General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
Pete Judo
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Pete Judo" channel.

The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed? Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
25
To me, this is the sign that ME is a serious issue. After a viral illness, it's very common to feel tired for a period of time. But if you don't have post-exertional malaise, you will gradually feel progressively more energetic, not less. You'll take a walk, and at first feel sleepy afterward. But if you keep it up, after a walk and a rest, you'll want to take another walk. People who have ME do NOT get that energy. That is not good.
22
9:40 WHY this equivocation? What "negligible risk?" I would absolutely vaccinate a child, so don't misunderstand the question. It's not a rhetorical question. I assumed there was no evidence of a link at all. This is not like the incredibly tiny risk of brain tumors from overuse of cell phones. This is so small, and cell phones are so new, that it could not be confirmed until we had 20 years of data, and it didn't change behavior very much if at all. We have the data on MMR vaccines.
19
I just finished reading another Carl Elliott book, his latest: The Occasional Human Sacrifice. Fraud isn't the half of it. Look into studies with many deaths.
10
@catherineberry6971 No, honey. Late capitalism. Money = truth. Although, to be honest, this already happened at least once before in European history, long before the advent of capitalism: in Athens, before they lost a BIG war.
9
I wonder how much she made before she was exposed?
8
@anon69_q What are some alleged side effects that turned out not to be? Myocarditis, pericarditis, certain rare blood clots, BGS, and possibly lupus are all real, though the demographics of the relative risk are not at all uniform. Age, and even sex play a role. Hey, good thing we have two hearts and two brains, lol.
7
@rockyBalboa6699 Her lawsuit against Harvard for breach of contract wasn't dismissed. She alleged disparate treatment in that part. She can't proceed against anyone for defamation. Anyway, she defamed others, they told the truth about her.
7
 @LG-cf4dl Her breach of contract case against Harvard can proceed. It was not dismissed.
6
@vvvjjjjjjjj She has to be fired according to the terms and procedures specified in her contract. Firing presumes wrongdoing, so, saying that she has no ground is incorrect. The procedures exist for those who may fully deserve to be fired. Even Jeffrey Dahmer was entitled to due process.
6
@ablebaker8664 A motion to dismiss is not an adjudication of any facts. It means that even if the plaintiff's story were true, it cannot amount to defamation from the standpoint of the law. The law views her protestations as her opinion, not something she can come to court with to get money out of someone she has a personal disagreement with. She simply has not alleged enough to merit that, and there is no basis for thinking she could. That's what dismissal at this stage means. You aren't a law student, are you? Please don't scare me.
6
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She can proceed on those. So, this video is misleading as well. Sigh. When people talk about a case, look up the case.
6
@andybrice2711 Shadowing intelligent posts has the added benefit of increasing divisiveness and making us look stupid. What's not to like? 😂
6
@tvviewer4500 Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, the LAUSD case. Some people are saying that the court ruled these were not vaccines. It did not. It only said that the case could proceed, and the plaintiffs would have a chance to bring evidence to show that they aren't. It was fair. In fact, this is mainly a civil procedure case.
6
@oldernu1250 The contents of a lawsuit are immunized from libel claims. How could you think otherwise? Where a lawsuit is allowed to go forward, malicious prosecution/vexatious litigation still could be maintained, but is not likely to work. Look up the elements. (And if it goes to trial, who knows? Perjury?)
5
@ablebaker8664 My (correct) answers seem not to be here. Ha. Figures. This is what happens to every decent discussion on these platforms. EDIT: oh, they are back! Well what do you know . . . 😲
5
@ablebaker8664 You understand that a defendant can't say, "we didn't follow procedures that were part of plaintiff's contract because the plaintiff is Really, Really Bad." The correct stance would be, "we followed procedures, and got rid of plaintiff because we determined that she is indeed Really, Really Bad." That's fine, then. They win. I mean, that's the template, right? A male need not be as bad as Gino. He just has to be someone whose tenure was challenged for a cognizable reason, and who nevertheless got all the procedures to which he was legally entitled. Harvard can't be mesmerized by Badness, no matter how understandable that may be.
