Podcasts about falsified

Guest: Mokgadi Fafudi | Manager at Regulatory Compliance for South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAPHRA) South Africa takes global lead in combatting falsified medicines. Africa Melane speaks to SAHPRA about the new National Action Plan designed to protect patients and ensure access to safe, effective medicines. Early Breakfast with Africa Melane is 702’s and CapeTalk’s early morning talk show. Experienced broadcaster Africa Melane brings you the early morning news, sports, business, and interviews politicians and analysts to help make sense of the world. He also enjoys chatting to guests in the lifestyle sphere and the Arts. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen.Thank you for listening to this podcast from Early Breakfast with Africa Melane For more about the show click https://buff.ly/XHry7eQ and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/XJ10LBUListen live on weekdays between 04:00 and 06:00 (SA Time) to the Early Breakfast with Africa Melane broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3NSubscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetcFollow us on social media:702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalkCapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalkCapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalkCapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

South Africa will today launch Africa's first National Action Plan, NAP to tackle substandard and falsified medical products. The initiative aims to curb the spread of fake and poor-quality medicines, which the World Health Organisation says claims numerous lives globally each year, often undetected. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, alongside the National Department of Health and WHO, will unveil the plan this morning. Elvis Presslin spoke to SAHPRA's Head of Regulatory Compliance, Mokgadi Daphney Fafudi

A FIFA ruling against the Football Association of Malaysia and seven players over falsified eligibility documents has sent shockwaves through the region. Sports Minutes get the perspective from across the causeway on the scandal, its impact on fans and domestic leagues, and what lessons Singapore and the region can draw from this crisis.Got a story to tell? Get in touch!raushan@sph.com.sgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on the Trump administration's investigation into DC Crime data.

About this episode: Trying to save money on antibiotics, GLP-1 antagonists, or other medications using online pharmacies can pose serious health risks. These sites are flush with substandard and falsified drugs, which can cause adverse side effects, leave serious conditions untreated, and, in some instances, lead to death. In this episode: Dr. Henry Michtalik shares how providers and patients can spot unregulated suppliers and report counterfeit drugs. Guest: Dr. Henry Michtalik, MHS, MPH, is a hospitalist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an assistant professor at both the School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. He is a co-principal investigator with the School of Public Health's BESAFE initiative. Host: Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast, an editor for Expert Insights, and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Fake medication is a problem across the world—DW Fake Drugs, Real Danger—Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health Magazine Verify Before You Buy—National Association of Boards of Pharmacy Report a Counterfeit Drug—U.S. Food and Drug Administration Transcript Information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

DEAR PAO: Falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is void and produces no legal effect | April 17, 2025Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.netFollow us:Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebookInstagram - https://tmt.ph/instagramTwitter - https://tmt.ph/twitterDailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotionSubscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digitalSign up to our newsletters: https://tmt.ph/newslettersCheck out our Podcasts:Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotifyApple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcastsAmazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusicDeezer: https://tmt.ph/deezerStitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimesVisit our website at https://www.manilatimes.netFollow us:Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebookInstagram - https://tmt.ph/instagramTwitter - https://tmt.ph/twitterDailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotionSubscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digitalSign up to our newsletters: https://tmt.ph/newslettersCheck out our Podcasts:Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotifyApple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcastsAmazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusicDeezer: https://tmt.ph/deezerStitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode the kings come together to the new deals that emerged leading to the death of the "Young Scooter". While also taking a long overdue review of Philly's own Brizzy On Da Beat" debut album "Under Construction" featuring many other prominent artist of the city. No show is complete without a "Ye" siting and misleading information from other entertainers. Enjoy the show and as always " IT'S THE KINGS"!!!!

Listen to our interview with Dr. Raquel Fortun on falsified death certificates of drug war victims to make it appear that they had died of natural causes. Fortun wants authorities to investigate these cases.

https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/25/3/12/n14456833.htm

https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/25/3/12/n14456833.htm

https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/25/3/12/n14456833.htm

https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/25/3/12/n14456833.htm

When Launceston nurse and midwife Amanda Duncan appeared at a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry into ambulance ramping last year, her testimony was macabre and shocking. Duncan claimed hospital management at Launceston General Hospital had altered death certificates – meaning deaths that should have been investigated were quietly recertified. Those revelations triggered a public inquiry, yet questions have been raised about its scope and accountability as new cases continue to emerge that extend far beyond the initial inquiry. Today, writer and former editor of The Monthly, Nick Feik, on his investigation into falsified death certificates and revelations of a broken health system. If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram Guest: Writer and former editor of The Monthly, Nick Feik Photo: AAP Image/Ethan JamesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

HOW THE TEMPERATURE RECORDS ARE FALSIFIED WITH CLIMATE WHISTLEBLOWER TONY HELLER COMMANDING THE NARRATIVE EPISODE 56 Steven Tripp and Kevin Loughrey are joined by Geologist, Environmentalist and Climate Whistleblower, Tony Heller. Tony Heller is considered as a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate. He has worked on climate and weather models for the United States Government and is an authority on whether climate models can be relied upon. Tony discusses in detail how the historical temperature records have been tampered with and how current authorities use that to manipulate and propagate their current climate narratives. Furthermore, Tony debunks the claim that 2024 was the ‘hottest year on record'. Tony is either loved or hated by those in the climate debate, but what is certain is that he is not willing to back down from his arguments. To contact or follow Tony Heller, visit: https://realclimatescience.com https://x.com/TonyClimate https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller To contact or follow Kevin Loughrey, visit: https://kevinloughrey.com.au KEEP UP TO DATE WITH ALL OUR PODCASTS AND ARTICLES, visit: https://www.commandingthenarrative.com To sign up to the Australians for Better Government for FREE, visit: https://www.australiansforbetter.com/join SHOW YOUR SUPPORT for Commanding the Narrative by donating – your support is much appreciated! https://www.commandingthenarrative.com/donate https://www.buymeacoffee.com/commandingthenarrative TO GET YOUR ‘Commanding the Narrative' merchandise, head to: https://xcandidates.tshirts.net.au CONTACT US BY EMAIL: commandingthenarrative@outlook.com steven.tripp@australiansforbetter.com Hosted by: • Steven Tripp - Internationally published political commentator https://x.com/RealStevenTripp https://www.facebook.com/theRealStevenTripp https://spectator.com.au/author/steven-tripp Follow Commanding the Narrative on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4GIXhHBogM1McL5EPGP3DT Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ExCandidates Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CommandingTheNarrative Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/commandingthenarrative X: https://x.com/commandthenarra YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@commandingthenarrative Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/commandingthenarrative Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@ExCandidates Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/commanding-the-narrative/id1631685864 Please share and spread the word! #AusPol #nswpol #interview #podcast #politics #commentary #narrative #minorparties #libertarian #onenation #uap #liberal #nationals #labor #greens #steventripp #australia #teals #senate #commanding #narrative #CtN #kevinloughrey #tonyheller #climatescience #tonyclimate #vistech #visitech

This is our weekly compilation of science news 00:00 - AI Scaling Hits Wall, Rumours Say. How Serious is it? 6:16 - New Calculation Finds we are close to the Kessler Syndrome 12:00 - "Moral Panic" over Social Media Causing Mental Health Problems in Children 18:04 - Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction – And No One Cares 23:25 - Physicists Changed Their Mind about Dark Matter Particles 29:29 - We are unlikely to be in this universe, new study finds. Multiverse falsified?

