Another issue that I have observed is citing an article for something it did not say. This happens with my own work, out of curiosity I always look to see where a citing article has used my work. I would say 1/10 times the information I am being cited for was not indicated by my work, or the authors are making an inference that the data does not justify.
There really isn't a way to correct for this, and if it happens with my work, it likely happens all over the place.
Its hard to stop "fake news" when the primary sources contain false information from the outset.
True, that's an issue. I think that's what she refers to in #2 and in other places with regards to that involvement you are doing to "quality control" how people are using the data. Good job on keeping an eye out for that ;)
The issue is, I'm not doing any "quality control" as their really aren't any mechanisms by which those factual inaccuracies can be corrected. I just observe this, but can't do anything about it.
Well, the "quality control" alluding to coca-cola, is that they monitor when people are using information incorrectly, and set out to correct it in social media, maybe contact the site putting it out. Not sure how viable that is for you, but that's how they are doing the quality control by countering the incorrect data. Usually sites these days have comments so that someone can correct it. There is no official way to get them to correct it though, but someone objecting to it at least it's there for others to come across.
Dude, cowpox was used to successfully shown to protect people against smallpox as early as the late 1700's/early 1800's. To further this, cowpox exposure had actually been observed to protect people against small pox for perhaps thousands of years if we are to look at Iranian nomadic peoples. [Source]
What the heck you talking about? What bogus information?
Statistics explains that it works. Give people cowpox as a vaccine, see reduction in small pox cases that is statistically relevant over a long period of time? Well guess what bub, then the coxpox inoculation is the causative agent for protection from the small pox.
All you are showing me is that the vaccination does not provide 100% immunity, okay. So what? Again you are misinterpreting things.
Another issue that I have observed is citing an article for something it did not say. This happens with my own work, out of curiosity I always look to see where a citing article has used my work. I would say 1/10 times the information I am being cited for was not indicated by my work, or the authors are making an inference that the data does not justify.
There really isn't a way to correct for this, and if it happens with my work, it likely happens all over the place.
Its hard to stop "fake news" when the primary sources contain false information from the outset.
True, that's an issue. I think that's what she refers to in #2 and in other places with regards to that involvement you are doing to "quality control" how people are using the data. Good job on keeping an eye out for that ;)
The issue is, I'm not doing any "quality control" as their really aren't any mechanisms by which those factual inaccuracies can be corrected. I just observe this, but can't do anything about it.
Well, the "quality control" alluding to coca-cola, is that they monitor when people are using information incorrectly, and set out to correct it in social media, maybe contact the site putting it out. Not sure how viable that is for you, but that's how they are doing the quality control by countering the incorrect data. Usually sites these days have comments so that someone can correct it. There is no official way to get them to correct it though, but someone objecting to it at least it's there for others to come across.
Dude, cowpox was used to successfully shown to protect people against smallpox as early as the late 1700's/early 1800's. To further this, cowpox exposure had actually been observed to protect people against small pox for perhaps thousands of years if we are to look at Iranian nomadic peoples. [Source]
What the heck you talking about? What bogus information?
Indistinguishable angenically not indistinguishable. The only thing full of crap here is what you are posting.
Statistics explains that it works. Give people cowpox as a vaccine, see reduction in small pox cases that is statistically relevant over a long period of time? Well guess what bub, then the coxpox inoculation is the causative agent for protection from the small pox.
All you are showing me is that the vaccination does not provide 100% immunity, okay. So what? Again you are misinterpreting things.
Could you please stop spamming me with your nonsense? Talking with you will get me nowhere, you are a lost cause. So I am not going to bother.
Edit: I am not bullying you in any capacity. I asked quite nicely if you could please stop spamming me. Thanks! Its a waste of both of our time.