/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15186338
Did you even read these studies?

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28012936/
Literally tells you nothing.
No benefit.
Also n = 3 .
What should this study tell me?


>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6453848/
Nice a study in which they fucked up the people by giving them up to 500,000 units of vitamin A.
>"In the closely monitored group of 20 patients receiving 300,000 units daily under supervision, side effects were somewhat more frequent (Table 2). One patient had headaches which later remitted and a few had minor nose bleeds. Twelve had xerosis and 10 cheilitis.
> Five of those receiving 500,000 units for 10 weeks developed minor nosebleeds, and six had headaches controlled by aspirin.
>Almost all had cheilitis and xerosis,which was noticeably more intense than at the lower dosage."

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6407/
Absolute kek:
" Retinol was highly efficacious in doses of 300,000 units for women and 400,000 to 500,000 units for men, toxicity was slight and limited mainly to skin (xerosis) and mucous membranes (cheilitis)."
"Doses over 300,000 I.U. are accompanied with liver impairement. During long-term treatment y-GT test should be performed regularly. Contraceptive advices are recommended."

None of these studies showed anything that has to do with:
> Vitamin A and vitamin D3 have synergistic effects and deplete each other. I believe that large amounts of vitamin A can be taken if your body has enough vitamin D3. And large amounts of D2 can be taken with K2 and magnesium (to prevent hypercalcemia).

>Make statement
>attach multiple random links tangentialy touching the subject
The state of this board...

>>15157493
As long as people believe in:
> Gain of function research
> vrius isolation
> memeRNA
> spike protein

Nothing will work nobody will wake up.
People literally just believe, not know, never look in the papers or the methodology, they just believe in these four things.

They just believe in spike protein because it sounds "dangerous"
> ouchie so spikey
They just believe that the "Crazy Soientists" posses the ability to produce working mRNA.
> owie wow, I can become like Captain America too with genetic upgrade UwU
> oooh reddit science always told me about CRISPR and memeRNA
> oh and the cartoon science channels, desu, I love science
> oh wow, such comic, so cartoon soo sciency
> I fucking love it
> that means it's real
They never looked into virus Isolation:
> Oh yeah, it is totally clear, they use some nano tweezers, and take out the virus and put it into a different host which then expresses the same disease
> then they take out the nano tweezers again, and take out the DNA of the Virus and analyze the genome
> totally easy
> "Have you ever read any Virus isolation paper?"
> No but I saw some comic style documentainment videos and That is enough for me
> I exactly know how it works
And gain of function:
> totally clear, they take out the nano tweezers again
> then they manipulate the genes
> and put it in a different host
> and then they let it mutate
> take it out with the nano tweezers again
> and put it in the next host
> and bada bing bada booom we have super deadly Killer virus because of serial passaging
> totally easy
> "did you ever look into a actual paper of Gain of Function research?"
> pfff no, [insert science tabloit online magazine] posted a wholsome article about it, really simple and neat
> I fucking love science

> non-reproducible studies
> no application of scientific method
> methodologies always filled to the brim with exclusions of unfavourable variables to hypothesis
> mostly based of surveys

Why is this ok?
Wouldn't this bring scientists under scrutiny?
Why is questioning methods and conclusion treated like heresy?

>>15149597
Most "science" does not use the scientific method.
They cannot even prove that Vitamin D supplementation is beneficial.
Don't consoom anything based on """The Science""" that is funded by Big Pharma.
Let it be:
> Antivials
> Anti bacterial
> Anti [insert meme]
> reversed aging
> panacea

Most studies are Headlines for PR and Marketing campaigns.
No proof or working methodology is required.
Just headline and then a press release and a science tabloit online article, and midwits go:
> wow
> a studied said that...
> experts say that...
> wow such expert so wow

Nobody actually reads the Study and nobody tries to reproduce it.
The inflate "science" with "The Science" studies.
They overwhelm the market and then nobody will be able to test anything.
> just believe
It's all memes....

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

>>14662059
>unverifiable theories based on other unverifiable theories on top of previous unverifiable theories
>we're right because we convinced the most people that we are right by attacking and defaming anyone that disputes us
>"science"
These people need to be executed.

>>14660441
Furthermore, many, many, MANY studies today cannot be reproduced by other scientific peers.
And for the studies that are ""verified"", many of these studies just happen to be performed by their corrupt friends who are also quite aware of their fraudulent tests, so they play with the data to confirm their tests(assuming they even do the tests in the first place), and then tell everyone else to go home, and to just (((Trust the Experts))).

>>14650945
>>14650945
>you're a moronic stoner and i've btfo you more times than i care to recall. why do you keep coming here and embarrassing yourself?
I probably just didn't value your input.

>>14649370
>LOL?
They stopped bothering, considering the experiments could never be verified by other independent groups.
It's a substantial contributing factor to today's clown world.

>>14648417
>/pol/-tier discussions should be banned from /sci/
What do you consider "/pol/-tier"?

Where did it all go so wrong?

Is anything we know about anything even real?

>>11392574
>When will we be able to genetically engineer ourselves to be smarter?

Surely not soon , maybe in next few centuries.

"According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments. The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

"Everyone has to take a share of the blame," she argues. "The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

>>11191634
>This happens all the time, retards

"Science" is failing as an institution. But at least it's diverse, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

>>11114070
When will we be able to engineer IQ?

Never.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Isnt it a bit scary ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

When does /sci/ wake up to the idea that their precious science is fanfiction

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

I wonder how much of "settled science" is actually junk