Website: https://phinancetechnologies.com/Home.asp Vaccine work https://www.humanityprojects.info/ Twitter https://x.com/dowdedward?s=21 Edward Dowd is currently a Founding Partner of Phinance Technologies, a global macro alternative investment firm. He is also author of the new book, "Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022." (Release Date: Nov 8, 2022, Skyhorse Publishing). Edward has worked on Wall Street most of his career, spanning both credit markets and equity markets. Some of the firms he worked for include HSBC, Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette and Independence Investments. Most notably, he worked at Blackrock as a portfolio manager where he managed a $14 billion Growth equity portfolio for ten years. After BlackRock, he founded OceanSquare Asset Management with two former BlackRock colleagues.

Substandard and falsified (SF) antimicrobials are a neglected global health problem and have been implicated as drivers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Substandard medicines are authorized medical products that fail to meet either their quality standards or their specifications, whereas falsified medicines are those that deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent their identity, composition or source. Host Angela Huttner is joined by Pernette Bourdillon Esteve, Technical Officer for the World Health Organization's Substandard/falsified Medical Products group, and Ben Cooper, epidemiologist at Oxford University and head of its Drug-Resistant Infection and Disease Dynamics (DRIaDD), to explore the effects of SF antimicrobials on people and AMR.This episode was edited by Kathryn Hostettler and peer-reviewed by Dr. Arjana Zerja of Mother Teresa University Hospital in Tirana, Albania. Literature Cavany S et al.  Nat Commun 14, 6153 (2023). doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41542-w WHO Global Surveillance and Monitoring System for substandard and falsified medical products (2017). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241513425 

Resident GP & CEO of Proactive Health Solutions, Dr Fundile Nyati on concerns over compounded versions of hugely popular weight-loss and obesity drugs which have led to the deaths of at least 10 people and 100 hospitalisations overseas, prompting warnings from the drugmakers and the SA Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). SAHPRA this week appealed to the public not to buy compounded versions of the drugs, saying there has been a concerning rise in falsified versions of these products being offered on websites and various social media platforms.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We welcome to the show Marc Mawhinney. Marc is the host of the Natural Born Coaches podcast, and has helped countless aspiring coaches in just about every conceivable niche build and sustain thriving coaching businesses.I've often said that the greatest strength of my own craft of podcasting is also its greatest weakness, that being just about anyone can do it.As you'll hear in this episode, the same can be said of coaching. Anyone can call themselves a coach, but actually finding a paid client, and then guiding them from Point A to Point B is a different matter entirely!In this episode, Marc shares in detail:His email strategy and mindset needed for consistent daily emailing to a specific market. His thoughts on what defines a coachOvercoming credibility issues in the coaching industryThe "3 Pillars Strategy" of marketing one's businessMaintaining personal integrity in the highly superficial digital age If you've thought about getting into the highly profitable coaching industry, but don't know where to begin, give this a listen and then check out Marc's offerings below!Episode highlights:00:07 Mark's Email Streak and Initial Challenges02:17 Transition to Daily Emails05:07 The Impact of Social Media and Authenticity08:51 Coaching in the Digital Age13:40 Exploring Niche Coaching Markets18:44 The Three Pillar Strategy for Coaches21:51 Conclusion and Contact InformationResources mentioned:Natural Born CoachesThe Coaching Jungle Facebook groupAbout the guest:Marc Mawhinney is a lifelong entrepreneur who has been helping coaches get more clients (without paid ads) since 2014! He's the host of the “Natural Born Coaches” podcast, which has almost 900 episodes released, and the Tarzan of “The Coaching Jungle” Facebook group which has over 25,000 coaches in that community. He's been a speaker at events like “Social Media Marketing World”, frequently makes media appearances, and has contributed for Entrepreneur.com. You can learn more about Marc at www.NaturalBornCoaches.com!You've been listening to Ba Vojdaan!, with James D. Newcomb. For more information about James, and to subscribe to the podcast, visit https://jamesdnewcomb.com. There you'll find a trove of materials available for immediate download. And be sure to follow James' travels and adventures on social media. All the info can be found at https://jamesdnewcomb.com. Thank you for listening!

A Helena hospital has agreed to pay the federal government nearly $11 million to settle allegations that it falsified billing paperwork for federal health programs.

Happy Sunday Family! The boys are back with another episode, diving into the impact of our actions, reflecting on God's plans versus our own intentions, and touching on what it really means to be the "littest guy ever" for your girl ?? We hope you're blessed as you listen!

An amended complaint was filed earlier this month in Cook County Circuit Court naming Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard in her individual capacity, Dolton Police Chief Lewis Lacey in his individual capacity, and Dolton Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (“BOFPC”) Board Member DeVonte Stewart in his official capacity as Defendants. The Complaint alleges falsified police sergeant tests scores, unlawful promotions, and that the BOFPC is required to have three commissioners, however, Mayor Henyard has yet to appoint any replacements for the two vacancies on the commission. The result of the two vacancies is that no business may be conducted, and no official action of the commission can happen due to lack of quorum, even though “pseudo official” action has purportedly taken place. Promotional testing for Police Sergeant was conducted, with “all promotions shall be made from the three having the highest rating” according to the Rules and Regulations of the Commission. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/darien-dunstan3/message

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (5/31/24). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v4wfbex","div":"rumble_v4wfbex"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): Here's what all 34 felony counts in Trump's hush money trial mean : NPR (11) Trump conviction reaffirms that "no one is above the law," Biden says (40) MenchOsint on X: "

In the Trump trial, Michael Cohen wraps his second day of incriminating testimony against Donald Trump. He was grilled by the defense in a sometimes testy cross-examination. Trump's lawyers seized on Cohen's past lies and recent attacks on the former president in hopes of discrediting the prosecution's star witness. We take you inside the courtroom from gavel to gavel with all the latest developments.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports the government is looking at another safety issue at Boeing.

AP correspondent Norman Hall reports on an FAA probe of Boeing worker inspection records.

