Comments by "Wobbles And Bean" (@WobblesandBean) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
    144
  2. That "pesky outlier" is a HUGE discrepancy in data. It's a little frustrating to see laypeople not getting it and saying such a small range is no big deal, but I counter by saying if you had diabetes and your doctor had a 5% chance of screwing up your dose so badly you went into a diabetic coma and died, is that still no big deal?
    92
  3. After what happened to the animals in the preliminary trial, I cannot understand why the FDA approved human trials.
    75
  4. That's what happens when the only ones getting grants are the ones who can spit out the most output.
    48
  5. That's just dirty. But I bet whoever sells olubolu extract paid them handsomely for those results.
    47
  6. Sigh. This. All of this.
    44
  7. They're not "making a joke", ffs. The woman who added her dog wasn't either, she actually tried to pass the damn thing off as a researcher to lend herself credibility. And it kinda worked, because after the journal editor who denied her paper passed on, the others were all "dawwww, pupper" and brought her right back in. 🙄
    38
  8. ​ @rebralhunter6069  Lol oh, you think so, eh? In that case, I've got some crypto to sell you.
    34
  9. Tell me about it. I'm a zoologist/wildlife biologist and it's hard enough for STEM to be seen as trustworthy in the eyes of the public. That's why I think things like this should come with a prison sentence.
    16
  10. I'm new here, I saw that ad and that's what made me decide not to subscribe.
    15
  11. Why on earth should we trust you, a person who hawks a fraud and scam site, about academic frauds and scams?
    13
  12. Procedures such as...?
    12
  13. Yes, it's...pretty brutal. Sorry you had to see that.
    12
  14. I can attest to that. It was shocking, I had no choice but to pay out of pocket for therapy. The NHS is wonderful and I loved having access to it when I still lived there, but yeah, the government has no interest in funding mental health services.
    11
  15. May I ask what you published? I'd like to read it.
    11
  16. ​ @reina4969  I'm sorry that objective fact doesn't agree with you.
    8
  17. Those who can't, teach.
    8
  18. That's what makes me so mad. I have lupus, but for a while my doctors thought I had ME. Now as a scientist, I understand this data. I understand what all of this means and how fraudulently it's being presented. But most people are not scientists, or even understand the scientific process like I assume most of Pete's audience does. So yeah, they're going to take this and run with it, just like they did with that awful autism "study". Correlation doesn't automatically mean causation, but again, most people don't understand that.
    7
  19. That's what I'm having trouble understanding. Why didn't he just use a scatter plot or a nonstandard distribution? The data is still valid, you still show what the standard deviation is and still show a strong correlation, that would have made sense given the data and would still support the claim (as he recorded it, which is also problematic, but still). It makes no sense to do it this way.
    6
  20. 16:45 And nothing of value was lost.
    5
  21. ​ @ninjagirl226  Yeah, I feel that. I'm a woman in STEM and hooo boyyyy
    4
  22. 20:30 That's....not really how a standard distribution works, though? You're talking about qualitative data, SDs are quantitative. So these people are trying to pass off qualitative data by trying to make it appear quantitative. Am I getting this right? Also, why didn't they just use a nonstandard distribution? The data is still just as valid and can support a claim just as much as a standard one, I don't understand why they would do this. Sorry for the confusion, my brain broke a little bit trying to make sense of this. Newsletters....just. Why.
    3
  23. Neuralink
    2
  24. My fiance is a Stanford alum and he is over the moon over Harvard being disgraced 😂 I don't get college rivalries, but it's just nice to see him so happy.
    2
  25. To put this in perspective for everyone who doesn't do science, this guy fudged his data from <.06 to <.02. Doesn't sound like a lot, does it? But that is a HUGE discrepancy in data. Put it this way: if you had diabetes and your doctor had a 4-5% chance of screwing up your insulin dose so badly you went into a diabetic coma and died, would you go to that doctor? 0.05 is a 1/20 chance. For every 20 patients, one is guaranteed to become past tense. I sure wouldn't risk it.