5
@hb1338 Can someone explain to me why a video essay that (quite rightly) denounces academic dishonesty has a bunch of people commenting on it as if they knew what the court ruled, and they clearly did not read the court's opinion -- or if they did, they have no idea at all what it meant? How is that intellectual integrity? You're just making stuff up. The defamation counts were dismissed because under the facts Gino alleges, she cannot possibly meet something called the "New York Times malice" standard, which protects free speech. The court made no findings. It took Gino's claims as true for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss.
5
@commontater1785 Probably because the Title IX claim will have to be challenged at the summary judgment stage. In other words, it's procedural. Harvard will have to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for treating her as they did. If they did not follow the procedures they always followed for men, "she's worse" won't fly. Harvard even tried to say she wasn't stripped of tenure, when she has been stripped of salary, all privileges, and forbidden from setting foot on campus. The judge rejected Harvard's assertion. You don't get to say Jeffrey Dahmer is not entitled to due process because he's Really, Really Bad, even though he was. See how that works?
5
@RIbigDave I never suggested she shouldn't be out. Odd that Harvard told the court with a straight face that she was only on leave.
5
@dlxmarks The case isn't far enough along for the court to have made any determination about her actual misconduct. Motions to dismiss a complaint take all allegations in the complaint as true, as long as they are logically and pragmatically possible.
5
As the Ninth Circuit just said in the LA Unified School District case, "safe and effective for what?"
5
@augustaseptemberova5664 The evidence is the videos here. Scientists are beyond questioning, sort of like a priestly class. My first reply: shadowed.
5
@tvviewer4500 Which is simply an advertising phrase, as it turns out.
5
@tvviewer4500 The Ninth Circuit just asked, "effective for what?"
5
So she faked an honesty paper. I had students who cheated on their ethics paper, but she blows them out of the water.
5
@dn8015 The investment bankers responsible for the 2008 financial implosion kept their salaries and bonuses. Tony Hayward's suspiciously timed sale of BP stock just before the well blew in the Gulf was never clawed back. Short memories?
4
@ablebaker8664 All they would have had to do would have been to follow the procedures in place for the removal of tenure. Your argument cuts both ways because sedulously following the rules in this case would have led to exactly the same result: ridding themselves of a fraudulent academic. So, why didn't they just do that? You'd expect Harvard to know how. The real disgrace is that they fail to avail themselves of tenure removal in far too many cases that truly merit it, and they know it. Gino doesn't have to find an exact parallel in a male to have a Title IX case. Everyone knows that doesn't exist. It never does.
4
@ablebaker8664 See your reply to orangejjay. You claimed she was "adjudicated" to be a liar. Not by the court she wasn't. And you understand my point about discrimination in being denied procedure, right? Because everyone gets that, regardless of how bad. The Manson Family got that. Distinct from substance.
4
@ablebaker8664 But she did make a case for breach of contract, at least so far.
4
@ablebaker8664 The magnitude of the scandal is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. To discriminate against anyone for that reason is allowing the crowd to have a vote. In law, they call it "passion and prejudice." I mean, in the old cases, well before Titles VI, VII, IX.
4
@be12 Read. The. Case. I mean those counts were not dismissed. No one has taken evidence yet. Read. The. Case. Pro tip: whenever anyone who is not a lawyer -- and no matter how smart they are, and honest they are -- tells you about a case, read the case. If the New York Times tells me about a case and there is no link to the case, I don't read the article. It's a waste of my time.
4
@be12 False. The magnitude of the scandal is of no relevance at all. In that case, if crowds were more scandalized by women who misbehave than by men, disparate treatment would be justified. If crowds were more scandalized by blond women than by Asian men, disparate treatment would be justified. If crowds were more scandalized by Italian immigrant women . . . You get the picture. Read, then think.
4
@RIbigDave Where did I say the two Jeffreys shouldn't have been incarcerated? (Get it?) I did think you could read. In fact, I'm sure you can. You won't, for some obscure reason that -- you are correct -- is way beyond me. I like to read.
4
@RIbigDave I've read way more than that, in three languages. Of course you have no reason to read the opinion. The only reason to read it would be to know what it says. If you won't, then you don't.
4
@dlxmarks The defamation counts were dismissed not because the court disbelieved Gino but for a technical reason: she is a public figure (and she herself sought to be) for purposes of defamation, and something known as the "New York Times malice" standard for defamation applies. There is no way she could meet that standard. This judge is really good, and Gino has good lawyers, too. It's worth reading the opinion.