In the aftermath of SBF's convinction, there have been a few posts trying to make sense of FTX. Some people are trying to figure out what happened, and some people are interested in trying to find clever defenses. I'm in a much more boring position: I am confident SBF is the fraud the world believes him to be. I hope this post can provide reasoning transparency on why I think this, and perhaps serve as an easy link for others who feel similarly but don't want to get bogged down in a point-by-point. Posted anonymously as some protection against future employers Googling [1]. I have divided this post into a summary of the major crimes and my basis for believing they occurred, an 'FAQ' dealing with some common misapprehensions I've seen on this forum and elsewhere, and an appendix explaining some crypto exchange basics / jargon for those [...] ---Outline:(00:56) Crimes(00:59) Misappropriation of Funds(01:51) Detail(14:47) Lying to lenders(17:21) Lying to FTXs investors(18:28) Lying to Banks(19:02) Detail(21:53) Bribing a Chinese official(23:55) Falsified revenue(25:07) Falsified Insurance Fund(26:20) FAQ(26:23) Didnt SBF only know about the hole in June 2022?(30:16) Didnt customers know their funds might be lent out?(32:37) Werent FTX and Alameda total messes? Intent matters; isnt it possible that this all got lost in the chaos?(35:13) Isnt FTX going to make all Customers whole? So there wasnt ever a hole?(35:47) FTX cashed out customers at bankruptcy prices(36:32) The assets those customers money had bought did well(37:12) Had FTX stayed afloat, things would be very different(38:58) Appendix(39:02) How crypto exchanges work(39:06) Spot Trading(40:54) Margin TradingThe original text contained 7 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: April 11th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qyN8M6zh6pnh8fmjR/understanding-ftx-s-crimes --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Sikonathi Mantshantsha, Journalist at News24 and Andrew Woodburn managing director at Amrop WoodburnMann discuss a South African investment firm, Summit Africa, with assets of R1.6 billion, being  embroiled in controversy. As co-founder and investment principal Langalezwe Madonko has admitted to falsifying academic and work credentials.    Carel de Jager, blockchain R&D lead at the CSIR chats about Bitcoin hitting $57 000 for the first time since late 2021, driven by investor demand and MicroStrategy Inc. purchases.    Warren Ingram, personal finance expert and co-Founder of Galileo Capital shares insights on whether residential property is a great investment. While it offers benefits like borrowing money to invest and not being as affected by stock market fluctuations, there are downsides too, he explains there. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A South African investment firm, Summit Africa, with assets of R1.6 billion, is embroiled in controversy. Co-founder and investment principal Langalezwe Madonko has admitted to falsifying academic and work credentials. This revelation has stunned the investment community, especially given the firm's high-profile clients like Telkom and municipal pension funds. Sikonathi Mantshantsha, journalist at News24, and Andrew Woodburn, managing director at Amrop Woodburn Mann discuss. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the final installment of the series, we cover all that is known about the mysterious death of this strangely GLADIO-brained scholar of classical Japanese literature and favorite translator of “aesthetic terrorist” Mishima Yukio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You may have heard about substandard or falsified syrup harming children and even causing deaths. There have been reports of falsified diabetes and weight loss treatments. How can you protect yourself? How does WHO keep you safe from substandard or falsified medical products ? WHO's Pernette Bourdillon Esteve explains in Science in 5.

The widespread use of fake evidence in planning applications from livestock farms may have led to increased water pollution in Northern Ireland, including the toxic blue-green algae we reported on this summer in Lough Neagh. That's according to the Belfast based investigative journalism network, The Detail. Since 2015 farmers in Northern Ireland wanting to build new sheds to house livestock like pigs and poultry have had to submit soil samples to show their land will be able to absorb the extra animal waste, or slurry, without it running off into rivers and causing pollution. The Detail's investigation says that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency found that between 2015 and 2022, 87 percent of those samples - that's more than a hundred - were fabricated or doctored to get around planning regulations. After weeks of heavy rainfall, we join one farmer trying to harvest sprouts in a quagmire. And presenter, Caz, braves the cold water to meet a group of swimmers as they travel from "source to sea" along the River Eden in Cumbria. Presented by Caz Graham Produced for BBC Audio in Bristol by Heather Simons

Touro Infirmary in New Orleans recently launched a program to offer free postpartum home visits to anyone who gives birth at the hospital. Advocates of this initiative see it as a way to tackle Louisiana's high rates of maternal and infant mortality.  Josie Abugov, a reporter for Verite News, joins us to talk about what the program has accomplished so far – and what nurses see as the biggest obstacles. A recent investigation into the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board found that a handful of the agency's quality samplers had  falsified drinking water testing results. According to the findings, up to five employees did not make all the stops they are supposed to make, in order to ensure the city's drinking water is up to par. News of the lax monitoring is leaving residents and regulators wondering if water quality reports from that time are accurate. We talk with Matt McBride, who has been investigating the issue for the Louisiana Illuminator.  The music organization Notes for Education Northshore Fund is gearing up for its first Twilight Symphony concert, an outdoor concert by candlelight in Slidell. The performance will feature The Pan String Quartet in what's being billed as a multi-sensory musical experience.  The program's co-founder, Don Thanars, joins us for more on the performance, and how the organization aims to inspire aspiring musicians. Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Diane Mack. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber and our assistant producer is Aubry Procell. Our engineer is Garrett Pittman. You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at 12 and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, Google Play and wherever you get your podcasts.  Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you! Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to. Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scoffed at Rep. Byron Donalds' bid to become the new House Speaker, RadarOnline.com has learned.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On closer examination of the chosen one, it all looks like a huge deception. The complete exposure of illigitimate 44. Wayne Madsen's revealing earlier investigations. A huge consortium of shadowy people. Who was Soeharko? Now is a good time to stay away from large crowds. Barak Obama, test tube baby. His largely unknown inheritance was huge. A far off hospital on an island. Saul Alinsky was a mentor to be proud of. Mark Seidenberg provides accurate research. How Hawaii details were related. Was all this to develop a banker's boy? Hidden records and hot zone training. South Chicago didn't trust him. Momma was an exotic. The Man's Country private club. Pre-AIDS testing gets started. Ten fetish rooms available. Larry Sinclair goes public. A fully equipped dentist chair in the basement of the White House. A drowned chef can't talk. Falsified corporate histories setup by the CIA. A fully complicit and totally controlled media. Pulling off the hits with the Bush's. Human trafficking included. Real reporters risk death. Michael Hastings, his work and his murder. The Feinstein legacy. Evil is the absense of God. Our nation is going through a day of death, so we must look hard to find our faith. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What are ‘bad medicines'? How do they make it onto our shelves? And what is being done to address substandard and falsified medicines in the Indo-Pacific? In this week's episode, we delve into the ongoing problem of ‘bad medicines', otherwise known as substandard and falsified medicines. Our guest is Dr. Paul Huleatt, strategic partnerships and programme implementation lead at the international regulatory branch of the Therapeutic Goods Administration.Based in Singapore, Dr Huleatt works closely with regulators across the Indo-Pacific on a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-funded regulatory strengthening programme. Paul also acts as the Australian Chair of the Steering Committee for the World Health Organization's Member State Mechanism on substandard and falsified medicines.In this episode we discuss: what ‘bad medicines' are, how they are created, and the history of this issue that dates back 100 years the systems that are in place to detect and prevent bad medicines how the Australian Government's Pacific Medicines Testing Program is working to detect and prevent bad medicines how the Indo-Pacific Regulatory Strengthening Program is building capacity with regulatory authorities in the Indo Pacific and providing regulatory support to countries that don't have regulatory authoritieswhat's next in the fight against substandard and falsified medicines in the Indo-PacificYou can find out more about the WHO Member State Mechanism on Substandard and Falsified Medical Products here: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MVP-EMP-SAV-2019.04A link to a news article on the case study in Indonesia that is discussed in the podcast is here: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indonesia-revokes-firms-fever-syrup-licences-amid-probe-into-150-deaths-2022-10-31/We encourage you to join the conversation and follow Australia's Ambassador for Regional Health Security Dr Stephanie Williams at @AusAmbRHS.

