re: #414 klys

I did my small part: one of my papers provides evidence that they were full of shit (indirectly).

Then my advisor published the next paper that was even more direct.

The conference where I presented that data with one of the co-authors of the bad paper there was a little awkward. He didn’t like the data very much.

BUT I HAVE SEEN IT PERPETUATING SO IT MUST BE STAMPED OUT.

The one thing you cannot expect is for those who publish badly done, but not fraudulent science to receive their comeuppance. Back in the 1980s, there was an HIV researcher who managed to publish a Nature ARTICLE (the long, prestigious ones) based on a single observation that we in our lab already knew was wrong. We published a much more comprehensive paper in Cell later that year which corrected the error, but that guy remained a much more prominent name in HIV research than my boss ever got to be.

Of course, it would have helped if my boss hadn’t finally decided that the line between genius and insanity had grown dull, and leapt with both feet onto the insanity side.