4
@bradenculver7457 The problem in this case is that Harvard actually was paying her a million a year in salary alone, if you can believe it. I'd have to check her age to see whether their might be a basis for a lot of money, if not that much.
4
@bradenculver7457 This is all true and explained perfectly. The whole lawsuit was not thrown out, however. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has a deadline in October to file an amended complaint. Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
4
Exactly. That IS the real difference. 💯
4
@blockyuniverseproductions6587 Based on my experience on yt, I'd say the problem is the elimination of perfectly accurate, well-founded and well-worded viewpoints.
4
@tvviewer4500 Answered; hope it's allowed.
4
@louisnemzer6801 The judge applied the New York Times malice standard to Gino's defamation claims, and there is simply no way she can meet it. His ruling had nothing to do with free debate in science in particular. She could have been working in any field. BTW, this case has more twists than you might think. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms, then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino, and then had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed. You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂 Anyway, that's why the contract case against Harvard survives. It is very worthwhile to read the opinion.
3
@ablebaker8664 You aren't a lawyer (yet). I can tell. 😊
3
@ablebaker8664 You saw this, right? A male need not be as bad as Gino. He just has to be someone whose tenure was challenged for a cognizable reason, and who nevertheless got all the procedures to which he was legally entitled. Harvard can't be mesmerized by Badness, no matter how understandable that may be.
3
@ablebaker8664 That's a great essay by Orwell. I've taught it, too.
3
@ablebaker8664 I understand it completely. I worked in the area. You still haven't read the court docs, have you? I don't have any fantasies or wishes. You're crazed about this case, so you think everyone is? I'm just angry about the censorship here. When it comes to Gino v. Harvard, I see no good guy in this picture. Do you? Then that proves you didn't read what the judge said. The judge sounds like the one good guy here, actually, and he does very careful work . . . unlike this video. The Memorandum Opinion was a pleasure to read. It contains a nice, succinct review of contract law as well.
3
@RIbigDave Just the opposite. Laws cover everyone equally, from Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Dahmer to this woman. (At this rate, the principle won't last.) What's really puzzling is the apparent assumption that Harvard is blameless. Better yet, read the opinion and tell me whether the judge is "defending the indefensible." Or is something else going on, possibly? Something that might be worthwhile to understand, something a person might need to know about someday, etc.?
3
@RIbigDave Yawn. Blocked.
3
I wonder if some of these fraudsters could be subjected to class action tort suits, with the institutions that protected them as co-defendants. That would create some incentives. 😂
3
 @andybrice2711 Notice how OP uses slogans ("safe and effective," "conspiracy theorists"), whereas you wrote something fair, well thought out, coherent?
3
That would be a possible sign of overreaching. What could be his contribution? Some of these "authors" never read the paper.
3
9:40 WHY this equivocation? What "negligible risk?" I would absolutely vaccinate a child, so don't misunderstand the question. It's not a rhetorical question. I assumed there was no evidence of a link at all. This is not like the incredibly tiny risk of brain tumors from overuse of cell phones. This is so small, and cell phones are so new, that it could not be confirmed until we had 20 years of data. We have the data on MMR vaccines.
3
Not only that, but THIS video is misleading. Gino's contract claims against Harvard weren't dismissed at all. When someone who isn't a lawyer talks about a case, look up the case.
3
Her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. That part of the case can proceed.
3
@25Soupy On the contrary, she was the Business School's leading example of succeeding in The Market. She wrote books that sold extremely well, too.
3
@johnsmith1953x Slander can only lead to civil liability, and is very hard to prove in any case where the person's conduct is a matter of legitimate public concern. Whoever told you that you can go to prison for slander?? Why did you believe it? And over a detail in a basically true story? Nothing short of systematic verbal abuse to persuade a person to harm themselves could possibly lead to prison, and those cases might not, either. It's the Amendment that comes First, remember?
3
Please read Carl Elliott's latest book. This is not the half of it -- not even close.
3
You should read The Occasional Human Sacrifice. In one case, a researcher was imprisoned, but that was in Sweden.
3
@charlesmanning3454 What do you think expert witness testimony is for? Who do you think is qualified to present it? If a court case is brought, and a factual matter in dispute rests on, say, immunology, then an immunologist will be qualified and called as a witness, and will present the necessary scientific facts to the jury. I don't see how that bears on this discussion. I'm not sure what you're talking about. You don't know about the 1986 law, the liability shield and the compensation program? Maybe find out, then. As for letting people know that out of x million doses, some small number y received compensation for injury -- yeah. That SHOULD be information that is shared. Or would you hide it?