Jack Daleo - Staff Writer - Flying Magazine - Chicago, IL https://www.freightwaves.com/news/faa-suspects-nearly-5000-pilots-concealing-medical-issues-to-keep-flying

This week, a legislative hearing is set to discuss the findings from an audit surrounding fake tickets submitted by state police in the last decade. We spoke with Senator Herron Gaston who co-chairs the Public Safety and Security Committee overseeing the hearing. ((00:00)) Governor Lamont announced a $3 million state grant to support the remediation of a vacant Fairfield site and construct a transit-oriented development. It will include 240 housing units, retail, co-working, and public amenity space at the site adjacent to the Fairfield Metro train station. Fairfield First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick explained the history of the site and addressed some residential concerns. ((17:12)) Since affirmative action was recently eliminated by the Supreme Court, we spoke to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities about what happens next.. Mike Roberts discussed the trickle down effect not just for college enrollment, but also for jobs, housing and much more. ((34:34)) IMAGE CREDIT: iStock / Getty Images Plus

  Slam the Gavel welcomes Rob and Jaime Jolicouer back to the podcast. Rob and Jaime were last on the podcast Season 4, Episode 12. They have been married for 18 years and have been providing a loving, stable home for their teens in North Carolina.     Their nightmare with DSS began in May/early June 2020 when Jaime reported a person who had been a family friend to Thomasville Police Department for inappropriate behavior with their then 16yr old daughter as well as the man's own step daughter (We will call him Mr. A). Naturally, they had to contact DSS Davidson County, where they had been living at the time.     However, they were questioned, given drug tests, and were told that their daughter would need to go in for an exam and questioning. Because of the relationship with the alleged perpetrator, they would not be able to accompany their daughter at all. It would have to be the DSS caseworker, Staci Gray, or her supervisor Kim Craver, who would take her.  NOTHING ever came of it, they simply NEVER showed up.      Their son who was 15 at the time, had always suffered from social anxiety. But after the shut downs, it became severe when he tried to go back to school. Jaime made a doctor's appointment for him, so they could get a referral to a psychiatrist.      The doctor never gave a referral.  He wanted their precious son to go to Moses Cone Mental Ward for an Emergency Mental Evaluation.     Naturally, their son who was too anxious to deal with a school environment, panicked at the idea of a hospital. He was in a full blown panic mode, so his parents refused to force him.      While waiting for a second opinion and the referral they had asked for in the first place. But when Randolph County, DSS showed up that is when their NIGHTMARE truly began. Over the last year and a half, Rob and Jaime have gained a true understanding of just how TWISTED and CORRUPT these MONSTERS truly are.      FALSIFIED urine drug tests, which Jaime proved were false, while describing how they perform a urine drug screen on parents (while re-traumatizing these victims), she herself would never believe this was happening. NOW she and Rob are LIVING in a nightmare that will not end.     Rob and Jaime discussed the latest in their case. Their two children are now in a foster home together and closer to home. But their children will never be the same. Their son, once a happy child is now bitter. Once CPS removes a child from their fit, loving parents, THEY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. This legalized child trafficking of their family has been so egregious that Jaime has missed out on helping her daughter pick out her prom dress; a MILESTONE, missed. NONE OF THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. They are also being DENIED their own TRANSCRIPTS. Rob and Jaime stated to warn others that, "court appointed attorneys work FOR THE CITY." The taxpayer needs to know.To Reach Rob Jolicouer : Facebook Messenger Rob Jolic                                                        rljolicoeur725@yahoo.comThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Former U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant, Jessie Jane Duff, joins Marc to discuss Joe Biden wanting to raise the debit ceiling.

Identities are under attack and with few ways to either validate or authenticate, it's difficult to know whether a company or person you are communicating with is fake or not. Today's guest is Mike Kiser. Mike Kiser is currently the Director of Strategy and Standards at SailPoint. He speaks regularly at events such as The European Identity Conference and The RSA Conference. He is a member of several standards groups and has presented identity related research at Black Hat and DevCon. Show Notes: [0:46] - Mike shares his current role at SailPoint and what he does to help people protect themselves online. [1:48] - As identity has risen in importance, so have job scams. [2:44] - The rise is not surprising, as more people look for remote work. [3:50] - Generally, employment scams are targeting remote and online applicants. [6:10] - Mike describes some of the ways these scams work including receiving fake checks and wording to target those who are looking for side work. [8:04] - Fake LinkedIn accounts are on the rise and it is very easy to target specific types of people and build off of common connections. [10:01] - In 2019, Mike created a fake profile and he describes the easy infiltration to any organization's LinkedIn connection. [11:47] - There has been an obvious uptick in generic LinkedIn contact in the last few months. [15:13] - Business people need to connect, so it can be tricky. Mike explains how to take a close look at new connections. [17:13] - With generative AI, communications are even more convincing. [18:41] - Falsified job applications are also on the rise. [20:33] - Fake identities are more and more in play for different malicious use cases, not just for jobs. [22:58] - Mike shares the experience of a family member realizing that they were talking to a scammer. [25:08] - We all customize a resume to match a job, but AI is making things much more challenging. [27:05] - Applicants and potential new hires will be able to easily outsource and it will become more common. [31:22] - The pandemic accelerated the importance of validating identity. [33:31] - There is also a unique opportunity for privacy to be changed right now and there is some good potential. [36:40] - Multi-factor authentication fatigue is a real problem. [39:27] - Eventually, Mike believes all things will shift to QR codes. [41:17] - What are the pros and cons of QR codes and how can they change the user experience? [42:24] - The job market is going to continually change and we have to learn how to interact with people differently. Thanks for joining us on Easy Prey. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast on iTunes and leave a nice review.  Links and Resources: Podcast Web Page Facebook Page whatismyipaddress.com Easy Prey on Instagram Easy Prey on Twitter Easy Prey on LinkedIn Easy Prey on YouTube Easy Prey on Pinterest SailPoint Website Mike Kiser on LinkedIn MikeKiser.org

Tucker Carlson cited falsified documents to spread Russian misinformation. Elon's rocket company SpaceX scrubbed the first launch of Starship. The GOP are being loads about approving a replacement for Diane Feinstein on the judiciary. Former SNL cast member but current bigot Victoria Jackson earned another MAGAT merit badge with a moronic homophobic rant at a city council meeting. Trump wants a woman as a running mate for 2024 and Mama Nazi, AKA Marjorie Taylor Greene, is on the horrific shortlist. In Kansas City, a teenager went to the wrong house to pick up his brother and an old white racist shot him. Insurrectionist and creep extraordinaire Ali Alexander apologized after he was accused of asking a teen for a nude pic. Shitler still wants FOX to admit he won in 2020.

