Feds Seize Z-Library

Feds Seize One of the Largest Sites for Pirated Books and Articles, Z-Library
by Claire Woodcock, November 11, 2022

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k8qby/feds-seize-one-of-the-largest-sites-for-pirated-books-and-articles-z-library?mc_cid=8b5b6c52d4&mc_eid=62d36e4ccb

Last week, one of the largest repositories of pirated books and articles available on the Internet went dark. Torrentfreak reported a series of Z-Library domain names were seized by the FBI. Countless students and researchers who rely on shadow libraries will be hit hardest by the seizure.

Days of "Trust Me" Science Over?

In a 228-194 vote the House of Representatives have voted 1) to require that data used to support new regulation be released to the public and 2) to require any scientific studies be replicable.  What a novel idea!

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1430/text

According to Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas,

The days of 'trust me' science are over.  In our modern information age, federal regulations should be based only on data that is available for every American to see and that can be subjected to independent review. That’s called the scientific method.

The bill would allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data.

Fake News and Fake? Science

      When I was working on a Ph.D. in Physics my work was to reproduce the findings of another researcher.  It was an extremely difficult experiment that required measurements on ultra-pure sodium metal at near absolute zero temperatures using microwave sensors to pull faint signals barely at the edge of noise levels.  The problem was made worse by the fact that duplicating another physicist's results no matter how impossible the experiment does not qualify one for a Ph.D.  I needed to make my own discoveries.  So when I failed to duplicate his results, I had no problem.  I was not going to be able to publish either way.  Little incentive exists in science to reproduce research.  
     One should not be surprised by a recent report in Nature that 

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.

When researchers were asked why this problem exists most than 60% responded

pressure to publish and selective reporting — always or often contributed. More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat.

In other words a rush to get a scoop and confirmation bias. I would add failure to adequate share the data, ALL OF IT, good and bad, and adequate documentation of technique.

       Nature has decided to take action against this problem.  They are introducing a checklist intended to prompt authors to disclose technical and statistical information in their submissions, and to encourage referees to consider aspects important for research reproducibility. 

http://www.nature.com/news/announcement-reducing-our-irreproducibility-1.12852

Lecture Series in Science-based Medicine

      Hardly a person alive has not relied on some cure or 'medical' treatment not yet or never-to-be approved by established medicine.  Be it vitamin supplements, chiropractic, fad diets, bio-magnets, or the like, it is all what used to be called "snake oil."  Most people consider such uses as harmless.  In many cases that is true, but in all cases the use of "snake oil" delays the use of real medical treatment - sometimes until it is too late.
      Since most people are likely to succumb to the promises of non-proven medical treatments in the hopes of that 'miracle', especially in non-curable and life-threatening diseases, identifying what is "real" versus what is "sham" is vital.
      The James Randi Educational Foundation has produced a superb 10-part video lecture series in which Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The topics include: What is CAM?; acupuncture; chiropractic; energy medicine; homeopathy; miscellaneous “alternatives”; naturopathy and herbal medicines; pitfalls in research; science based medicine vs. evidence-based medicine; science-based medicine in the media and politics. The lectures range from 32 to 45 minutes.She has also prepared the following course-guide:
http://web.randi.org/uploads/3/7/3/7/37377621/course_guide.pdf  

Here is the link to the videos on the various topics:

Studies Masquerading as Science

      Time and time again I hear, "Often the scientists tell us studies prove one thing and then, a little bit later, they say another study proves just the opposite."  The problem is neither claim may actually be science, but all too often only brainless media hype.

      John Oliver does a GREAT job explain what's happening in the following "must watch" video

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/05/09/john_oliver_explains_how_reported_scientific_studies_can_be_misleading_and.html

Check the Science Behind Biomedical Research

It's an unfortunate reality -- many biomedical research findings are ultimately proven to be illusory. 

 As a matter of fact, findings in medical research may be only slightly more reliable than Donald Trump's facts and only about as good as sport pundit expert picks against the spread.

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/Fulltext/2016/04261/Medically_Clear__Discovering_the_Truth_in_Science.1.aspx 

Be skeptical about the value of biomedical research:

* Size matters: Small numbers of observations or study subjects are more likely to produce spurious and nonreplicable results. Studies need thousands of subjects to be credible.

* Conflicts of interest: Expect bias by studies published by entities with an interest in the results.

* Confirmation bias: Results expected from a study greatly affects the likelihood of a finding being actually true.

* Double blind? Were the findings from randomized studies and have they been INDEPENDENTLY replicated.

* Valid Statistics: Proof in medicine is based on a two sigma threshold or 95% confidence. In physics 99.99% confidence is required.

Don't fall to the latest trendy supplement or super food. Check the science.  Confirm that it was vigorous

Retraction of Articles from Springer Journals

London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and . . .fabricated peer review reports. . . we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement.

http://www.springer.com/gb/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218