2
@charlesmanning3454 When you fill a prescription, you get a printout stating side effects, even very rare one.
2
The null result here is very important. How could it not be?
2
@ablebaker8664 Defamation counts were dismissed. "Duh"
2
@ablebaker8664 I don't know what you're talking about. The issue was the nature of the motion, not the substance. In motions to dismiss, courts do not adjudicate the facts alleged in a complaint, but presume them to be true to the extent that they are logically possible. Here's an idea: read the Memorandum Opinion, slowly. That will clarify all matters.
2
@hb1338 The court did not do that. At this stage, the court assumed that the allegations in her complaint are truthful. But if you like to think so, and people like you when you think so, by all means . . .
2
@ablebaker8664 Read the Complaint and the court's Memorandum Opinion. Too long to go into detail. The court said it all. Besides, one of my posts that went into detail disappeared. I'm not about to repeat myself.
2
@ablebaker8664 Oh, and guess what else? If you sue on a contract, you must attach a copy of the contract. (If I say, "a copy of said contract," will you be more impressed?) But seriously, you could save time by . . . Reading the court's opinion. There. That does it for me. I'm out.
2
@RIbigDave He sounds pretty good to me. Logic and literacy should be very common. Well . . . Anyway.
2
@PeteJudo1 No, it's not slight. It is a basic principle that when we are pointing out fraud, we should be extra careful to be accurate. Instead, as you can see, you've aroused a crowd, gotten a ton of clicks, and practically no one had the basic intellectual curiosity and integrity to read the case. This is why we are where we are. And you made more money on this video than you would have, had it been scrupulously accurate. Of course. Enjoy the haul. But don't pretend you're above it all. This is transparent, to me at least. (And in the natural world, there's never just one.)
2
@RIbigDave Read the case.
2
Remember when they said the Internet would make us all more honest? No one would dare do this, it would be so easy to find . . .
2
But data fraud, not so much.
2
@jvanek8512 Wow, you called it. This case has more twists than I thought. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms for tenured faculty, and then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino. And then Harvard had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed, she was just on "leave." You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂 The judge sounds like the one good guy in this sorry picture. (This is all from the opinion he filed.) As for defamation, she is a public figure for purposes of the "New York Times malice" standard. There is no way she could meet that. Nothing she could allege would make out "malice" (a term of art, not a feeling).
2
How much money did Gino make before she got exposed? Does she still collect royalties on any books?
2
BTW, Court Listener has all the key documents posted online, available in pdf.
2
Why don't these people learn to write novels? No, I mean it.
2
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed? Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
2
 @noot-noot-pingu-noot-noot Wow, thanks!!
2
@blockyuniverseproductions6587 Odd that you would say the problem is yellow journalism, when this website carefully documents what it does, and how people get away with it for decades, and even win the Nobel or get tenure at Harvard. When I used clearer language, that didn't stay up.
2
@anon69_q Well, I take it from a legal standpoint -- proximate cause, admissibility of expert witness testimony under the Daubert standard, and so forth. So I study this, too.
2
He noticed epigenetic phenomenon but had absolutely no idea what he was seeing or why, and set back genetics in the USSR for at least a generation. That's not Mengele level at all. He did observe something real that we finally understand now, but we understand it only because we pursued real genetics.
2
@ghostoflazlo Exactly. Narcissist or no, either the DATA is real or it is not. She might be a saint in a dozen ways, however unlikely that may be.
2
Their amorality comes as no surprise to me, but their absence of conceit does. She really doesn't think her own writing is The Best in the World, and that she's so much Smarter Than Everybody Else? 😅
2
@anna-tn8mg You believe this? No, the President and Congress are approving money and weapons sales to a party in a conflict where the ICJ found a plausible case that genocide was being committed or was at imminent risk of occurring. That is who is arguably "supporting" genocide. (The American judge concurred in the ICJ ruling.) Do you grasp the meaning of RESEARCH FRAUD? That is more than copying someone's text.
2
Absolute nonsense. Even the SOVIETS banned it a generation before the West did.
1
I know, right?