KSQD 2023-03-11: A few examples of falsified data and other problems in scientific studies; Comments on timing of intermittent fasting; AbbVie pharmaceutical company blocked competitors to keep Humera on patent and block cheaper generics; Review of a wound-healing nutrition product -- just eat the equivalent food! Glutamine, which can be beneficial, is not the same as MSG; Should I take NAD or vitamin B3? You don't need expensive forms of iodine; Discussion of marijuana sensitivity issues; A discussion of menopause issues such as hot flashes; Initial colorectal cancer screening by fecal blood test or colonoscopy is now recommended starting at age 45

Hello everyone, and welcome to Ideas Untrapped podcast. My guest for this episode is Decision Scientist, Oliver Beige - who is returning to the podcast for the third time. Oliver is not just a multidisciplinary expert, he is one of my favourite people in the world. In this episode, we talk about scientific expertise, the norms of academia, peer review, and how it all relates to academic claims about finding the truth. Oliver emphasized the importance of understanding the imperfections in academia, and how moral panics can be used to silence skeptics. I began the conversation with a confession about my arrogance about the belief in science - and closed with my gripe about ‘‘lockdown triumphalism''. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, and I am grateful to Oliver for doing it with me. I hope you all find it useful as well. Thank you for always listening. The full transcript is available below.TranscriptTobi;I mean, it's good to talk to you again, Oliver. Oliver; Tobi, again.Tobi;This conversation is going to be a little bit different from our previous… well, not so much different, but I guess this time around I have a few things I want to get off my chest as well. And where I would start is with a brief story. So about, I dunno, I've forgotten precisely when the book came out, that was Thinking Fast and Slow by the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman. So I had this brief exchange with my partner. She was quite sceptical in her reading of some of the studies that were cited in that book. And I recall that the attitude was, “I mean, how can a lot of this be possibly true?” And I recall, not like I ever tell her this anyway…but I recall the sort of assured arrogance with which I dismissed some of her arguments and concerns at the time by saying that, oh yeah, these are peer-reviewed academic studies and they are most likely right than you are. So before you question them, you need to come up with something more than this doesn't feel right or it doesn't sound right. And, what do you know? A few years, like two or three years after that particular experience, almost that entire subfield imploded in what is now the reproducibility or the replication crisis, where a lot of these studies didn't replicate, a lot of them were done with very shoddy analysis and methodologies, and Daniel Kahneman himself had to come out to retract parts of the book based on that particular crisis. So I'm sort of using this to set the background of how I have approached knowledge over my adult life. So as someone who has put a lot of faith naively, I would say, in science, in academia and its norms as something that is optimized for finding the truth. So to my surprise and even sometimes shock - over different stages of my life and recently in my interrogation of the field of development economics, people who work in global development - [at] the amount of politics, partisanship, bias, and even sometimes sheer status games that academics play and how it affects the production of knowledge, it's something that gave me a kind of deep personal crisis. So that's the background to which I'm approaching this conversation with you. So where I'll start is, from the perspective of simply truth finding, and I know that a lot of people, not just me, think of academia in this way. They are people who are paid to think and research and tell us the truth about the world and about how things work, right? And they are properly incentivized to do that either by the norms in the institutional arrangements that birthed their workflows and, you know, so many other things we have known academia and educational institutions to be. What is wrong with that view - simply academia as a discipline dedicated to truth finding? What is wrong with that view? Oliver;There's many things. Starting point is that it was not only Daniel Kahneman, behavioral economics has multiple crises also with Falsified work. Not only with wrong predictions, wrong predictions are bad but acceptable. This is part of doing science, part of knowledge production. But Falsification is, of course, a bigger problem now and they had quite a few scandals in that. The way I approach it always is sort of like a metaphor from baseball. Basically there's something called the Mendoza Line in baseball which is a hitter that has a 200 hitting average. This is like the lowest end of baseball. If you go below 200, then you're usually dropped off the baseball teams. And on the upper end you have really good hitters that hit an average of like 300 or something. If you have a constant 300 average you usually get like million dollar contracts, right? We can translate this to science in a lot of ways. Of course, there is a lot of effort involved in going from a 200 average to a 300 average to a 20% average of being right to 30% a average of being right. But still if you're at a 300 level, you're still wrong 70% of the time. And so the conversations I observe, they're people that are not specialists in a field [and] we're trying to figure out who is right in a certain conversation. Talking about conversations in a scientific field we basically try to use simple pointers, right? One of the pointers is of course a paper that has gone through peer review. You see these conversations of like, okay, this paper has not been peer reviewed, this paper has been peer reviewed. But peer review does not create truth. It sort of reduces the likely likelihood of being wrong somewhat but it doesn't give us any indicator of this is true. The underlying mechanism of peer review usually cannot find outright fraud. Cannot detect outright fraud. This happened quite a few times. And also peer review is usually how close is the submitted paper to what the reviewers want to read. There is a quality aspect to it, but ultimately it changes the direction of the paper much more than it changes quality. So academia overall is a very imperfect truth finding mechanism. The goal has to be [that] the money we spend on academic research has to allow us to get a better grasp of so far undiscovered things, undiscovered related relationships, correlations, causal mechanisms, and ultimately, it has to give us a better grasp of future and it has to give us a better grasp of what we should do in order to create better futures. And this all basically comes down to, like, predicting the future or things that were in the past but yet are to be discovered. Evolution tends to be a science that is focused on the past, looking at things in the past. But there's still things we have to discover, connections we still have to discover. And this is what academia is about. And the money, the social investment we put into academia has to create a social return in the way that we are better off doing the things we need to do to create a better future for everyone. And its [academia] track record in that regard has been quite mixed. That's true.Tobi;So let's talk a little bit about incentives here. Someone who has also written quite a lot, who talked so much about some of the issues - I think he's more focused on methods. He's andrew Gelman, the statistician. I read his blog quite a lot, and there's something he consistently allude to and I just want to check with you how much you think that influenced a lot of the things that we see in academia that are not so good, which is the popularity contest - the number of Twitter followers you have; whether you are blue checked or not; bestselling books; Ted Talks that then lead to people making simplistic claims. There's the issue of scientific fraud, right, some of which you alluded to also in behavioral economics, behavioral science generally. There was recently the case of Dan Ariely, who also wrote a very popular book, Predictably Irrational, but who was recently found to have used falsified data. And I recall that you also persistently criticized a lot of people during the pandemic, even till date - a lot of people who made outright wrong predictions with terrible real life consequences because policymakers and politicians were acting under the influence of the “expert” advice of some of these people who will never come out to admit they are wrong and are less likely to even correct their mistakes. So how is the incentive misaligned? Oliver; Okay, many questions at once. How does academia work? And like I always like to say that academic truth finding or whatever you want to call it is not too far away from how gossip networks work. The underlying thing is, of course, any kind of communication network is basically sending signals. In this case, snippets of information, claims, hypotheses and the receiver has to make a decision on how credible this information is. You have the two extreme versions, which is basically saying, yeah, I just read this paper and I think this paper makes a good claim and is methodologically sound or I just read this paper and this paper is crap as everything about it is wrong. So you basically start with a factual claim and an evaluation. This happens in science Twitter in the same way a gossip network communicates typically good or bad news about the community. Also, a gossip network communicate hazards within the community, sending warnings, which is what academics have been doing quite a bit over the last two and a half years. And they also have this tendency to, a) exaggerate claims, reduce claims, and [they] also have this tendency to create opposing camps. Because very few middling signals are being retransmitted. I've been watching the funeral of the Queen, I have no strong opinion about British royalty in either direction so if I post something on Twitter about it, nobody will retweet. And, of course, the two extreme ends will be retweeted. This is how Twitter works, but it's also how science usually works. You'll see that strong claims in either direction are being transmitted much more frequently than middling moderate claims. So the bifurcation of opinions is inherent in both of them. This element of credibility, that you build credibility, based on how someone else reflects your own beliefs. Your own prior beliefs, really. This is the core mechanism [that if] I read something that confirms my prior beliefs, I'm much more likely to retransmit it with a positive note that "I really like this and I think it's methodologically sound." And if it's something that contradicts my prior beliefs, I'm very much more inclined to question its methodology. And I think we've seen this to an extreme over the two and a half years because we had situations where the discussion was very polarized. And the really bad thing to observe in a scientific discourse in general, but also the amplified scientific discourse on Twitter, is like the absolute lack of quality control when something confirms one's own prior beliefs. So this is usually what a scientist has to do. Like, if I get something that confirms my beliefs, I still have to do a minimum quality control [to check] if it's actually methodologically sound. And this clearly did not happen. People were just passing on anything that confirmed their beliefs and basically expected someone else to do the quality control. The first job any academic has is basically to subject everything, even that confirms your beliefs, and this is also [what] you think is true, you still have to subject it to quality control. And clearly this rarely ever happens. This is why academia is supposed to run on confrontation that, basically, the other camp does it. But if you bring academia together with Twitter, which is [an] amplification network that runs on social engagements, likes and retweets, then