Author Topic: NIH: Black hole at Earth's center connects DNA to water molecules in 4D space  (Read 174 times)

Offline iam4liberty

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 5432
  • Karma: 370
  • New TSP Forum member
This is an emerging story.  Apparently a group of scientists from other disciplines got tired of the abysmal state of medical journals and their sole reliance on peer review process versus free speech open dialogue. To bring attention to the lapse in standards and the negative impact on society, they have been releasing bizarre articles in major medical journals.  They have been so successful that not only are they being published, but the National Institute of Health is promoting them. Here is a favorite:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31850126/
A Black Hole at the Center of Earth Plays the Role of the Biggest System of Telecommunication for Connecting DNAs, Dark DNAs and Molecules of Water on 4+N- Dimensional Manifold

Recently, some scientists from NASA have claimed that there may be a black hole like structure at the centre of the earth. We show that the existence of life on the earth may be a reason that this black hole like object is a black brane that has been formed from biological materials like DNA. Size of this DNA black brane is 109 times longer than the size of the earth's core and compacted interior it. By compacting this long object, a curved space-time emerges, and some properties of black holes emerge. This structure is the main cause of the emergence of the large temperature of the core, magnetic field around the earth and gravitational field for moving around the sun. Also, this structure produces some waves which act like topoisomerase in biology and read the information on DNAs. However, on the four-dimensional manifold, DNAs are contracted at least four times around various axis's and waves of earth couldn't read their information.

Finally, some in media are starting to pick up on this.  Hopefully this will have an impact on all the fake medical journal studies we have seen that politicians are drawing upon for life and death policy decisions.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/amp34166354/black-hole-center-of-earth-fake-study/
13 Scientists Say—in a Real Journal!—There's a Black Hole at the Center of Earth
They're trolling us ... we think. But how the hell did this get published?

Offline Mr. Bill

  • Like a hot cocoa mojito
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Survival Veteran
  • *******
  • Posts: 15347
  • Karma: 1878
  • Trained Attack Sheepdog/Troll hunter
Published in that internationally well known and respected journal, Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences.  Gosh, this proves that we should distrust medical research!

Great prank title, though.

Offline Greekman

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Karma: 207
  • New TSP Forum member
of course it would be published there!
this is a nationalistic propaganda venue, and for furthering it, it would accept anything.

Offline iam4liberty

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 5432
  • Karma: 370
  • New TSP Forum member
It is actually listed as a premium country journal.  And the link is to the NIH official site.

This is just one funny example to bring attention to the broken system. They did dozens.  It is widespread across all the medical journals includig the US and English ones. The huge Surgisphere Scandal caught all of them. 

The underlying issue is the overwhelming reliance on the subjective peer review system.  Peer review is not part of the scientific method and, in fact, can be destructive to it.  Open dialogue, healthy skepticism, and replication of results has been displaced by teams of politically appointed bureaucrats who by fiat declare what is "truth".  At best this is leading to random outcomes and at worse like in Surgisphere case, polical propagandizement.  Note what the former editor of Lancet is quoted as saying in this article:

https://theprint.in/science/einsteins-contempt-for-peer-review-wasnt-misplaced-it-is-something-of-a-lottery/356462/
Einstein’s contempt for peer review wasn’t misplaced, it is something of a lottery
The process of peer review has become inconsistent and subjective to the degree that it is unnervingly close to what you'd expect from purely random selection.


Unfortunately, peer review has problems that run deeper than the quality of any particular reviewer. The process is inconsistent and subjective to the degree that — in the words of Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal — it’s “something of a lottery.” Smith wrote that Robbie Fox, a one-time editor of the Lancet, went so far as to question “whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject.’” There’s a mountain of evidence that these claims aren’t far from the truth.
...
It seems paradoxical that scientists — ostensible paragons of evidence-based reasoning — would give such weight to the outcomes of peer review, despite the growing evidence of the system’s limitations. One reason is laziness: nothing’s easier than skimming through a colleague’s list of publications and noting where they appeared. But another may well be that relatively few scientists recognize just how flawed peer review is. It’s up to universities and academic associations, therefore, to examine the evidence and initiate an honest discussion of this question: Assuming the way in which we evaluate papers stays fundamentally the same, how should we evaluate each other?

Scientists should also work on solutions to the problems of peer review, as many are already doing. My own contribution to this effort is reported in a recent manuscript coauthored with two former colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, Ritesh Noothigattu and Nihar Shah. I am especially fond of this footnote: “Even papers about peer review are subject to peer review, the irony of which has not escaped us.” That irony, however, was apparently lost on our esteemed peers, who have thrice rejected the paper. To paraphrase a great scientist, I see no reason to address the — in any case erroneous — comments of these anonymous experts.


So, no, one should not just trust the medical research conclusions as published.  There is a need to do your homework.  It is easy to do.  Check the data.  Make sure it adds up.  Confirm replication.  Check for conflicts of interest.  Be active-minded.  Just dont take the spoonful you are being fed.  For goodness sakes, ask what it is!  Your life and those of your dependents rely on it.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2020, 10:03:10 AM by iam4liberty »