    2
  26. Eyyyy, I was on Freakonomics Radio! It was about my ducks and the epic quest to get them shipped across the ocean to come back to the US.
    2
  27. ​ @dh510  Imagine that tomorrow, you woke up in a woman's body. You're still YOU, you just woke up this way. You're a man, you know you are, but your 🍆 is gone and you feel very, very out of your element. Wouldn't it feel uncomfortable? Then you get a period, THAT'S gotta feel awful, you have 🍈🍈 that make your old tshirts ride up, they just get in the way and they're kinda heavy, too. This isn't your body. You're a man. This is how it feels for every trans person. If anything, science has legitimatized the trans community, because we now know that their brains are built like their gender identity. They are literally a guy brain piloting a female body, and vice versa. So if anything, decades from now, the only thing that will be looked back upon in horror, are people like you.
    1
  28. The root problem is with institutions incentivizing constant success. That's not realistic. They will only give grants and coveted tenured positions to people who are consistently churning out desirable results. But that's not realistic, the world doesn't work that way. It's like business investors demanding that profit margins must ALWAYS be increasing, every fiscal year, forever. As if inflation wasn't a thing and there were unlimited resources, manpower, and disposable income to throw around. It's delusional thinking.
    1
  29. I think the recent surge in anti-science rhetoric has forced the scientific and academic community to FINALLY crack down on bad faith actors like Brian. How can we convince society that science is trustworthy if the establishment keeps on letting this kind of nonsense slide?
    1
  30. That made me facepalm. Literally my forehead went right into my hand. I've performed studies, and I've participated in studies. A newsletter informing everyone of what's going on completely defeats the purpose of a blind study. This isn't science, it's a poorly disguised self help retreat.
    1
  31. It's hardly a "surgery", they stab your eye socket and literally just swing it around to destroy your frontal cortex. It's barbarism.
    1
  32. Me, a scientist: p<0.0001?! I have NEVER seen this. That alone raises red flags.
    1
  33. ​ @truekingvictory Yup. I've seen it firsthand, especially here in silicon valley. Higher-ups demand unicorn results cuz they've already preemptively sold investors on non-existent magic results, so there's an unspoken expectation to tweak the data to match the desired result.
    1
  34. I'm new here. Seeing you hawk a scam serviceV selling fraudulent artworks, ON A VIDEO ABOUT FRAUDS, has made sure I won't come back.
    1
  35. Same. As a woman in STEM I've seen it myself, academia is a boy's club and they protect one another. A perfect example is Frederick Schöen, it was a woman who first blew the whistle on his fraudulent research, and she was not only ignored, but ostracized. It wasn't until she'd convinced a male colleague to go over her findings and raise the alarm again that the scientific community took it seriously, because now it was coming from another man. Most senior researchers are men from older generations, and sadly those generational attitudes towards women and certain minorities is still very much an issue.
    1
  36. To put this in perspective for everyone who doesn't do science, this guy fudged his data from <.06 to <.02. Doesn't sound like a lot, does it? But that is a HUGE discrepancy in data. Put it this way: if you had diabetes and your doctor had a 4-5% chance of screwing up your insulin dose so badly you went into a diabetic coma and died, would you go to that doctor? 0.05 is a 1/20 chance. For every 20 patients, one is guaranteed to become past tense. I sure wouldn't risk it.
    1
  37. And the sad thing is, laypeople are going to blame science. Science is objective, but people are not. Bad faith actors like this damage the credibility of all of us.
    1
  38. The two women who sounded the alarm on Hendrik were completely ignored by Bell and the rest of the scientific community for a long time, just cuz they were women. The first woman, Lydia Song, who always knew, was completely disregarded outright because Nature held her own paper hostage. Sadly, although it's slowly getting better, we have a long way to go still.
    1