you have a very toxic mix. And this is the situation we had over the last two and a half years, how scientific communities can coalesce around things that are just not empirically sustainable.Tobi;Now pardon my language, there's a way that academics, whether they are scientists or social scientists (I know economists are particularly notorious in this arena), they completely f**k with your mind when you're a skeptic. So I'll give you an example. Two days ago…I opened with the replication crisis in psychology, so two days ago, I read a SubStack by someone who is presumably a psychologist, who was then basically complaining that, “oh, yeah, after the replication crisis, a lot of them in academia who were doing PhDs, were also having their own crisis of confidence, because then you have to confront a public who thinks they know everything.” So, like, you describe your study or you say you found something and someone says, "oh, but the field didn't replicate." The whole thing just sounded like some weak apologia that just didn't make any sense. I recall that sometimes a little bit after the financial crisis [of] '07-'08, if I recall correctly, Paul Krugman was dismissing something Talib, Nicholas Nassim Talib, wrote by saying that, oh, if you think you found something that a whole community of academic experts… I'm not quoting him verbatim, I'm paraphrasing… If you think you found anything that a whole academic community of experts missed, then you are most likely to be wrong.So, it brings me to the question of skepticism and how to approach it, because at the other extreme end of this is to say… and certainly there are people like that in the world today who think that no scientific knowledge is true, who question even proven medicine, and there are also conspiracy theorists who say outrightly false things for their own motives, no doubt. So, like, how does one deal with skepticism? Especially if you have conspiracy theorists and outrightly ignorant people on one side, and on the other side you have academic confusion or experts who out of their own biases or some of these institutional and social problems that you have described can also not really come out and admit that, oh, we botched this and this and this is what we are doing to correct our errors. How do you handle skepticism in such a milieu?Oliver; The first thing is and it's also the reason why I like the baseball metaphor is if you are [an] academic, you're an expert in a field, you spend far more time studying this field than others, you're communicating with other experts in the field, so you can get this feeling, and probably justified feeling that because you put more effort into it you should get more reward in the form of more recognition and more credibility. But you should also come up with a realization or understanding that any field you're in and that includes economics and all other fields, there are so many things that are still undiscovered, so many things that are undiscoverable that we have to build axiomatic constructs around in order to actually help us move forward. And if you're able as an academic to move from 20% right over many years to 30% right, you're still 70% wrong. So these are not empirical numbers, but I think they get the point across. And if you don't get that, then you're doing something wrong in academics in general, right? And we've seen this arrogance that was not supported by imperial superiority, like, quite a bit over the last years. Especially Paul Cook when he got some of the things very wrong just recently when he came out, when he admitted that most macroeconomists have been dead wrong about inflation for over a year. And then he claimed that nobody could have foreseen that. This is doubly wrong. You can be arrogant or you can be incompetent, but you cannot be both at the same time. Basically, academia is also a competition for attention. This is an attention industry and exaggerated claims get more attention than moderate claims. So this is not a problem. The problem is, and I see in the discussion is the complete absence of understanding of what the scientific method entails. And that clearly, a lot of academics become specialists in a particular subsection of the scientific method but don't have an understanding of how the whole thing works. Which is interesting, especially in economics, because economics has this very strong claim that it underwent An Empirical Revolution over the last 20 years, which is certainly true. Econometrics have got a much bigger role over the last 20 years, but they also claimed that because they underwent an empirical revolution, they also underwent a credibility revolution, that their results are much more credible and this is a much bigger claim. And this is not a claim that recent events have validated or recent economic performance has not been up to par to support it. But the key thing [is that] the scientific method is basically starting out from a theory which does not have to be a formal way of expressing, but you have to have an overarching idea of how things are connected, how some things cause other things. And from this, you have to be able to create predictions. Basically, foresee future discoveries. And you do this in a number of steps. The first step is usually formalization. You try to come up with a formal model. There are lots of discussions about like, okay, how formal does a model have to be? Usually, formalization is a self-discipline device. It means that you don't come up with ad hoc predictions, but the predictions are based on a clear mechanism that should be working under a variety of conditions. And then once you have a formal model, which we've seen a lot of people trying to build formal models over the last few years, and a lot of them have gotten more attention than they deserved or that they expected, and then you come up with a hypothesis. Hypothesis usually means are you comparing your own view of the world to competing views of the world. You try to find the positions where they diverge the most or where it becomes visible. And then you do empirical test experiments. Or in economics, you try to do a natural experiment or control trials in order to show that your overarching theory, your model, is closer to the truth than the competition. But the key is also and this is remarkably what a lot of people have just simply missed out on, this is the replicability and the role of moving away from a subjective view of the world to an objective view of the world so this can be refuted or replicated by others.And this also means that people who are opposed to your viewpoint have to admit that your view of the world was better than others. And this has almost completely broken down. Because in the two scenarios, economics (macroeconomics) in particular has been dead wrong, especially about inflation which is really one of the core predictive elements of macroeconomics and they have been dead wrong for an extended period of time for the very simple reason because they did not want to acknowledge it. And this is a problem, right? So then we start obfuscating about where you went wrong and you're trying to play political games that being wrong was not just unexpected change in economic environment or social environments or something but being dead wrong was basically caused by your model being fundamentally wrong. Very clearly economics should be in a crisis. The crisis should be clear within the field and the less the field itself owns up to this crisis, the more the outside world [should] pressure the field itself to come clear with its wrong predictions because the cost of getting these things wrong are staggering Tobi;True. So I have three questions but I'll ask them differently. You mentioned towards the end of your answer you talked about political games which is something that also gets me really angry and sometimes confused. And a related issue about that I found also is in development economics. But that will take us into the second question. So let's talk about the politics here. For example, take a field like economics which is highly partisan. You have some people that are called neoliberal economists. Some people are socialists, some people are heterodox, some people are capitalists. I know within the field of macroeconomics itself, they have all these other labels - new Keynesian monetarist, you know, whatever. But what I'm getting at is the role of partisanship, because you always have rival camps accusing themselves of partisanship. One story I related to, which I'm sure you also must have come across is - I saw a story on Twitter a couple of weeks ago before the Chilean constitutional referendum that Mariana Mazukato, Gabriel Zukman and Thomas Piketty, who are all economists, who are all leftists, who mix their research with political preferences and policy advocacy, plan to travel to Chile to celebrate the new draft constitution because it's a win for justice, it's a win for this or that. It's the final rejection of the Pinochet dictatorship and the neoliberal imposition that is. I did not encounter in that particular discourse chain anybody asking what is good for Chile, and Chileans, and even more relevantly how Chileans feel about this. And, I mean, what do you know? The referendum happened and 60% of the voters rejected the new draft. And I know that partisanship and political games, like you said, play not just in economics, it happens in other fields as well. So I'm curious - is this okay? And how exactly did should I say, scholars, particularly in social science, people that have been able to make extraordinary contributions to our body of knowledge and what we know, how have they managed to keep their politics, their personal politics away from their work? Or is it just that everything just used to be easier before we had Twitter? Oliver;Politics and economics have been intermixed long before Twitter. So this is not particularly new, and the mechanism itself is also not new. But your starting point is basically, as I said, like, very simplified that the role of academia is to predict the future and to design strategies to reach good futures. So in that situation, it's not surprising that academics take political positions. The problem comes in, of course, that if the ideological mix in academia and the ideological mix in the overall population and the ideological mix in sort of the ruling elites don't line up. This is a tricky situation, but being close enough to the highest echelons of power for long enough to observe what happens. If you have a change in the administration in Washington DC, then usually the new administration brings in economic experts from favourite schools. And then if the administration loses to the other party, then the other party brings in their favourite economists. So in that regard, if you have this semiconstant exchange of viewpoint, an economic viewpoint gets discredited, it gets replaced via the political process with other people, this is usually how you get closer to the view - I used to call it the drunk unicyclist. You're not really moving forward in a straight path, but you're moving around left and right, and you just try to avoid falling into a ditch. And this is what we observe. No political process is perfect. And as long as the political interests of the academics and the political interests of the elite are aligned with population ones, this is as good as we can get it. I generally have a problem with ideology in economics, but it's inevitable. And my quality is that I be able to read and appreciate writers from the left end of the spectrum, on the right end of the spectrum. I usually deduct points over ideological bent. But good thinkers can make good points even if they are driven by ideology. The problem also comes in when there is essentially no penalty for being wrong in academia. So basically being wrong and being catastrophically wrong externalizes the damage to others. So the worst scenario you do if you're tenured faculty, sort of what I call the endowed chair blue check, like a tenured faculty with a wide reach in social media, you can be dead wrong,you can be persistently wrong, completely unwilling to own up being wrong, and there's no real penalty to it. This is the major problem