• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • Some of it is 100% misogyny, I think some of it is also that 4 years ago the country was literally on fire in a lot of places and Trump was obviously to blame for a lot of it, so it didn’t matter so much to apathetic voters if Biden’s messaging was weak. Kamala may have won then too, though misogyny would have made it closer. Now the country is much more stable but still not great, but Democrats are in charge and therefore obviously to blame, so people who largely haven’t been affected negatively by the Republicans (e.g. men, especially non-desperately-poor white men), are apathetic again






  • There is some panicking prompted by the horrible things he’s promised to do but probably can’t, but:

    -He got Roe v. Wade overturned, stripping rights from Americans while also being responsible for a 3% increase in infant mortality in the US, the first significant increase in decades

    -about as many people died of COVID as voted for Jill Stein, and while Trump isn’t responsible for all their deaths he significantly worsened the problem.

    So I’d say beyond shit






  • GTFO with that “politics” bullshit. It stopped being a purely political difference when Trump made it about racism, sexism, and all other possible forms of bigotry. It stopped being about purely bigotry when he tried to stage a coup.

    Above and beyond, you don’t know their life. Maybe they needed a life-saving abortion and their father gleefully cackled when that right was effectively removed in many states. Maybe they’re black and their father bragged about the shootings of black folks, they’re latin and he chortled over the deportation rhetoric, or they’re Muslim and he rubbed the travel bans in their face. Maybe they have/had long COVID and their father gave it to them because “it’s a hoax.” There are so many reasons for cutting MAGA idiots out of your life and Trump’s political policy is the least of them


  • niucllos@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 days ago

    Sure, there will be examples of problems in any field that has hundreds of thousands to millions of humans working in it. That doesn’t mean there’s a broad crisis, and it doesn’t mean that most research is faked or fallible. In your 2004 example, all of the data wasn’t faked, some images for publication were doctored. There’s been potential links between alzheimer’s and aBeta amyloids since at least 1991 (1), long before this paper that posited a specific aB variant as a causal target. Additionally, other Alzheimer’s causes and treatments are also under investigation, including gut microbiome studies since at leasg 2017 (2). Finally, drugs targeting aB proteins to remove brain plaques work in preclinical trials, indicating that the 2004 paper was at least on the right track even if they cheated to get their paper published. This showcases science working well: bad-faith actors behaved unethically, but the core parts of their work were replicated and found to be effective, so some groups followed that to clinical trials which are still ongoing, and others followed other leads for a more holistic understanding of the disease.

    Also, I’d very much argue that human neurological diseases are both bleeding edge and niche, which inherently means that recognizing problems in studies will take more time than something that is cheaper or faster to test and validate, but problems will eventually be recognized as this one was.

    1. Cras P, Kawai M, Lowery D, Gonzalez-DeWhitt P, Greenberg B, Perry G. Senile plaque neurites in Alzheimer disease accumulate amyloid precursor protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:7552–6.
    2. Cattaneo, A. et al. Association of brain amyloidosis with pro-inflammatory gut bacterial taxa and peripheral inflammation markers in cognitively impaired elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 49, 60–68 (2017).

  • niucllos@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    17 days ago

    I wouldn’t call it a broad crisis, and it isn’t universal. More theoretical sciences or social sciences are more prone to it because the experiments are more expensive and you can’t really control the environment the way you can with e.g. mice or specific chemicals. But most biology, chemistry, etc that isn’t bleeding edge or incredibly niche will be validated dozens to hundreds of times as people build on the work and true retractions are rare