Higher Learning Worst Poster of the Year Award

[Blackking]

Well, if you don't know the difference between 'to' and 'too' of course what I posted would be over your head.​

​

You should. Insults are more effective when you don't look like a doofus.
​

No. You're in denial, you have no evidence to prove your assertion, and I keep calling you on your bullshyt.​

I could care less about what you consider a diss. Also, all the evidence is conclusive that I am neither female nor non-'Black'. You, on the other hand, are a fool who believes nonsense.

Mohammad liked to wear girl's clothing.​

lol you are tripping w all the Mohammad obsession. I did not know that you were a black poster.. and I don't think ur a c00n, so I won't diss u any longer.

I will just leave u w some info.

Peace

Other data-heavy disciplines face similar challenges. Models which can be “tuned” in many different ways give researchers more scope to perceive a pattern where none exists. According to some estimates, three-quarters of published scientific papers in the field of machine learning are bunk because of this “overfitting”, says Sandy Pentland, a computer scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Similar problems undid a 2010 study published in Science, a prestigious American journal (and reported in this newspaper). The paper seemed to uncover genetic variants strongly associated with longevity. Other geneticists immediately noticed that the samples taken from centenarians on which the results rested had been treated in different ways from those from a younger control group. The paper was retracted a year later, after its authors admitted to “technical errors” and “an inadequate quality-control protocol”.

The number of retractions has grown tenfold over the past decade. But they still make up no more than 0.2% of the 1.4m papers published annually in scholarly journals. Papers with fundamental flaws often live on. Some may develop a bad reputation among those in the know, who will warn colleagues. But to outsiders they will appear part of the scientific canon.

Blame the ref

The idea that there are a lot of uncorrected flaws in published studies may seem hard to square with the fact that almost all of them will have been through peer-review. This sort of scrutiny by disinterested experts—acting out of a sense of professional obligation, rather than for pay—is often said to make the scientific literature particularly reliable. In practice it is poor at detecting many types of error.

John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, recently submitted a pseudonymous paper on the effects of a chemical derived from lichen on cancer cells to 304 journals describing themselves as using peer review. An unusual move; but it was an unusual paper, concocted wholesale and stuffed with clangers in study design, analysis and interpretation of results. Receiving this dog’s dinner from a fictitious researcher at a made up university, 157 of the journals accepted it for publication.

Dr Bohannon’s sting was directed at the lower tier of academic journals. But in a classic 1998 study Fiona Godlee, editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the BMJ’s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

Another experiment at the BMJ showed that reviewers did no better when more clearly instructed on the problems they might encounter. They also seem to get worse with experience. Charles McCulloch and Michael Callaham, of the University of California, San Francisco, looked at how 1,500 referees were rated by editors at leading journals over a 14-year period and found that 92% showed a slow but steady drop in their scores.

As well as not spotting things they ought to spot, there is a lot that peer reviewers do not even try to check. They do not typically re-analyse the data presented from scratch, contenting themselves with a sense that the authors’ analysis is properly conceived. And they cannot be expected to spot deliberate falsifications if they are carried out with a modicum of subtlety.

Fraud is very likely second to incompetence in generating erroneous results, though it is hard to tell for certain. Dr Fanelli has looked at 21 different surveys of academics (mostly in the biomedical sciences but also in civil engineering, chemistry and economics) carried out between 1987 and 2008. Only 2% of respondents admitted falsifying or fabricating data, but 28% of respondents claimed to know of colleagues who engaged in questionable research practices.

Peer review’s multiple failings would matter less if science’s self-correction mechanism—replication—was in working order. Sometimes replications make a difference and even hit the headlines—as in the case of Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts. He tried to replicate results on growth and austerity by two economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, and found that their paper contained various errors, including one in the use of a spreadsheet.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Cool, the point is I don't give a fukk what you believe.

Yeah, and my point was that people who believe in racist a$$hole religions calling other dudes a$$holes is straight irony.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

If you got something to say to @Mephistopheles say it to him.

He can't because I've had him on ignore for months.

You have to be an elite SEAL team 7 level of horrible poster to make my ignore list. The only other person on there is Slaimon.

 

[LionofJudah]

Yeah, and my point was that people who believe in racist @sshole religions calling other dudes @ssholes is straight irony.

I don't give a fukk about your point either.

 

[Propaganda]

the mod or whoever can tell u i never had an alias... i'm a grown man w kids - what do i look like playing those games?


I was just keepin it 100%, nothing wrong w that.

dudes you stan (like mowgli for instance) are grown men with kids. i can't say that i'd put it past you.

but...fair enough. you don't have an another name. fine. you just up and decided to talk about yourself in the 3rd person while denigrating "most of the narrowminded fakkits in the hl". then you defend that by talking about how "real" you are.

is it really that much better than actually having an alias?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

lol you are tripping w all the Mohammad obsession. I did not know that you were a black poster.. and I don't think ur a c00n, so I won't diss u any longer.
I will just leave u w some info.