we're facing right now.Tobi;So that then brings me to the question of niches or what I'll call cottage industries in academic research generally. I know recently I did ask you about what you think about the EA movement. I'm not talking about them, but for descriptive purposes we see the behavior of that group, the adherents, the critics and how much commitment, particularly adherents display to their tribe. I see a lot of that too in academic research. One group I am very familiar with is in economic development (development economics) where everything now is about field experiments and randomized control trials. And one of the fundamental ways it biases research in my opinion and also have negative real life consequences is, if you do a field experiment, a randomized control trial on cash transfer, say in a Kenyan village over a period of time and you measure your results and they are positive and say oh yeah, well, cash transfer works. But the real question that policymakers, whether local governments or central governments or regional governments really deal with every day are sometimes bigger than that. So, like, for example, if you want to choose between building a power station for that particular village at $1 million versus scaling up your cash transfer program, what you'll find is that development economists in the current paradigm would most likely go for the cash transfer plan. Let's scale it up. We have tested this. It works. Essentially they are biased to what they can measure - like, we don't know the spillover benefits of electrification, it would be difficult to design a study, there are so many externalities. So basically they reduce real-life situations into the parameters of their methods and its limitations. And such behaviour is very, very similar to what you see with other social groups. Whether it is the Effective Altruism movement… I was briefly involved also with the Charter City people where for every problem that they can see, the solution is to build a charter city.That movement was actually inspired by your dear friend, Paul Romer. So there is this almost blind commitment and loyalty to their method, to their cottage industry. And sometimes I see it as just drumming up support for their tribe, as opposed to a commitment to the truth and finding what works. So, again, pardon my big question, what's going on here?Oliver; Okay, two things on the starting point about tribes within academia is…like, one of my favourite sayings is that tribalism is the shared belief in counterfactuals, counterfactual being everything that is unknown. And the less we know, the more unknowns there are, the more we tend to flock with our own tribes. So this is something you see everywhere in academia. That's what we call thought collectives. Ludwig Fleck, one of the guys who influenced Thomas Kuhn, came up with this term, thought collectives, to describe this idea that people that share the same idea of causal mechanisms tend to come together and confirm each other and create this thought collective. And this is, of course, what we see here, especially in academia. Economics has additional problem. I think it's not nearly as strong in development economics as other fields, but it's also visible there. This is very much the way economists are recruited. Economics, especially US and UK-centric economics, is extremely mathematicized. So, like, mathematical skills are basically number one, two, and three and the priority. And so you have basically a situation where real-world understanding has almost no role in getting accepted into PhD programs or getting promoted within the system. It used to be theory knowledge, formal theory knowledge. Now it's econometrics knowledge that gets you promoted. And this is very far away from qualification to solve real-world problems. And of course, people are impressed by mathematical skills. So this is something that you can play as a trump card. And this is what happens in the field. And the field is closing itself off from all kinds of outside knowledge because of that, especially in the social sciences. And in my world, I use people with mathematical skills, but only for very, very clearly defined tasks. I have my own mathematical skill set, but I also understand what the limitations are, and I think that's a major problem. And basically, if everyone around you came up in this system that promotes mathematical skills over real-world skills, then you believe that this is the only thing you need. And it's been very clear that basically every ten years, economics has a major crisis about being completely wrong in their predictions. And this intellectual monopoly is a major problem with that.Tobi;My third question in that line then pertains to the philosophy of science. Oliver;Yes. Tobi;So there are people who argue that a lot of these problems are also because modern science or the methodology of science today is divorced from some kind of philosophical foundation. I'm familiar relatively mildly with three philosophical approaches to science and let's just say truth finding. Thomas Kuhn basically puts everything down to competing paradigms. Like my last question, you know, competing tribes. And it's the tribe that wins at the moment that sort of has the monopoly of truth, not strictly, but socially. Then there's Karl Popper, which is also quite popular, that for anything to be valid as truth, it has to be falsifiable. And we've seen this play out so much in particle physics with things like string theory and things like many-worlds interpretation and so many things where their critics are saying, you guys are basically making claims that are not falsifiable, that cannot be tested and what you are doing is not science. And that has been going on now more or less for about three decades, right? And, of course, there's the Lakatos approach, which sort of fits into your own view, correct me if I'm wrong, which is that science has to make novel claims and it has to be predictive, it has to make predictions about the world. So my question then is academia, science, the truth-finding industry, so to speak, or the knowledge production industry, is it having a philosophical crisis?Oliver;I think it has more of a structural crisis. I'm not that deep in the philosophy of science I'm much more interested in the process itself. But one of the things that I think matters to me is Milton Friedman's claim that there are no wrong assumptions but whatever assumptions you make about the world has to generate correct predictions. A theory is being evaluated by its ability to produce non-falsifiable predictions, right? Predictions that turn out to be true even if others don't believe them. This is something you see in the arts as well, you see actually in religion as well, this mechanism of belief propagation that starts with one person believing and over time and over time, can be many decades, of something being accepted as true by everyone. So everyone starts believing in it. Basically, social contagion mechanism. I've always been interested in this. One scenario where this happens or should be happening is science. Right. This is, of course, a process. A process happens via this academic mechanism of peer-reviewed publications, getting tenure based on publication records and so on. And these are all very very imperfect mechanisms. The two extreme versions of that [are] the American system, which is extremely stratified, and the German version is the opposite, it's non-stratified, [and] we produce a massive amount of mediocrity. So, like, neither of them are optimal mechanisms to create truth. And we've seen that over the last two and a half years that political posturing took precedence over truth finding. Is it in a crisis? I think, yes, very clearly. We have two and a half years where very wrong, easily debunkable claims were propagated and were not retracted, even after they've been proven to be wrong. And ultimately, we're in a situation where an economic crisis is very clearly caused by misjudgment from people which we support and pay for being less wrong than the overall population. And that just simply did not work.Tobi;One last thing I'll like to get off my chest and then I'll pass them out to you is, I mean, specifically, if we follow from our last two podcast episodes, I'm a bit frustrated that there is a bit of lockdown triumphalism that the people who vigorously and vehemently used their academic or expert pedigree…Oliver;Credentials. Tobi;Yeah…to advocate for lockdowns are also taking a sort of victory lap. So the pandemic is over. Everything is back to normal. We did the right thing, even though the whole world was against us. That frustrates me a little. I was still watching a clip on YouTube recently because you get even more sensible take from everyday people, people who are experiencing these things than people who are building models and tweeting. One person somewhere here in southwest Nigeria complaining during the pandemic that the government has decided that it is better for us to die at home of hunger than not die from the pandemic. Because this pandemic, we don't know what it is, we don't know how it spreads, but without giving us any information, you basically confined us to our homes with no means of livelihood and nothing to depend on. That makes me sad because in Nigeria here and in many parts of Africa today, a lot of what we are seeing as, and are calling the food crisis, cost of living crisis, whatever it is you want to call it, did not necessarily start, but were aggravated or exacerbated by that approach to the pandemic. And it makes me sad that the people that are culpable, we can have a situation where they can take a victory lap. So that's me. Over to you. What would you like to get off your chest about everything that we have disclosed today?Oliver; Number one is epidemiological modelling was clearly an empirical debacle. The predicted epidemic wave that would take five to six months, that would wipe all large parts of the population never happened. And we have, I don't know, how many thousand waves in our database now, they all go for eight weeks. They start declining, acceleration starts declining very early on. And now we had enough scenarios where simple no measures were taken at any time during the wave. The key moment in that case was, I think, Paul Krugman complained that Denmark was removing all restrictions at the height of the epidemic wave and basically the very next day, the Danish wave dropped. Not a lot of people saw it, but it was extremely embarrassing for him. I've been in very much the same situation because I was living in the United States in the early 2000s and I was very clear from the very beginning of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have bioweapons. And so the whole invasion was built on Untruth. And the United States and the UK back then also knew that. Back then there was a strong moral panic, especially in the United States, against anyone who was basically speaking against the rationale for going to war. Now, 20 years later, almost nobody is willing to admit that they were speaking up in favour of the invasion back then. This is like a one-generation thing. And we'll see the same thing about the epidemic. This is very clear. The young people who had to carry most of the restrictions…up till now in Germany they're still forced to wear masks at school. They will have a very different view about what happened than the politicians in power. These are the things that'll evolve over many, many years. So I expect the same thing to happen. The interesting thing is really sort of back then it was more on the right end of the spectrum that drove this moral panic. Now it's moved over to the left end of the political spectrum. This is something that we're still to be investigated, why these moral panics unfolded onto the ideological spectrum as we know it. But it might be an interesting topic for the next call.Tobi;True. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Bennett Tomlin and Cas Piancey discuss the recent Wall Street Journal report that reveals that Tether and Bitfinex falsified bank records in order to try to maintain access to banking. WSJ article discussed on the show. This video was recorded on March 3rd, 2023.

