Hi! Welcome to my channel. My name is Pete and I am a Behavioral Scientist. I am trained in both psychology and behavioral science and I specialize in the science of habits! I make videos about all of those things, and make new videos every single week. Hope you enjoy your time here!
Пікірлер
Fauci as the head of drug regulation sat behind both left and right wing governments during the entire opioid epidemic with that stupid look on his face. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his role in it.
@GlennLouryShow I am sending these for a specific reason. That Sam Harris clip was sickening
@GlennLouryShow
@GlennLouryShow
100k. check.
I agree this doesn't rise to the kinds of flagrant and impactful instances of academic fraud you often discuss, but it's plagiarism. Harvard has a hard line on this sort of thing, and it's appropriate to hold Gay to the same standard. There are other academics whom she also plagiarized who think it's worse than you're suggesting. There are also other factors including her overall lack of published record compounding this. Lastly, it's unsurprising that other academics would support her (especially Harvard academics) given that this turned political. Have to look at the issue more objectively than simply taking the word of the academics involved. Again, I agree this is small, but it matters that she's the President of Harvard.
Any chance of putting a few more and longer ads. There's bits of a video interrupting the copious amount of ads. Channels like this are why yt is gone to the dogs, pure greedy uploaders. Well done for actively helping to destroy A FREE PLATFORM 👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
Congratulations on your channel reaching 100K subscribers!
Wow, that's horrible.
Gino was framed. Harvard is trying to fire Gino because she supports Palestine. That's why they're able to use their admin access to Gino's accounts to change her data. Justice for Gino.
That was quick Pete! Please refrain from falsely reporting my comments for hate speech in the future.
3 minutes of shilling ground news, disguising the first 2 minutes as a genuine part of the video. Time to watch this channel stall at 100k and never grow. People arent stupid. Look at the comment section, you traded your channels potential success for a quick buck. Ew.
10:40 error. Of course 3 is going to be more positive than 2-3 if 1 is the negative.
The image is correct but you said it backwards. Just lazy.
The logarithmic graph 🪦 (if only this level of shenanigans didn’t apply to the rest of pharma products…)
I'm trying to quit social media to focus on things that are more important in my life, like studying and working. Tiktok is proving to be the most addictive social network.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy. I might be drunk but at least I'm not insane.
Ah, your analysis of why right leaning publications is reporting this is flawed. You suggest it’s because right leaning publications dislike Harvard? Can you think of no more plausible reasons? Universities in general are left-leaning. The left tends to deny objective truth and advocates for subjective truth. The right believes in objective truth so reacts to the idea ‘facts’ can be made up. The left, not so much. Your analysis is slightly shallow.
Isn't it already long ago time discussed? That Xerox implemented an storage saving mechanism that produced false numbers? So you not only selling useless stuff online but also old wine in new vessels? 😊
Thank you for your videos, and I find it awesome that you put your own progress-bar to indicate the bit that corresponds to a product-placement. I don't mind watching it and I think this one was very relevant, but on top of that, I appreciate that it shows the level of respect you have for your viewers. A lot to learn from you :D
u should mention this is an infomercial upfront
Agreed
Now I understand why they got pounded in court. Thanks for the reporting.
Mate, the length of your embedded product placements is excessive.
"The Guardian, a *slightly* left-leaning Publication." hahaha
5:28, excuse me but you are wrong. What do you mean cutting up the data like this is p-hacking? What that paragraph is describing is comparing groups, as in t-tests or ANOVA. There is nothing wrong with that in terms of p-hacking. Now, you can argue that they are trying to find results first and then develop hypotheses for them and that is right. But that's not p-hacking or spurious results and many researchers frankly do this.
* You completely ignore that all submitted papers are first filtered by the journal editorial team, many many papers don't pass this first phase. * Papers usually go through multiple revision and review phases, where all reviewer comments are shared anonymously. This much reduces what you (mislabel) as noise prior to final acceptance. * Double blind reviews are the standard across all the journals I know (Ecology, Marine). I expect they are more widely and you are in your own niche. That extents to removal of ALL details, including the authors' institution * It is extremely rare for bad faith rejection, and such a rejection can be appealed and the paper can be submitted to a different journal. A much more common bias is to go easier on papers within the same area of research area because of the boosts to journal andreseacher metrics. Back scratching is much more common than back stabbing. * The people doing peer review are not most often professors, they are most often NOT professors. Professors will shunt off paper reviews to their PhDs and early year researchers as an important exercise * Peer review is their to weed out poor papers, poor research and repeated research. Anomalies arising through fakery, and erroneous p<0.05 are filtered out through REPLICATION. This is the MOST IMPORTANT element of the publication process.
you would think a doctor knows how to interpret a log plot.
As usual the devil is in the details.. There are a lot of people whose quality of life have been improved by opioids and their access to these drugs who are now suffering due to overreaction. The deaths are a result of illegal drugs flooding across the non border. There needs to be a medium found.Doctors are restricted from using their judgement and that is wrong.
Thank you Pete. You are a true research warrior. Restoring faith in academia one video at a time.
Can you talk about youtube monetisation?
They all have one white thing in common.
Are doctors really that easily fooled by a chart? I have so much less trust and respect for doctors now. What a bunch of fools.
So he discovered money can make you lie... He did prove something....
Damn hackers. Always changing data to better suit their victim's hypotheses. Diabolical
There is no excuse for doctors. Doctors knew EXACTLY what this drug did and how it worked. It made patients shut up just like morphine. To think that they thought, even if they were lied to, that this wasn't just an opioid, is idiocy. Blaming the pharmaceutical companies is a horrible idea because it let's doctors off the hook. And frankly doctors need to be on the hook. At the end of the day the doctors utterly failed. And now they are reciprocating by never ever ever prescribing anything addictive ever. NO BENZOS!!!! You can be hacking your lungs up with a chest infection unable to sleep. They will prescribe you Tussilon Pearls. Which is just high strength Robitussen. This is all disgusting. This issue and the willful manipulation of it is preventing access to essential medicines to people that need them: In the USA!!!!
Harvard was taken over by the wokies a few decades ago.
So, they take away pain relief then the numbers shoot through the roof. You get what you pay for. Stop the anti-pain killer campaign!
Bik has famously said “I am not here to make friends.” That is a warrior! kzread.info/dash/bejne/mntpmZt8hdzThLg.htmlsi=U5qsYGqR6VNpNyCu
Another one😅 kzread.info/dash/bejne/mntpmZt8hdzThLg.htmlsi=U5qsYGqR6VNpNyCu
Harvard is a stranger now. kzread.info/dash/bejne/mntpmZt8hdzThLg.htmlsi=U5qsYGqR6VNpNyCu
P-nas, hah. Sorry xd. Cool video!
Around 5:30: Just to know, would slicing the data like that to try to find a correlation or something, then making a study (with a proper sample) that focuses on that be alright? I feel like it would.
Someone citing something unrelated to the topic? That’s the Academic way I remember!!!