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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1410942)	7/19/2023 10:04:55 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1575624

Here's another story to follow: 50000 pallets of medicine damaged by tornado at NC ... wsoctv.com 4 hours ago — — A tornado heavily damaged a large Pfizer pharmaceutical plant in North Carolina on Wednesday, the latest in a string of extreme weather events ...

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1410942)	7/20/2023 8:44:10 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1575624

Bill, here's an article from the OC Register detailing the resignation of Stanford's president: Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigns (ocregister.com) One thing that struck me was the "meh" attitude toward manipulated data, especially in the field of biology. The investigators claim that Tessier-Lavigne probably didn't manipulate the data himself, but they did find that, as principal author of five of the papers, he should have been much more rigorous in verifying data integrity. Here's one for the Q Continuum, by the way: The most serious claim, involving an important 2009 Alzheimer’s study conducted while Tessier-Lavigne was an executive at the South San Francisco *biotech company Genentech, now Roche*, “fell below customary standards of scientific rigor and process” and had “multiple problems,” according to the special committee’s report. That's actually a BFD. Big Pharma is PARANOID about stuff like this. Flawed studies could cost Genentech/Roche buttloads of money, as billions of dollars of R&D, investment, and marketing rely on the accuracy of these results. (And I guarantee you that there are lawyers out there trying to figure out whether the flawed study led to any lives lost or harmed. There's gold in dem dar hills, ya know?) One more thing. This drives home the need for researchers to strictly follow protocols and guidelines that form the business end of the scientific process. This is because humans, even super-intelligent scientists, are flawed. They make mistakes. They fall for logical fallacies. They are tempted to fudge results for money or prestige. We need rigorous overview and efforts to reproduce results. In other words, "trust the science," not the scientists. Tenchusatsu