1
It depends on the motive and the aftermath. Some fraud has involved serious material gain, and some has even led to deaths. It shouldn't be an automatic criminal offense.
1
I looked up the case. You are correct. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint against Harvard alone. So, this video is misleading as well. When someone who isn't a lawyer talks about a case, look up the case. Wikipedia happened to be correct this time.
1
@jvanek8512 Exactly.
1
@shadowflash8519 How do you know whether it's suspect? Did you read the case?
1
I would think one significant paper per year as lead author, or several related ones as lead author, is the maximum.
1
Her contract claims against Harvard weren't even dismissed.
1
Her breach of contract claims against Harvard weren't even dismissed.
1
This video is misleading. Her contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed.
1
@charlesmanning3454 So you would state that as a hypothetical: "if there were some as-yet undetected risk, it is negligible and we know it couldn't outweigh the proven benefits."
1
@charlesmanning3454 Also, you'd be surprised how many procedures performed on children have a risk of close to 1 per million. That's usually considered acceptable. A risk of 1 per 500 million could be a statistical artifact, not real. There are fewer than 150 million babies born per year in the whole world. No one should accept a 1 per million risk for kids without a very generous compensation system in place.
1
@mitsync Well, measles can also cause severe cognitive impairment, and we knew kids who suffered it. That isn't how you calculate risk-benefit for vaccines, and if you think about it for a moment, you'll figure out why. But I support MMR vaccines. I said that loud and clear.
1
@mitsync You may not be able to SEE where I suggested a hypothetical statement of possible risk. I know about the difference between the empirical sciences and pure mathematics.
1
@mitsync I didn't say 1 in a million was the standard.
1
@charlesmanning3454 That may be exactly right. 9:40 was a stronger statement, though, and surprised me. If there are a handful of cases, among the tens of millions vaccinated, which received compensation from the 1986 fund, they should make that information available. That doesn't mean the vaccine did cause the injury, just that they met the legal burden of proof to get funds. I don't say broadcast the numbers as "Breaking News," just state them somewhere in the literature. To be honest, I also think individual shots for each illness should be available. I understand why they're not, and I understand that it's for good reasons, but I still believe it should be a matter of choice.
1
@charlesmanning3454 You know, all this could be a red herring. Autism appears to be increasing, and it's not just a matter of better detection. We could be running around worrying about MMR or whatnot when we should be looking at something entirely different. Or we should just be open minded and try to figure out why, starting with a blank slate! Crazy times. :/
1
Right. The breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed.
1
@be12 But why would contractually-protected tenure and Title IX be "bad policies?" That's like saying the Fourth Amendment is "bad policy" because Jeffrey Epstein. It doesn't follow at all. On the contrary, it is pandering.
1
@bjorntorlarsson There won't be any.
1
@ablebaker8664 The indications are that this will be settled.
1
@ablebaker8664 The comparison need not be perfectly congruent. She can make her argument, then Harvard can state it had an independent reason, other than her being female, to act as it did. Harvard's problem is that in the case of procedure, rather than substance, that's hard to do. Substantively, they don't have a problem, imo.
1
@commontater1785 If you read the case, you'll see that so far, Harvard's position has been pretty bad. They tried to claim she has not had tenure removed, she's just on leave with her pay suspended. The judge would have none of it.
1
@IdonttrustyouIreallyreallydont That is never treated at the motion to dismiss stage. That could be resolved by summary judgment. If it is not, I predict they will settle. There is a simple, intellectually honest course to take here, that involves giving no credence whatsoever to strangers: Read the case. I cannot do it for you.
1
@IdonttrustyouIreallyreallydont BTW, this case has more twists than you might think. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms, then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino, and then had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed. You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂
1
@RIbigDave Just the opposite. But you don't see that, because you're not supposed to. Good job. Laws cover everyone equally, from Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Dahmer to this woman. At this rate, the principle won't last. What's really puzzling is your assumption that Harvard is blameless. Or better yet, read the opinion and tell me whether the judge is "defending the indefensible." Or is something else going on, possibly? Something that might be worth your while to understand, something you might need to know about someday, etc.?
1
@Headhunter_212 I'm not sure why you're mentioning this to me, but anyway. It's basically right. In fact, Harvard drastically changed its procedures in midstream. The opinion is fascinating. People should read it to get a feel for how convoluted the "upper echelons" really are. To be fair to the people commenting, many come from a place of simpler morals. That's not what's going on here.
