/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14974410]

>anonymously shits all over your alarmist "COVID infection causes brain degeneration" study in the peer-review file, where he can't be shouted down or deplatformed for pointing out the flaws in your study

"Neurotoxic amyloidogenic peptides in the proteome of SARS-COV2: potential implications for neurological symptoms in COVID-19"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9189797/
Peer-review file: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9189797/bin/41467_2022_30932_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

"SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9046077/
Peer-review file: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9046077/bin/41586_2022_4569_MOESM3_ESM.pdf

Unironically science at its best.

[Anonymous No.14974424]

explain what you did

[Anonymous No.14974453]

>>14974410
>>anonymously shits all over your alarmist "COVID infection causes brain degeneration" study in the peer-review file, where he can't be shouted down or deplatformed for pointing out the flaws in your study
elaborate?

[Anonymous No.14974468]

>>14974424
>>14974453
The reviewer is scathing to both papers, basically calling them fraudulent and dangerous lies and outing them for what amounts to data fabrication.

[Anonymous No.14974504]

>>14974468
respect

[Anonymous No.14974793]

>>14974424
I didn't mean to suggest that I myself did anything. It's the gigachad meme, where all awesomeness gets attributed to gigachad.
Basically, there's still good science out there, but you have to dig into anonymous peer-review files and other low-Karen-confrontation-risk things.

[Anonymous No.14974796]

>>14974468
this "reviewer" sounds based. ;)

[Anonymous No.14974810]

>>14974468
Yes, a bunch of highly qualified reviewers essentially do this, but much more diplomatically, of course.
But you rarely see med reviewers outright saying that a paper shouldn't be published:

>Referee #2 (Remarks to the Author):
>With interest, I read the manuscript “Brain imaging before and after COVID-19 in UK Biobank by Douaud et al. However, there is a major principal and basic concern that not only substantially limits enthusiasm for the study, but also precludes a recommendation to publish these data

Plenty more of that in there. I've been spending a couple of weeks revisiting COVID studies and reading the peer-review files. It's like an entire different world of science vs. the public, Twitter-acceptable messaging.

[Anonymous No.14974820]

>Peer-review file: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9189797/bin/41467_2022_30932_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

>In conclusion I find that the SAXS/WAXS data do not contribute to the scientific merit of this paper.
>Differences in the amyloid structures for the two peptide sequences are shown from AFM, TEM and CD data alone, However, the paper fails to explore the significance of these differences upon the cytotoxicity. Indeed, the structural information provided by these physical characterization methods only serves to point to a possible amyloid structure at the peptide concentration used in these methods.
This is a key weakness in this paper to not interpret their findings further. I feel it is not acceptable to present, in a journal of this standing, results without further exploring their
impact on the conclusions drawn. Therefore, for the physical characterisation of amyloid fibrils, I would not recommend publication.


kek, sorry well-meaning science guy person, but the cult of fauci needs its scare-tactics headlines
this is based. can't believe I didn't see these files sooner.

[Anonymous No.14974825]

>Most importantly, the respective “references” of brain imaging, namely the neuropsychological tests, are highly problematic: in addition to the „classical” clinical COVID-19 symptoms
>„classical”
>„classical”
>„classical”
That's German quoting, right? They probably know who the reviewer is and gulag'd him. Actually, most of the reviewers are very harsh. Funny how none of this made it to the press articles.

[Anonymous No.14974835]

So, uhm, well, if the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes neurodegeneration, then what would happen if we injected people with RNA to turn their bodies into spike protein factories?

[Anonymous No.14974842]

Why is nature such a shitshow now? It's almost like I'd be embarrassed to publish there desu

[Anonymous No.14974875]

nature be damned, only science can save us now!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUDZi-qOPU

[Anonymous No.14974956]

>>14974835
Science happens, baby.

[Anonymous No.14974980]

>>14974810
has the public or science communication in general ever actually cared about peer review? at most somebody just glosses over the abstract/conclusion and decides the paper's mere existence is a silver bullet for whatever is to be argued

[Anonymous No.14974990]

>>14974980
Only when they can use it to silence people going against the soi consensus.

[Anonymous No.14975620]

Can you usually read review notes like this not just the paper?

[Anonymous No.14975635]

>>14975620
At least in the NIH listing, look under supplementary materials and see if they give out a peer review file. Not every journal does this. Nature does.