Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
For the Capua presntations, the slides had drmartinwilliams.com in the background.
Helen Branswell offered NO data. She waved her hands, made the statement, and took no questions. She also noted that she, like most science writers for the public press, had no science background (over 80%).
None of this is really new, but the presentation was a very good example of the popular press, up front and personal.
I am appalled at the apparent prevarication at what seems to be billed as a scientific conference (OK, maybe I am naive). Will there be proceedings or is there other documentation available for those of us who were not able to attend?
I am appalled at the apparent prevarication at what seems to be billed as a scientific conference (OK, maybe I am naive). Will there be proceedings or is there other documentation available for those of us who were not able to attend?
The deadline for submission of manuscripts for the proceedings is July 13 (but I can only submit one, although I submitted four abstracts).
The meeting was really a PR exercise. There was VERY little science.
There were more than 500 abstracts, but I am not sure if they are publicly available. The 5 that I was on are here
There were more than 500 abstracts, but I am not sure if they are publicly available. The 5 that I was on are here
Thank you for the link (and for your productivity and leadership in the field). I see that they gave you some decent presentation times and included you on a panel. There must have been some organizers interested in science.
How was your work received in general? Did it stimulate some good discussion? Was it worth your time to attend overall?
Thank you for the link (and for your productivity and leadership in the field). I see that they gave you some decent presentation times and included you on a panel. There must have been some organizers interested in science.
How was your work received in general? Did it stimulate some good discussion? Was it worth your time to attend overall?
No, they gave me 5 posters. The panel discussion and invited presentations were for other meetings.
Thank you for the link (and for your productivity and leadership in the field). I see that they gave you some decent presentation times and included you on a panel. There must have been some organizers interested in science.
How was your work received in general? Did it stimulate some good discussion? Was it worth your time to attend overall?
Thank you for the link (and for your productivity and leadership in the field). I see that they gave you some decent presentation times and included you on a panel. There must have been some organizers interested in science.
How was your work received in general? Did it stimulate some good discussion? Was it worth your time to attend overall?
I did have a good discussion with Ian Brown and a few other sequencers affiliated with the H5 Regional sites, and I did get a chance to meet NAMRU-3 people in person (Ken Earhart, Marshall Monteville, Jeff Tjaden, Magdi Saad, among others), but science at the meeting was in very short supply.
One of the more entertaining moments came when an audience member noted that calling various constellations of genes "genotypes", as in the "Z genotype", was incorrect, since gentoype refer to changes in gene sequences, and reassortment merely shuffles whole genes.
The heavy dependence on reassortment and "random mutations" was quite remarkable, even when phylogenetic trees of a single gene were being compared.
The influenza field has really created a fantasy world, which supports the scientifically unsupportable, by members supporting each other.
The (insert any name here) field has really created a fantasy world, ..... by members supporting each other.
True of so many fields.
.
"The next major advancement in the health of American people will be determined by what the individual is willing to do for himself"-- John Knowles, Former President of the Rockefeller Foundation
I suspect it is inertia and professional reputations. In all fields challenges to any form of 'accepted model' is perceived as an indirect attack on those who spent their career building that model. The flat earths are never going to be keen on some upstart trying to argue the world is a sphere, what a ridiculous idea, we would all fall off! It is a shame as it just slows down progress.
...... In all fields challenges to any form of 'accepted model' is perceived as an indirect attack on those who spent their career building that model. ........ It is a shame as it just slows down progress.
My reference was to this type of situation.
It's amazing that scientists can utilize the same "popularity factor" that politicians use to convince voters.
.
"The next major advancement in the health of American people will be determined by what the individual is willing to do for himself"-- John Knowles, Former President of the Rockefeller Foundation
I suspect it is inertia and professional reputations. In all fields challenges to any form of 'accepted model' is perceived as an indirect attack on those who spent their career building that model. The flat earths are never going to be keen on some upstart trying to argue the world is a sphere, what a ridiculous idea, we would all fall off! It is a shame as it just slows down progress.
Still think its money (greed)and power,all institutions including politics and religion are currupted this way.
The two are not unrelated. If you are after funding, an academic post, getting your papers into a prestigious journal etc. etc. then it is better to be the bright guy who is associated with the current model not the guy who developed the model that was in favour and is now thought to have been flawed or incomplete.
Tweet
Comment