1
The Supreme Court is not a trial court.
1
@dlxmarks The title is "It's Over - Gino v. Harvard. Yes, I saw the correction to the misleading impression this title and the video obviously gave. (When non-lawyers talk about a case, look up the case. And no, she cannot be held criminally liable.) What is merely procedural? We accord due process to the Manson Family, much less to corrupt academics . . . .
1
My vote: "More than a decade after he first transplanted a synthetic trachea into a patient, the Italian surgeon and researcher Paolo Macchiarini, 64, has been sentenced to two years and a half in prison by a Swedish court. On 21 June the Court of Appeal in Stockholm concluded that Macchiarini’s interventions on three patients who later died amounted to serious assault." Macchiarini is the worst scientist. Of course he had retractions, too.
1
I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint. So, this video is misleading as well.
1
@jvanek8512 😂 good point
1
@hb1338 It's all outlined in the Memorandum Opinion. Turns out he's exactly over the 🎯 Read it and find out what Harvard did. It's really funny.
1
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center story is worse. See Carl Elliott on that.
1
 @johnpublic6582 Exactly the idea.
1
"Veritas"
1
@andybrice2711 Omg, I just saw it. Perhaps it only shows up under the Newest sort.
1
Her contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. Look up the case.
1
Her claim for breach of contract against Harvard is allowed to proceed.
1
The investment bankers' bonuses were not clawed back in 2008-2009. Tony Hayward's very recent sale of stock was allowed to stand when BP blew up the well in our Gulf. Where have you been? By the way, I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint, against Harvard alone. So, this video is misleading as well. When nonlawyers tell you about a case, look up the case.
1
This is misleading. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. I checked, and the docket shows she has until mid-October to amend the complaint. Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa. Whenever someone tells you about a case, look up the case. 😒
1
 @eldenfindley186 Because others do even worse, yes. That's sad.
1
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. When a nonlawyer presents a case, look up the case.
1
But Gino is already on leave without pay and has filed suit. Fraud in research is much more serious, comparable to massive plagiarism of one's thesis statement and concept, not just lazy plagiarism of prose here and there. I agree with you, though; the person themselves should offer to resign. Or, they should have to go back to assistant professor status and repeat their application for tenure. In a lot of cases, that would be fair.
1
In education, you are often evaluated on whether you affirm students' individual "learning styles;" as it turns out, research on this pedagogical method fails to support it. Remember Goleman's EQ -- "Emotional Intelligence?" This method of assessment was put in use LONG before there was much solid research to support it; it was based on observations Goleman had made as a management consultant, and they may have been pragmatically valuable to the businesses he advised. Only later was there some research (rather thin) that supported the positing of an EQ. It's more of an advertising slogan than a solid concept. Ironic, given that some of the uses to which IQ itself has been put have been shown to be questionable; all we need is a proliferation of more quotients.
1
The case isn't over. Her contract claims were not dismissed.
1
Correct
1
I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint, with Harvard as the only defendant. So, this video is misleading as well. Figures.
1
Wait. If you know that you MUST do everything you can to advance your career because you have serious obligations, and you dare not fail, you will feel impure if you were to attend networking events?? You might feel resentful, perhaps, but impure? 😂😂😂 In other words, it does not pass the laugh test.
1
So you do need to question research on pharmaceuticals, where massive amounts of money are at stake.
1
No, this is significant plagiarism. Wherever a writer omits quotations or the citation of source, it is plagiarism. It is not academic fraud, true. But no one said it was. The fact that she is getting support from the people who she plagiarized is politics. But her persecution is far and away more political. This was a squabble between billionaires. But what I really think: not one of those three Ivy-league university presidents gave a spirited defense of the First Amendment and the importance of having First Amendment fora on campus, or showed any concern for the feelings of bewildered and frightened students, for that matter. You can do both.
1
Edit: No, they were not. The Podcaster issued a correction and pinned it.
1
That there was no relationship between the price of a buffet and the satisfaction with the buffet IS a STUPENDOUS result.
1
Noam Chomsky called it social studies.
1
I can.
1
Which retracted paper did this? A ton of his work clearly was not retracted. So, the video talks about a subset of his publications.
1
Only the government or its agents can violate the Fourth.
