Upps…

Ai credenti nelle prestazioni del bollitore a FuF scritte da uno che vien via per 110.000 euro e firmate da quattro professori di una “prestigiosa” università, segnalo che la disonestà scientifica viene praticata anche a Uppsala.

Da Science Insider:

It took more then 10 months, but today the scientists who blew the whistle on a paper in Science about the dangers of microplastics for fish have been vindicated. An expert group at Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) has concluded that the paper’s authors, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University, committed “scientific dishonesty” and says that Science should retract the paper, which appeared in June 2016. […]

The panel also has some stern words for Science. The journal was “deficient” in enforcing its open data policy, the authors say. They add that even if the research had been conducted as described, it would not have proved anything. The microplastics supposedly used in the study were mixed with detergents, according to the report, and the authors didn’t say they had removed these detergents. They, and not the plastic beads, could have caused the effects on fish larvae.

Nel 2013 uno dei professori svedesi aveva contattato un redattore di Nature che non era interessato al tema, magari se provava con uno di Science…

*

Quante rondini fanno primavera?

Da DottNet:

Ad oggi, afferma il vicepresidente Fnomceo Maurizio Scassola, “rispetto alle vaccinazioni sarebbero almeno due i procedimenti disciplinari aperti, ma in tutta Italia sono almeno una decina i procedimenti noti in corso nei confronti di medici che appoggerebbero posizioni antiscientifiche”.

Da Scassola arriva anche un monito circa il “preoccupante uso scorretto” del web: “è allarmante che la Rete sia utilizzata anche da medici per diffondere informazioni non scientifiche; con i web si cerca infatti di ingigantire i fenomeni creando una cassa di risonanza e ciò – conclude – crea dei danni ancora maggiori”.

Non credevo molto alla lotta degli Ordini dei medici contro i ciarlatani™, invece maresciallo Stefano segnala che quello di Verona se la prende con Claudio Sauro per aver

• pubblicato e quindi proposto ai pazienti un protocollo chiamato `Chemioterapia naturale´, volto, secondo sua indicazione, a prevenire e trattare le malattie tumorali in maniera naturale evitando la chemioterapia»
• «sottoposto i pazienti a trattamenti fuori indicazione `off label´, senza idonea documentazione scientifica, avviando una sorta di sperimentazione clinica non autorizzata e autogestita, in mancanza di consenso informato scritto e senza garantire trattamenti di efficacia consolidata»
• pubblicato su un altro sito «informazioni inadeguate e contrarie alle linee guida internazionali riguardanti il trattamento del tumore della mammella»
• «proposto trattamento fitoterapico in sospetto conflitto di interessi»

Il benefattore dell’umanità si proclama innocente. D’altronde poco dopo l’annuncio di sanzioni contro i ciarlatani™, in un poscritto aveva aggiunto la parentesi salva-ciarlatani, corsivo mio:

P.S . Sia chiaro questo Protocollo (da affiancare alle cure allopatiche), oltre che per i tumori è valido per tutte le malattie degenerative ed autoimmuni, in particolare, Sclerosi Multipla, Artrite Reumatoide, Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica(SLA), le quali se prese all’inizio possono regredire e guarire completamente.

*

Quantum water

Su una rivista Elsevier specializzata in disonestà scientifica, da anni Francis Beauvais – che aveva “studiato” la memoria dell’acqua Boiron con Jacques Benveniste –  tenta di ammodernare l’omeopatia con un modello teorico a gatto di Schrödinger:

inspired from a relational interpretation of quantum physics that applies not only to microscopic objects, but also to macroscopic structures, including experimental devices and observers. In this framework, any outcome of an experiment is not an absolute property of the observed system as usually considered but is expressed relatively to an observer.

In pratica

the outcomes of experiments [clinici e in vitro, con acqua distallata, ndr] are expressed relatively to each observer and the observers agree on outcomes when they interact with each other. If probability fluctuations are also taken into account, correlations between ‘expected’ and observed outcomes emerge. Moreover, quantum-like correlations are predicted in experiments with local blind design but not with centralized blind design.

*

 Zeke Hausfather ha trovato un’altra bufala nell’editoriale di Bret Stephens in prima pagina del New York Times:

The N[orthern] Hemisphere has warmed ~1.5 °C since 1880, not a “modest” 0.85 °C. @BretStephensNYT is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts.

He is since Trump has been elected.

*

Prezzolato ma onesto
The Intercept pubblica un’intervista con Jerry Taylor, ex ALEC ed ex vice presidente del Cato Institute, fratello del famigerato James Taylor dello Heartland:

I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living.

Nei primi anni 2000 però,

I was one of the climate skeptics who do battle on TV and I was doing a show with Joe Romm. On air, I said that, back in 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen testified in front of the Senate, he predicted we’d see a tremendous amount of warming. I argued it’d been more than a decade and we could now see by looking at the temperature record that he wasn’t accurate.

fter we got done with the program and were back in green room, getting the makeup taken off, Joe said to me, “Did you even read that testimony you’ve just talked about?” And when I told him it had been a while, he said “I’m daring you to go back and double check this”.  He told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on.

So I went back to my office and I re-read Hansen’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.

Ha ripiegato sulle obiezioni economiche a qualunque intervento per ridurre le emissioni di gas serra:

The final blow against my position, which caused me to crumble, was from a fellow named Bob Litterman, who had been the head of risk management at Goldman Sachs. Bob said, “The climate risks aren’t any different from financial risks I had to deal with at Goldman. We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.”

Come fanno le assicurazioni.