Definitely a valid criticism. But the question is how does a paper like that even get peer reviewed and accepted for publication if it was so fundamentally flawed? I wonder if it was political pressure that got the paper retracted. It's definitely happened before especially with more controversial topics (autism).
AI-Generated Language Is Beginning to Pollute Scientific Literature
Researchers from France and Russia have published a study indicating that the use of AI-driven probabilistic text generators such as GPT-3 are introducing ‘tortured language’, citations of non-existent literature and ad hoc, uncredited image reuse into previously respectable channels for the publication of new scientific literature.
we estimate Microprocessors and Microsystems accepted around 500 questionable articles: 389 papers with short duration of editorial assessment in volumes 80–83, plus additional papers not yet included in a volume. As of June 25, 2021 there were 225 such articles queued ‘in press’ which are ‘accepted, peer reviewed articles that are not yet assigned to volumes/issues, but are citable using DOI.’
how does a paper like that even get peer reviewed and accepted
My guess is that nothing's perfect, including the peer review process.
The human body is mostly not human. It's not surprising they found critters in masks. They're everywhere in and around us.
"The human body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe one in 10 of those cells is actually — human. The rest are from bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms."
They're playing whack-a-mole with the truth at this point. They'll fail.
Zuck and his friends have been like that for awhile.
Alex Jones was laughed at when sharing legitimate info about Atrazine.
Here's a Tucker Carlson segment showing instances of censored information from authoritative sources.
https://youtu.be/fdR0EHTX_5w
Why is there no mention of the fact the journal in question has retracted the research letter being referenced?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782288
Definitely a valid criticism. But the question is how does a paper like that even get peer reviewed and accepted for publication if it was so fundamentally flawed? I wonder if it was political pressure that got the paper retracted. It's definitely happened before especially with more controversial topics (autism).
https://www.unite.ai/ai-generated-language-is-beginning-to-pollute-scientific-literature/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.06751.pdf
My guess is that nothing's perfect, including the peer review process.
The human body is mostly not human. It's not surprising they found critters in masks. They're everywhere in and around us.
"The human body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe one in 10 of those cells is actually — human. The rest are from bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/06/13/154913334/finally-a-map-of-all-the-microbes-on-your-body
Yes, and these microorganisms belong ensconced in their proper locales in the human body, not in a mask being breathed directly into the lungs.
Not sure what you're saying about the critters they found. They were found in the mask.
Where would they be if there was no mask? In the lungs if they were going in, so the mask stopped them?
Or they came from inside and the mask stopped them on the way out? If so it's not the fault of the mask they were in there.