The awake.

scientists have always challenged other scientists, the fact that some are querying safety of vaccines is to be applauded. But they also listen to the evidence and are prepared to convince and be convinced, which is where IMHO the 'alternative' end of the profession falls down. Where weight of evidence is too often in itself presented as 'evidence' that it's all a conspiracy.

Re the fusion, I have an issue with the way it's being reported myself. I'm not smart enough to fully understand the science but a scientist I know and respect (and most definitely not a quack) has queried the energy balance equation - eg: the 2MJ in of the 2 in / 3 out doesn't include the power to actually run the multiple lasers, just the power in the laser beams themselves. And lasers are very inefficient in turning electricity into light energy - between 1 and 20% estimated. So running the lasers themselves will consume far more than the output.

And that's before scalability - they can run one experiment every couple of weeks and that is likely to be in excess of $1M a time. To get enough to boil a few kettles.

Now, it may / will be the start of something, not least improving efficiency of lasers! But the popular reporting making it sound like it's a few years away is overstated, it's still unlikely to be in my lifetime (and I'm only 53)

That’s just one report.

It's a shame it doesn't actually say any of the things that the anti-vaxxers claim it does then. That BMJ article is peculiar in many ways, and the most worrying aspect of all is that the BMJ actually published it. Plenty of analysis of why it isn't the smoking gun you seem to think it is, if you'd care to do your own research.

Re the fusion, I have an issue with the way it’s being reported myself

I thought that they had already admitted that they hadn't counted all the power needed to run all the ancillary equipment?

Honestly I even got openly tutted at once. I felt the shame of it all the way down the empty dried pasta shelves…

🤣

I thought that they had already admitted that they hadn’t counted all the power needed to run all the ancillary equipment?

The scientists themselves have documented accurately, I mean the way the popular press report it - at least in headlines and news clips, the actual articles go into more depth. The issue being that i/ it creates a false expectation, and ii/ that when it isn't the answer to the prayers in the next 5 years, the public feel they've been let down and it decays the trust in science itself (and fuels the what else aren't they telling us / don't trust scientists narrative)

Sabine usually does a good summary…

Also mentions a paper on methane levels during Covid, which I’m sure the usual climate groups will jump on as evidence climate change is a hoax

Sabine usually does a good summary…

Does anyone else find that she talks like Alan Rickman?

Rule 1: Verify the credibility of the sources
Rule 2: See above

On that year-old BMJ piece...

Scientists love nothing more than picking holes in (other scientists') science. It's kind of the whole point of the exercise, which makes the anti-science folks notion that they're all supporting the same football team rather ridiculous. But that's not really what was going on with the BMJ bit. The framing is more that of an ongoing campaign to improve clinical trials, including say that all should be registered and reported, regardless of 'negative' or inconclusive findings. Commercial funders have preferred not to do this when it's served their commercial interests not to. (Don't pay an organisation to do one thing and expect them to do anything different.)

The BMJ has also been on the right side of campaigns to reduce bias in research (bias is just normal), improve quality (which can almost always be improved), make data openly available (it's often not been), improve regulation, and call out fraud when it occurs (actual fraud is rare, but institutions are not incentivised to broadcast it when it happens).

And given the speed and importance of coming up with covid vaccines, it shouldn't be flabbergasting to find that some contractors have have cut a few corners. This is clearly v bad, but the fact whistles were blown and stories came out is good. Even if the anti-vax crew very predictably used them to negative ends.

Slightly amusing is the BMJ editors' pique - see their resultant response with my edits below because it's a long one in an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]
We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.
-- It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
-- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
-- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog” ( 🙂 )
-- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
-- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”

Though the worry, obv, is the relative reach of Facebook (who were ineptly trying to do the right thing) vs a conventional medical journal (apparently on the side of the baddies).

actually, run out of time. It's here: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80