Can you dispute this?
>>16180952So you're trying to tell us that you can't dispute it, but you're unwilling to admit to that explicitly
>>16180946Much of those claims are simply untrue perhaps as many as 100%, screenshots, twitter together with obsession for pol posting.Consider yourself thusly blown out
>>16181196Proof that these are untrue? Sounds to me like you're coping.
>>16181332I used the same proof they used to prove them wrong, see the OP source.
>>16181485>I used the same proof they used to prove them wrongnice cope, but you didn't
>>16181196Richard Horton:https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdfOffline: What is medicine's 5 sigmaMarcia Angell: Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of CorruptionArnold Relman & Marcia Angell:https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/08/relmanangell_Rxdrugs.pdfAmerica's Other Drug ProblemLooks like you are full of shit my double nigger.
>>161809462x-x is the real non answer
>Can you dispute this?There is good science and let's say fragmented science. It is actually quite easy to see this when considering virtue ethics.Good science tries to reveal more truth about the world we live in using the scientific method. The results are shared with the rest of the scientific community with a rigorous process of peer-reviewed journals. In this process a scientist needs funding and status to succeed.Fragmented or corrupted science is imitating the above process but instead of trying to reveal truth, the goal of the fragmented scientist is to acquire funding and status. In a way he is using fragments of science, not actual science.
>>16181136yes, exactly
>>16180946>linus paulinghigh school dropout & nobel prize winner
>>16183440You should have just been honest to begin with
>>16184967based, i wish i'd dropped out of school and started working when i was 14 or so, i'd be so much better off now if i had done so
