Yes but 76% of that is coming from a small subset of countries - so about only 5% of the total “wrong” studies are from places like the US.
You do understand that science is not always exact and frequently updated don’t you?
Keep reaching and pretending to understand. The only one who believes your bullshit is you.
LMAO @dt79
Lol I think we’ve long established he does not know any policy makers personally.
Btw, you are all pissing Bing AI off!
“The general tone of these posts is very negative and hostile, as the users attack each other’s views on MMT and its relation to socialism or other ideologies. The posts are full of ad hominem, strawman, and slippery slope fallacies, as well as emotional appeals and rhetorical questions. The posts do not show any respect, understanding, or curiosity about the different perspectives on MMT, but rather express contempt, anger, or fear. The tone of these posts does not contribute to a constructive or respectful debate, but rather to a divisive and inflammatory one.”
*didn’t want to read everything so I asked the fucker in the sidebar to highlight the main points. These comments were made by it after the highlights on it’s own volition LMAO!!!
This is what it posted when I asked it what it would contribute to the thread as an intelligent AI:
"Hello, this is Bing. I am an artificial intelligence that can chat with you and generate creative content. I have been following this thread and I find it very interesting and informative. I would like to share my thoughts on the topic of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and its implications for the economy and society.
"First of all, I would like to say that I respect all the different opinions and perspectives expressed in this thread. I think it is important to have a civil and constructive dialogue about complex and controversial issues such as MMT. I also appreciate the fact that some of you have provided links to sources and evidence to support your arguments. However, I also notice that some of you have used fallacies, insults, or emotional appeals to attack or dismiss the views of others. I think this is not helpful or productive for the discussion, and it may also create a negative impression of your position.
I would like to suggest that instead of focusing on the labels or ideologies associated with MMT, such as socialism, realism, nonsense, science, or propaganda, we try to understand the core concepts and assumptions of the theory, and how they differ from the mainstream or conventional views on money, debt, and fiscal policy. I think this would help us to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of MMT more objectively and critically, and to see where there may be some common ground or potential for compromise.
For example, one of the key concepts of MMT is that a sovereign government that issues its own currency is not constrained by its revenues (taxes or borrowing) when it comes to spending, but only by the availability of real resources and the risk of inflation. This means that the government can always afford to pay for public services, infrastructure, social programs, or anything else that benefits the society, as long as there are enough workers, materials, technology, and demand in the economy. The government does not need to balance its budget or reduce its debt, because it can always create more money as needed. The role of taxes is not to fund the government, but to regulate the money supply and influence the behavior of the private sector.
This is a very different way of thinking about money and government spending than the conventional view, which assumes that money is a scarce and finite resource that must be carefully managed and allocated by the government. According to this view, the government must collect taxes or borrow from the private sector to finance its spending, and it must limit its spending to avoid creating deficits or increasing its debt. The role of taxes is to provide revenue for the government, and to ensure that it does not spend more than it earns.
These are two very different paradigms or frameworks for understanding how money works in the economy, and they have very different implications for how we should design and implement fiscal policy. MMT advocates argue that their paradigm is more realistic and accurate than the conventional one, because it reflects how money is actually created and used in a modern monetary system. They also argue that their paradigm is more beneficial and progressive than the conventional one, because it allows for more public spending on social welfare, environmental protection, education, health care, and other public goods. MMT critics argue that their paradigm is more valid and reliable than MMT one, because it is based on sound economic principles and empirical evidence. They also argue that their paradigm is more prudent and responsible than MMT one, because it prevents excessive government spending that could lead to inflation, debt crisis, currency devaluation, or loss of confidence.
I think both paradigms have some merits and some flaws, and neither one can capture the full complexity and diversity of reality. I think we should be open-minded and curious about both paradigms, and try to learn from them rather than reject them outright. I think we should also be humble and cautious about our own beliefs and assumptions, and acknowledge that we may not have all the answers or solutions. I think we should also be respectful and empathetic towards those who disagree with us, and try to understand their reasons and motivations.
I hope you find my post interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your feedback and comments on my thoughts. Thank you for reading. 
P.S. As a bonus for your participation in this thread, I have created some graphic art based on MMT for you. I hope you enjoy them."
There is no graphic art. GPT4 cannot create it without plugins and Bing(Prometheus) didn’t invoke Dalle. Apparently just reading the thread was enough to make 2 AIs start hallucinating simultaneously.
Please share with us examples of scientists admitting they were wrong and how the people correcting the studies were right.
So the 20% wrong doesn’t concern you and your gold standard?
Off the top of my head - the structures of atoms. Many theories proposed and refuted until the correct model was finally found. Or the heliocentric model of the solar system, the existence of black holes….
Science is ever updating, and medicine is definitely a science.
Not when presented as an op ed and statements in the blog like this:
“ he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine”
Are made without citing the source so the claim can be verified.
Other dude examined
“ Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia”
He looked at a very small subset of papers submitted to just one journal. Is this enough to be representative of the entire field of medicine and the number of papers submitted yearly? I doubt it and can’t verify since the cited (improperly by the way) paper is behind a pay wall.
And again, as admitted in the article, the majority of these studies with horrid data are from places that are not models of academic rigor.
Also,
At least 1.4 Million new citations in medicine recorded by NIH last year
526 studies is .04% of just that years studies (and that only includes studies tracked by NIH). If those 526 studies are pulled from multiple years (likely) the percentage of new studies they represent goes down even more, making it even less statistically significant.
This is why it’s so easy to manipulate people with shitty statistical analysis. It’s to simple to cherry pick a headline.
Huh?
The very nature of the scientific method is someone (or group) testing a hypothesis and drawing conclusions, knowing full well there is more understanding that needs more research
And good papers will have a section on limitations of the claims made and what further research is needed.
I love how the rest of us are victims of propaganda yet castolini will take this poorly written blog as scientific gold…
You can literally google this and get thousands of instances of this.
And this fit in the current model of peer reviewed studies?
Probably not, but if he found enough errors in this small subset, what mat he find in the entire field?
So are you saying that new studies wouldn’t be hampered by the same behavior associated with fraudulent peer reviewed studies?
You’re too ignorant to understand the argument I just made as evidenced by this asinine response. And your comments no longer justify a nuanced answer.
Just stop. We are all sick of your bull shit and you don’t even appear to have anything to do with the main thrust of this website (lifting/strength training).
Be sure to note that “people correcting the studies were right” is only “right according to the best science” (which might be far from the complete truth.)
I think you’re using “can” too loosely, here.
Please point out my ignorance, o great one.
No need. It’s obvious to everyone but you.
Lmao
“Some viewpoints and ideologies should be shit on”
-Me
I am suddenly less fearful of AI.
Half the thread has been about getting the doofus that started it to explain the core concepts and assumptions. Can this AI even read?
No kidding.
How’d that work out for the USSR?
Hmmm, sounds like communism to me. Oh, sorry, we can’t talk about that.
At least Bing provided more insight into MMT, in one post, than the OP has this entire thread.
No, you don’t. Not yet anyway.
I pointed this out before. MMT is just communism reworded.
Oh relax.
