Jump to content
Marios Kyriazis

Online usernames

Recommended Posts

The fomula you mention is not mine. It is cited from another peer-reviewed and published paper. And my 'amateurish' paper has been critically reviewed in detail by several academic experts who do this for a living, and it has been deemed suitable for publication.So I am confident that their opinion is more valid than the opinion of an unknown person who is hiding behind intentional anonymity. Nothing personal mind you. To be fair, you read the draft, working paper, and not the final post-review version (in press).

 

Love this. You cannot explain why the units don't ad up. All you did was regurgitate it and didn't even develop it in the paper. Just appealing to authority. That's all you can seem to do. This is generally what medics do because their image is greater than their academic ability. If you can't understand the maths don't put it in.

 

 

People can be clinical doctors and also have additional life-long training in other science disciplines such as biology. One does not preclude the other. One does not diminish the value of the other.

I've worked in medical academia as well as clinical. It was so amateur (was at Imperial college London) that I took a pay cut, spent my savings on tuition and went back to study physics.

 

 

Regarding your last comment about manipulating ageing, you misunderstood the argument. Of course I am not talking about clinical age-releated degeneration. Clinical disease can be treated with reductionist approaches. Instead, I am talking about the basic, background and global process of time-driven damage. From the interventional point of view there is a distinction between age-related clinical disease (diabetes, arthritis), and the underlying process of senescence itself.

This is simply waffle. I appreciate that you may not have been born in a english speaking country but you're saying nothing here. This is vague trash that makes no points. I know this amateur wishy washy language gets accepted in NHS academia and medical academia but on this forum people are interested in science with testable predictions.

 

As a general point if anyone is thinking I am exaggerating the poor standard of medical academia browse some of them. My friend is a peer reviewer for the emergency medical journal because he knows someone and they put him down. He'll admit it himself. Never been published himself and never undertook post grad study at the time. I've come across professors of medicine who can't get their head round standard deviation and simply calculate the mean all the time stating that it's too complex ..... they are also peer reviewers. The difference with the medical profession and other sciences is that medicine doesn't get a grade in the UK. This means that you can graduate bottom of your year and still get a clinical job, in that clinical job you will be encouraged to write papers and do research. In other sciences you have to get a good grade to get into grad school and only a select few will get phds, you have to be interested and extremely motivated to get into a position of carrying out research in that field. Medical academia is have ago academia because anyone who's passed their undergrad can have ago, that's why there's so much trash.

 

As for your theory the way you put across the hypothesis is terrible. You offer limited or no knowledge of some of the things you write about (the maths equation). The only replies I hear from you are appeals to authority. You then make a point that I hide behind a name. I do this so I can speak the truth, I can actually write about what goes on in my job without the risk having a hard time at work. If anything your stunted, with your name exposed your ego is on the line, you may have funding on your trash research, if you concede and one of your colleagues stumbles across this site it wouldn't be nice for you.

 

Appeal to authority? Where is your integrity? :rolleyes:

How many respected academics propounded phrenology?

Edinburgh Phrenological Society

This is all he can do Acme. He can't even justify why the maths he's writing makes sense. He's appealed to authority to justify the maths he's used. This is how low NHS academia is.

Edited by physica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Love this. You cannot explain why the units don't ad up. All you did was regurgitate it and didn't even develop it in the paper. Just appealing to authority. That's all you can seem to do. This is generally what medics do because their image is greater than their academic ability. If you can't understand the maths don't put it in.

 

 

I've worked in medical academia as well as clinical. It was so amateur (was at Imperial college London) that I took a pay cut, spent my savings on tuition and went back to study physics.

 

 

This is simply waffle. I appreciate that you may not have been born in a english speaking country but you're saying nothing here. This is vague trash that makes no points. I know this amateur wishy washy language gets accepted in NHS academia and medical academia but on this forum people are interested in science with testable predictions.

 

As a general point if anyone is thinking I am exaggerating the poor standard of medical academia browse some of them. My friend is a peer reviewer for the emergency medical journal because he knows someone and they put him down. He'll admit it himself. Never been published himself and never undertook post grad study at the time. I've come across professors of medicine who can't get their head round standard deviation and simply calculate the mean all the time stating that it's too complex ..... they are also peer reviewers. The difference with the medical profession and other sciences is that medicine doesn't get a grade in the UK. This means that you can graduate bottom of your year and still get a clinical job, in that clinical job you will be encouraged to write papers and do research. In other sciences you have to get a good grade to get into grad school and only a select few will get phds, you have to be interested and extremely motivated to get into a position of carrying out research in that field. Medical academia is have ago academia because anyone who's passed their undergrad can have ago, that's why there's so much trash.

 

As for your theory the way you put across the hypothesis is terrible. You offer limited or no knowledge of some of the things you write about (the maths equation). The only replies I hear from you are appeals to authority. You then make a point that I hide behind a name. I do this so I can speak the truth, I can actually write about what goes on in my job without the risk having a hard time at work. If anything your stunted, with your name exposed your ego is on the line, you may have funding on your trash research, if you concede and one of your colleagues stumbles across this site it wouldn't be nice for you.

