>Find scientists who are corporate shills known to peddle

Because it's hard working

Look up all the mysterious deaths when people started doing this with GMO food and you'll realize that your life is insignificant in the eyes of billion dollar industries

>>1811672

>Publish refutations easily because it's always the same bullshit that they are trying to push
>You can basically make it a template
>The quacks all work together making them easy to spot
>You have to publish anyway

>>1811675

So you can't be a soft target while doing this is what I'm hearing.

>>1811679
If the chairman will allow me to address the council. It appears your special witness shorted large quantities of my client's stock just last week. Also he appears to be using a template for his refutations

>>1811689

"Of course I shorted large quantities of your client's stock, I've uncovered massive levels of systemic fraud engaged in by your corporation and you should probably advise your client be more worried about the pending Federal investigation than this approval hearing."

>>1811692
Well played.

>>1811659
dude its already being done by geo-investing. https://geoinvesting.com/ but their success has been ambiguous so far

>>1811699

Thank you.

>>1811718

Somehow I don't think that the investing company that you're plugging is writing academic refutations of studies done on pending pharmaceuticals currently in the experimental stage to keep them from getting approval.

File: 1479680177143.png (267KB, 622x460px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 622x460px

>>1811659
If you could pull this off, would you really be here?

>>1811692
Very nice!

>>1811740

Finishing undergrad. When I get tenure in a few years it's on.

>>1811659
A lot of the time it'd be very difficult to refute their findings without reproducing the experiment yourself. This would likely be very expensive, and very time consuming.

>Publish your refutations of each individual paper rapid fire
You've clearly never tried to publish a paper if you think it can be done quickly.

There may be a couple of cases where it might work but for the most part I doubt it. The papers are already peer reviewed by the time they're published, any major flaws would already be noticed.

>>1811758

Typically a quick mathematical analysis of their p-values should do it. We're not talking about the elaborately forged shit, we're talking about the low hanging fruit where any level of statistical analysis will reveal that they're making their own numbers lie.

>>1811762
I'd be very interested to know how many papers you can actually catch doing that.

I suspect not as many as you think. Many bad papers lie through omission, not incorrect math.

>>1811767

I'm guessing a few every now and then, but not a lot. I only need to get away with doing this a handful of times before I have some serious money. There might be more work that goes into it than this, and I'll probably go do something more productive when the easy to spot stuff dries up after a while.

>>1811659
>have to be an experienced expert in the field, I.e. cancer treatment, for courts to consider your testimony
>FDA hearings take years
>no guaranteed outcome

>>1811692
>your honor, I request this man's testimony be disregarded as he has a conflict of interest with the outcome and has already made up his mind. His position as an independent examiner is therefore compromised.

>>1811787

The entire thing only works if you're an expert.

>>1811791

>The examination was conducted prior to my financial stake was determined, and said stake was a direct consequence of the conclusion made from the examination. My Colleagues Doctors Schlemiel and Schlemozel have come to identical conclusions.