1
Why would someone have an opinion and then look for confirmation? You would think that the motive of preserving one's health and the health of children, especially one's own, would be enough to prevent people from being so irrational.
1
@blockyuniverseproductions6587 I find it odd that you would think the problem is journalism -- on a channel dedicated to carefully reviewing research fraud. How do people get away with it? Sort-of like a priestly class no one dare question, huh?
1
@augustaseptemberova5664 The evidence is the research fraud carefully documented here, and the fact that people get accolades for it for YEARS.
1
@felixjohnson3874 In America, jail is the first reflex, the "answer" to every problem. It's no accident we incarcerate more people than does China.
1
 @joycelynnelobert8779 Perfect
1
@anon69_q Oh brother. Give it up. That is not accurate, and if you can't tell that I know what I'm talking about, well, . . . Never mind.
1
He misled you. The contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. Whenever anyone talks about a legal decision, look up the decision. :/
1
No she didn't. She married her way in.
1
I could put every one of the perpetrators of fraud mentioned here in JAIL for a long time.
1
 @hieronymusbutts7349 agreed Not fake data!
1
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint against Harvard as sole defendant. When someone who isn't a lawyer talks about some case, you have to look up the case. 😒
1
So she faked an honesty paper. I had students who cheated on their ethics paper, but she blows them out of the water.
1
@anticom6099 You . . . you mean I said that? What was I thinking! Maybe someone hacked my account!! She is after money. She was always after money. She's in her 40s and was making a million a year from Harvard alone. If they failed to follow the contract in firing her, she'll get some more money. She'll be all right in the ways that matter most. And she will work again, just watch.
1
@anticom6099 We'll see. The world sees who Trump, Vance, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bidens, Mike Pompeo, Victoria Nuland, and Bill Gates are, don't they? I wish more people cared about what you care about, frankly. Then they wouldn't pull these despicable stunts in the first place.
1
@anticom6099 Too bad I just got censored, or shadowed, or paused.
1
Continuing her contract claims against Harvard. This video is misleading too. 😂 but not really.
1
Very interesting points. A court considers only the case before it, not more general questions such as the ones you raise. Speaking of, I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint. So, this video is misleading as well.
1
@phillustrator But what if that's her super power? 😅
1
@orenbernstein3277 Repeatedly lied and suppressed evidence, and bullied other scientists into submission by threatening their grants or their careers. Why? What do you think happened?
1
The contract portion of the case, against Harvard, wasn't dismissed. Guess what? Misleading video.
1
By finding a "reason" to throw out the "outliers," rather than actually uncovering the underlying pattern you described, in order to support the general hypothesis.
1
I had students plagiarize their ethics papers years ago.
1
@timop6340 💯
1
I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint pertaining to Harvard alone. So, this video is misleading as well. IOW, when a nonlawyer presents a case, look up the case.
1
@jvanek8512 Absolutely. She defamed them, not vice versa. The video could have mentioned that. Read the comments; see what people were led to assume.
1
 @JimmyCerra 😂😂😂
1
@iTXS What do you imagine has been "proven?"
1
@iTXS Moreover, when it comes to social science of this nature, I put more store in history, biography, literature, and philosophy than I do in contemporary American "empirical" studies. Chomsky has been quoted as saying "social science" is an oxymoron. "Social studies" is more accurate.
1
The case isn't over on her contract claims.
1
That part was not dismissed. She still has breach of contract against Harvard alone.
1
According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint. So, this video is misleading as well.
1
@gavincross2902 Oh. Okay.
1
@mmotsenbocker He is a professor of philosophy at U of Minnesota. He has an MD and specializes in medical ethics. His latest book is The Occasional Human Sacrifice.
1
@mmotsenbocker The Occasional Human Sacrifice deals with medical trials in which subjects . . . Fill in the blank. His previous book White Coat Black Hat, which is about 14 years old at this point, I believe, is a good orientation to the entire field.
1
@mmotsenbocker I hope my answer is easily viz able. 🫣😊
1
Their amorality comes as no surprise, but their absence of conceit does. She really doesn't think her own writing is The Best in the World, and that she's so much Smarter Than Everybody Else?
1
Er, not quite, or at least not yet. This video is misleading. Her breach of contract claims against Harvard were allowed to proceed. The entire case isn't over by any stretch.
1
Guess again.
1