 

This is all he can do Acme. He can't even justify why the maths he's writing makes sense. He's appealed to authority to justify the maths he's used. This is how low NHS academia is.

 

Physica: the fact that you were an unsuccessful medical doctor is not of my concern. Please do not reflect your inner hatred at me, I do not appreciate it. Most importantly, it is not scientifically constructive, and you should not be posting personal disparaging comments in a science forum. If you don't like my 'science' then respond with specific critical points and we will discuss it. Otherwise please direct your anger at something else.

 

I would only answer one of your comments which shows how muddled you are in your thinking about ageing, and I will try to make it simple. With the passage of time, we sustain damage, and our organism tries to repair this damage. When it fails, and the damage accumulates, there is dysfunction which is evident at a clinical level. People may suffer from diabetes, arthritis etc. This is called age-related disease. Clinical medicine aims to treat these diseases with drugs or other therapies. But these do not affect the cause of the illness which is the inability of the organism to repair the damage. My comment was about this part of the equation (sorry to mention maths). Dealing with the continual onslaught of damage requires a different approach than those based on drugs etc. It is like, cause and effect. In this case, medicine treats the effect. I am talking about treating the cause. Two different things.

 

Once again, please try to answer in scientific or clinical terms, otherwise don't answer at all. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staying with the scientific, would you defend your use of the equation mentioned in earlier posts. Detail its relevance to your argument and account for the irregularities identified by a prior poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physica: the fact that you were an unsuccessful medical doctor is not of my concern. Please do not reflect your inner hatred at me, I do not appreciate it. Most importantly, it is not scientifically constructive, and you should not be posting personal disparaging comments in a science forum. If you don't like my 'science' then respond with specific critical points and we will discuss it. Otherwise please direct your anger at something else.

now you're making stuff up I'm at imperial and I went back to study and harder subject. Medicine is littered with people who actually failed physics and maths so they went into medicine. Sorry that I digress don't make something up in future. You'll notice I have made nothing up about you as I don't know you, I've pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. The highlighting of medical academic standards were not a personal attack. They were highlighting how using appeal to authority (especially from medical academia) is not a good argument.

 

The fact that you won't reply to the maths says it all, you're writing about stuff you clearly don't know anything about just more waffle and appeal to authority.

 

 

Once again, please try to answer in scientific or clinical terms, otherwise don't answer at all. Thank you.

would only answer one of your comments

what a joke

Edited by physica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised that this even got past the arxiv screeners. Pure pseudoscientific nonsense is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised that this even got past the arxiv screeners. Pure pseudoscientific nonsense is what it is.

Work in medical academia and you'll be surprised how half of them get research grants.

 

Anyhow I posting a preemptive post to try and save time. Marios' I'm having to lead your hand in your own publication but could you please explain to me how the equation that you have confidence in and wrote in your article alters dimensions. What your equation is saying is that we put in:

 

kg m^2 s^-2

 

and this is equal to:

 

kg m^-6 s^-4 c

 

For some reason we have lost eight spacial dimensions, two time dimensions and gained a charge. Could you please provide a link to where you got this equation from?? You've either misrepresented it (considering you don't define the L term for "dimension" [i've assumed that this is a 3d spacial dimension]) or the standards of medical academia have slipped so much that they are now publishing equations that can be proved to defy mathematical logic and the laws of physics by someone who has a high school maths ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's going to come back. However, there is still some use from this thread. I have looked up more of his stuff on his theory of living longer. Below is a link to a power point of his. It's very long but if you brush through to the maths of entropy you'll see that he makes some absurd claims and clearly fails to understand the most basic concepts behind the maths that he uses.

 

http://www.academia.edu/1721252/Human_Biological_Immortality_and_the_Global_Brain

 

Remember that this guy has a research grant. He has received an msc from Kings College London medical school. I myself have seen similar standards at Imperial College London medical school. People reading this thread have had an insight into the standards of medical academia. This doesn't mean that every medical doctor is stupid but graduating from an ungraded degree that requires memorisation of anatomy, physiology and drug interactions doesn't mean you are good a science.

 

I cannot speak for other countries but the health system in the UK make a mockery of science. You have more chance of getting into a clinical training scheme of your choice the higher your point score is. If you get published then you get a few extra points per publication (the is a flat score publications are not read). This rewards bad science. I've lost count of how many junior doctors who aren't interested in science will do anything to get as many publications as they can so they can get on the surgical rotation they want. Someone with 5 terrible publications will be more rewarded than someone with one good one. Because of this the quality of the average medical publication is outright terrible. The problem with this is that when you are surrounded with bad quality science you start to think this is standard. Challenging this would completely shake the foundations of medical academia and this is why medical doctors and nurses will appeal to authority so quickly. I hope this thread has offered good insight to it's readers.

Edited by physica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.