate how simple it is to get absurdities and morally fashionable. Political ideas published as legitimate research or to put it more simply they wanted to show that journals with itching ears would accept any work. No, ma'am. How ridiculous as long as it validates trendy ideas about race, sex and oppression. So these renegades scholars were rewarded spectacularly for these efforts. One gender studies journal accepted and published a paper that paraphrased a three thousand words section of mine comp using feminist terminology. Another published a paper, arguing that dog parks are rape, condoning spaces for reasons. I'll let you figure out on your own reviewers at the same journal then requested only a slight rewrite of another paper proposing that so-called privileged students shouldn't be allowed to speak in class. Instead, they should learn in silence even pay experiential reparations by being forced to sit on the floor and where chains incredibly the reviewers thought that that paper was actually too soft on privileged students. After seven of their journal submissions were accepted. The three authors revealed the Reuss prompting a little soul searching, at least from those already sympathetic with our complaints, writing at Quillet, fellow academics bemoaned the state of their profession. One lecturer at the university of Surrey wrote that for many journals, ticking off buzzwords now seems to stand in for checking the quality of scholarship. A philosopher at Oxford wrote the editors and peer reviewers who handle these papers have revealed their true vicious attitudes. Now, in some ways, the story just proves what we already know as the professors behind the hoax. Explained making absurd in horrible ideas sufficiently politically fashionable can get you validated at the highest levels of academic grievance studies whole swaths of higher learning or a now captive to left wing ideology schools in journals, or run as searches for oppression and power dynamics instead of searches for truth. But this whole saga reveals more than just the nakedness of the academic emperor. It also reveals just how ripe the moment is for Christians to offer the educational world and alternative most of the top universities in the west. We're not only founded by Christians. They were chartered to teach a universal vision of truth. Almost all of them have lost that vision. But it doesn't mean that the task of educating young people were of conduct. And publishing solid research is over. These things are part of our heritage is Christians wherever Christians went throughout history, education followed and Christian educators have always been at their best when they've educated as if learning points our hearts to God to learn is as Yohannes coupler said to think God's thoughts after him. My point is the churches done this sort of thing before. So let's do it again with mainstream academic journals. Going to the dogs. Now's not the time for Christians to lose our educational souls to fashionable nonsense. Now's the time to recommit to truth for breakpoint. I'm Johnston.
"peer review" Discussed on 1410 WDOV
"A a peer reviewed paper that's going to show that experiencers are very unique because right now you can have people who are interacting and they say we're interacting with the phenomena we're getting messages you know whatever we've been abducted and people will say well that's just anecdotal stories these people should use making this stuff up we don't we have no evidence and what they have discovered they're looking for genetic markers that's one thing gary nolan has stated on the record that they have not found any genetic markers yet but what he's what they state is that anything that happens in your life will leave a genetic marker and they're looking for the marker for people that have interacted have been injured by ufo's they have over one hundred people that have some sort of injury for new oppose but the other part of the thing is that they're bringing out is that they have a pattern that all highly second people i believe is part of it and you folks periences have eye brain pattern that they refer to as the intent that day they are able to sort of tap in it's it's a matter of access that they have something unique so what what what it is is if they can get this peer reviewed paper and it's a very touchy situation because the people that are the peer review panels are not going to be very favorable to this kind of stuff but if they could show that there is a unique thing to an experience or who claims that they're interacting and it's a whatever it is whether it's a marker genetic marker or a brain pattern then it is no longer anecdotal as as gary nolan says genetics doesn't lie so you're going to have this situation where science is going to have to suddenly take this seriously that all these people that have been saying that they have been abducted and david had these encounters and they're getting messages from beings and stuff like that you're gonna have to take them seriously because there's actually going to be a chart that's gonna show on paper that these people are unique you are you're that story about wikileaks saying that a guess hillary clinton and somebody else they wanted to obtain dna from foreign officials eight years before her election they wanted to get the dna of people in the un now.
"peer review" Discussed on WGTK
"He says then at this point one point of the history of development we must record to the miracle of supernatural creation the creator must have created the first organism or a few first organisms which all others are derived and that was in his book the history creation now got all the pages all that kind of stuff but yeah for radio will move on so in nineteen eighty one it says this in a peer review journal okay talking about how to get life nonlife okay they say this this is in nature okay a peer review journal the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand nuts for other it is enough to bury darwin and the whole theory of evolution there was no primeval suit neither on this planet or on any other okay so basically whether doing is they're saying that prediction failed russian failed so that happens in nineteen eightyone yes what happens in one thousand nine hundred two that's when they had the arkansas creation trial okay so they go the arkansas creation trial and the judge sites in favor of the and then he writes big memorandum he starts talking about what's religious and what's not okay and so he says was it the sudden creation of the universe point one energy life nothing the insufficiency of mutation natural selection in bringing about development of all kinds from a single organism okay that is supposed to be this to deny those things is religious so he made it illegal just the year before a scientific journal said it's done with if you don't have spontaneous generation then you can't have a theory that all life came from now because you don't have the evidence right they have the evidence of these species being related to each other and they knew that and instead they they came up with this evolution your family tree solutions family tree came from a guy you know his name was ours heikal yeah so basically they knew it it was right there this judge puts it over and that means that we have had an institution teaching this theory screwing with the heads of kids talk about and i'm sorry this is where he gets me the ideas have a consequence.
"peer review" Discussed on You Are Not So Smart
"This happens alive i mean nali in your book but also you know if you review of the history of the live with the vaccination as well this will allow one paper can come out and do a lot of harm even after twenty years of uh you know it being obliterated in peer review the the once it's out there that is is because this is your the entire thesis you know i guess at your book this must it's open what has out in the world there the forces that go into play our beyond those that rain in bad science out there among the public um and he said of the let the big take away from this the lesson about opium is that it's all about the data so if you could uh sort of help us understand what you mean by that and um maybe help us understand what we could do about it it will scientists will tell you reasonably that it's always just about the data so for example with you you the paper you alluded to before the paper who was published by andrew wakefield colleagues in 1998 claiming that the combination measles mumps rubella vaccine caused autism on that was wrong first of all it was only a case ceres who's a series we've 12 children eight of who had autism within a month receiving at at our vaccine that's all that paper was it should have never been published on its face it was just simply a case series on there words no control group therefore there was no way that he could have ever made a claim that i'm at har caused autism but he did and and so it open pandora's box and and subsequent to that i mean seventeen studies have shown that children who were seen them and mark of axion or not at greater risk partisan the children adopt so there it is that's the data that's the signs and you would like to think in a better rural but the data speak for themselves.