You could NEVER diss me. Take that 'info' with you since it doesn't prove anything. This, however, does....​

Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation​

Task Force Finding
The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.

Read the full Task Force Finding and Rationale Statement for more detailed information on the finding, including implementation issues, potential benefits and harms, and evidence gaps.

Intervention Definition
Community water fluoridation (CWF) is the controlled adjustment of fluoride in a public water supply to optimal concentration

in order to prevent caries (tooth decay) among members of the community. Fluoride acts to impede demineralization and to enhance the remineralization of dental enamel, both of which prevent dental caries. While fluoride occurs naturally in water across the U.S., it is usually lower than the optimal concentration needed to prevent caries.

About the Systematic Review
The Task Force finding presented on this page was made in April 2013 and updates aprevious finding from October 2000. It is based on 28 studies about the effect of CWF on caries; 16 about oral health disparities, and 117 about dental fluorosis. Most of these studies were included in an existing systematic review (McDonough 2000, search period 1966-1999; 26 studies on caries; 13 on oral health disparities; 88 on fluorosis), combined with more recent evidence (search period 1999-2012; 2 on caries; 3 on oral health disparities and 29 on fluorosis). Based on this updated review, the Task Force finding of strong evidence for this intervention remains the same.

The review was conducted on behalf of the Task Force by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice and policy related to oral health. Subscribe

to be notified as new materials on this topic become available.

Publication Status
The findings and results of this systematic review have not been published. Read other Community Guide publications about Oral Health in our library. You can also subscribe

to be notified as new materials on this topic become available.

References
McDonough M, Whiting P, Bradley M, Cooper J, Sutton A, Chestnutt I, Misso K, Wilson P, Treasure E, Kleinjen J. A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. York(UK): University of York; 2000. Available at URL: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Fluoride/Documents/crdreport18.pdf.



Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions on this page are those of the Community Preventive Services Task Force and do not necessarily represent those of CDC.

Sample Citation
The content of publications of the Guide to Community Preventive Services is in the public domain. Citation as to source, however, is appreciated. Sample citation: Guide to Community Preventive Services. Preventing dental caries: community water fluoridation (abbreviated).www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/fluoridation.html. Last updated: MM/DD/YYYY.

Review completed: April 2013

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

everyone knows @Candor is part of the "HL Elite Club"

@Candor knows that club comes with lounge access at airports, jewish lawyers, and floor space at Barneys

 

[Blackking]

dudes you stan (like mowgli for instance) are grown men with kids. i can't say that i'd put it past you.

but...fair enough. you don't have an another name. fine. you just up and decided to talk about yourself in the 3rd person while denigrating "most of the narrowminded fakkits in the hl". then you defend that by talking about how "real" you are.

is it really that much better than actually having an alias?

struggle to create controversy while having the name Propaganda


I only @ myself to keep the format of my post consistent.... for some reason I didn't even guess people would mistake it as an alias slip,
Just like I didn't know I "stan" Mowgli...

And how is it my fault if people are narrow-minded and full of 206 groupthinking bones in their bodies ??

 

[Blackking]

You could NEVER diss me. Take that 'info' with you since it doesn't prove anything. This, however, does....​

it proves ur studies could be flawed.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

it proves ur studies could be flawed.

'ur'......

There is NO evidence they are so it proves nothing.

Quit while you're ahead.

​

 

[Kritic]

plz plz plz my people . get this sh1t out ya heads that i can't address anyone. i think by now you all know anyone can get it. i've address that nicca all the time. the only person's that come close to me ignoring was 88 but i held out until he ignored me. and now i'm straight. i'd really rather not have neither of them niccas 88 and mephis reply to anything i say. i dont even go to their threads.
it works out to my advantage when i see their lies. like for example him talkin here like "i cant address him". negro do you know who the fuq i am.... got me confused with someone else.
have me stay ignored cause my posts are intentionally not designed to appeal to you niccas.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@this whole thread. We need to have another podcast.

 

[Kritic]

dudes you stan (like mowgli for instance) are grown men with kids. i can't say that i'd put it past you.

but...fair enough. you don't have an another name. fine. you just up and decided to talk about yourself in the 3rd person while denigrating "most of the narrowminded fakkits in the hl". then you defend that by talking about how "real" you are.

is it really that much better than actually having an alias?

blackking will fuq your head up. he does it with everyone. just when you get comfortable with him he backstabbers you
you gotta know how to fight, spar and slow dance with him.


i be fighting these jews in one thread with him then he turns around and backstabs me in another one.

 

[88m3]

@88m3 comes off as a sociopath (no offense, but you really do), but he's knowledgeable about some things and brings some funny disses.

How do you figure? Nice to see you putting that public school education and associates in lab rat acrobat training to use.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

How do you figure? Nice to see you putting that public school education and associates in lab rat acrobat training to use.

You just have that smug elitism, disconnectedness and complete indifference to human suffering that often comes with a lifetime of wealth andprivilege.