Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.278 [SLACK_000492] · slack_pm:msg:02899

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

I still can't believe these idiots went ahead and wrote a full paper - such a giant waste of time.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-11-24 18:07 Edward C. Holmes open

I look forward to the first 'how did this shit get through bioRxiv?' comment.
2020-11-24 18:21 Kristian G. Andersen open

Harvard just needs to merge this pile of turds with the "oh look, a lot of cars outside the hospitals" study - the ultimate turd pile.
2020-11-24 18:45 Edward C. Holmes open

Good point. How was the traffic outside that hospital in Brazil?
2020-11-24 18:47 Kristian G. Andersen open

At a standstill - turns out all the drivers died.
2020-11-24 18:48 Kristian G. Andersen

I still can't believe these idiots went ahead and wrote a full paper - such a giant waste of time.
2020-11-24 18:54 Kristian G. Andersen open

I found another beautiful study from them: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.165936v1.full I'm glad to see their new-found interest in virus genomes. You sorta just take all the stuff you learned in Human Genetics 101 and apply it - because, why waste time building a tree or whatever?
2020-11-24 18:59 Edward C. Holmes open

Who is reviewing these? It ain't me.
2020-11-24 19:06 Kristian G. Andersen open

Not me either... Total junk.
2020-11-24 19:09 Kristian G. Andersen open

I wonder if this is what NEJM meant when they talked about "Research Parasites"... Maybe they had a point :wink:. Actually, no, they didn't - the issue isn't the data here, it's just shit science. Can't totally shield against that.