Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 27 2020, @11:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the bad-science dept.

no soylents were surprised

Paper blaming COVID-19 on 5G technology withdrawn:

A paper which argued that 5G cellphone technology could lead to infection with the novel coronavirus has been retracted, but not before scientific sleuth Elisabeth Bik wondered whether it was the "worst paper of 2020."

The article, "5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells," came from a group from Italy, the United States and Russia, and appeared in theJournal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents. The journal is published by Biolife, which asserts that it's peer reviewed but has not responded to a request for comment.

The abstract is now marked "WITHDRAWN" on PubMed and the paper has disappeared from the journal's website. The abstract has been preserved here.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @09:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @09:08AM (#1027539)

    many people are stupid (let's call this set A). some people are smart (let's call this set B). some stupid people (C) want to seem smart and use smart-people-words to do that (generating pseudoscience).

    if you only talk about B people, you can try to apply logic to their behavior and messages in general. they typically have a deterministic decision-making process that explains their actions. when C people generate pseudo-science, there is no coherent path from their desire to their action. they know what they want, and they put together a meaningful story that agrees with them. their story is meaningful for them because:
    1. they compensate incomplete understanding of scientific terms with their own values or desires, such that the story fits what they want.
    2. their ultimate purpose is not validation against objective reality, but validation by A people.

    don't ask "how the fuck should that even work?". it doesn't work, and whatever elaborate explanation will be fed back to you is worthless. you should ask "why are the B people not helping the C people do something useful with their life?" C people are mostly well-meaning. A people are mostly well-meaning, and A people can't tell the difference between B and C.

    It's a bit like the Trump situation. If a beggar on the street starts telling people they should drink bleach, nobody listens to them. If a famous man in a nice suit does it, then you suddenly get a doubling of calls to poison control. one of the reasons I hate suits...