Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (163940)	10/19/2020 6:30:34 PM
From: marcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218431

very good, thank you. surely, this is to say i agree with some of what you state. i am not convinced that the senior author's bias has violated jama's 'objective' requirements. do you understand jama's bias is necessarily 'obama-political'? dunno. --the substance in my criticism of that guys work-- your question of the senior author, emanuel, is reasonable, given his experience at the office of management and budget, as you note. however, guilt by association needs to be supported by evidence of his bias. do you have evidence of that? or does suspicion suffice? --...politicians are working at putting on white lab coats to re-frame their politics as science... its all about the $$$, power, and control...-- politics, public and private, are 'gaming' the authority of science. from the libertarian/free market right, the attack includes reducing the influence of science experts, in order to increase the 'value' of rhetorical persuasion [takes a (real or perceived/fake) crisis to create substantial change]. by reducing the scientific profession/expertise, objectivity is blurred, enabling the subjective/rhetoric to control the objective/science-fact. thus, mutable truth, fake news, chaos, orange leader of the world. do you believe the 'scientific' 'solution' is to join the orangeman parade?