NIH funding did not increase much from 2003-2015. Then it rose from $30B to $50B in the years leading up to covid, when it funded risky gain-of-function research (via EcoHealth Alliance) that likely caused covid, not to mention grossly mishandling covid-related research.
Join @AaronKheriaty
Join @AaronKheriaty
😡20👎4🤔3
There is a form of revolutionary insanity peculiar to our technological age that involves a desire to remake not just our external world but human nature itself. Someone infected with this mind virus deserves pity but should never be granted power.
Join @AaronKheriaty
Join @AaronKheriaty
😡17🤮8🤡6💯4👍2🤯2
Join @AaronKheriaty
🤣15😁12❤1🥴1
More than 10,000 scientific papers—a new record—were retracted in 2023. Institutional science is beset with serious structural problems.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
Join @AaronKheriaty
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
Join @AaronKheriaty
Nature
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
Nature - The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
🤯12💯8🤡2👍1🔥1
For example, this year a "landmark" 2006 article on Alzheimer’s was retracted for manipulated data and images. The study was funded by multiple NIH grants and had been cited nearly 2500 times leading to millions in wasted and misspent taxpayer funding and related research.
https://www.tg-me.com/AaronKheriaty/4403
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
Join @AaronKheriaty
https://www.tg-me.com/AaronKheriaty/4403
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
Join @AaronKheriaty
Telegram
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty
More than 10,000 scientific papers—a new record—were retracted in 2023. Institutional science is beset with serious structural problems.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
Join @AaronKheriaty
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
Join @AaronKheriaty
😡19🤡6🔥4
Our current system of scientific peer-review rests on the assumption that endorsement from 2 or 3 out of potentially thousands of peers establishes “scientific validity”. Often, this functions as a form of cartel-control and suppression of innovation, or exclusion of outsiders.
...
In scientific terms, peer review is subject to the defects of a very small sample size, subjected to arbitrary sampling bias.
Join @AaronKheriaty
...
In scientific terms, peer review is subject to the defects of a very small sample size, subjected to arbitrary sampling bias.
Join @AaronKheriaty
💯18🤡3🤔2
Join @AaronKheriaty
💯24🤯5🔥1🙏1