Falsified Forgiveness! Listen to Angie Peters talk about that with insight and clarity that will allow you to move forward without sweeping things under the rug.Partner Financially with Unedited Life

The co-hosts welcome Maksym Shumakov, a young activist and leading member of the Ukrainian democratic-socialist organization Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement). Maksym answers a wide range of questions. Topics include: life in Ukraine today; how to support Ukraine's fight for national self-determination; how the war has given rise to new forms of social organization and new multiethnic, multicultural Ukrainian identity; why Sotsialnyi Rukh calls for “complete victory and security for Ukraine”; and why it criticizes international left for being ”helpless and disoriented” in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine? After the invaders are repelled, what social struggles lie ahead in Ukraine? Current-events segment: Falsified evidence and other travesties in scholarly journals, with special emphasis on microbiologist-whistleblower Elizabeth Bik's recent essay.

The affidavit from former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) Detective Kelly Goodlett pulls back the curtain on the investigation that led to the botched "no knock" police raid

Analyst of Armenian history Hamlet Nersesian joins Vic and Mike to discuss the importance of Armenian History and the attempts to falsified it by foreign powers.Watch the episode on YouTube https://youtu.be/14X8sJkwGd8For merchandise: https://merherosner.com/questions? email us at pod@merherosner.com Support the show