Why "science" is fake and ghey

[prime]

There are a number of reasons for this:
1. It is statistical based on the idea of average or equal people, when people vary widely and heritage matters.
2. Science relies on rationalized deductions instead of strict historical observation, which is more effective.
3. Every human in the process has bias -- economic, political, legal, religious -- and twists the results.

The classic:

The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

[prime]

6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/

[prime]

The article suggests that the - completely successful - capture of science by "peer review" was actually begun by the publisher and spy Robert Maxwell being bankrolled by British Intelligence to buy up Pergamon Press in 1951 (later part of Elsevier) and institute the beginnings of peer review, on an international scale. 

Whether or not the details provided are correct, it seems certain that something of the sort was afoot; as part of a multi-pronged (and, as I said, completely successful) strategy to capture and destroy real science; but transfer the name and prestige to what had become just-another branch of the global totalitarian bureaucracy.

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-medical-hypotheses-affair-14-years.html

[prime]

The retraction rate for European biomedical-science papers increased fourfold between 2000 and 2021, a study of thousands of retractions has found.

Two-thirds of these papers were withdrawn for reasons relating to research misconduct, such as data and image manipulation or authorship fraud. These factors accounted for an increasing proportion of retractions over the roughly 20-year period, the analysis suggests.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01609-0