aeris
aeris boosted

Bon, je lance une annonce pour ma collègue qui a un #cancer : un #logement le moins cher possible en région parisienne qui permettent d'accéder facilement à #Paris pour ses nombreux RDVs, propre et sain (contrairement à son dernier logement). Studio, deux pièces...elle est indemnisée car en arrêt maladie longue durée. 800€ max, moins c'est mieux.

Si vous entendez parler d'un truc avec un proprio pas complètement cinglé, let me know !

About half of people who died of cancer in Japan in 2021 are seen to have consulted with doctors about where they wanted to spend the end of their lives, the National Cancer Center has said. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/07/03/japan/science-health/japan-cancer-place-of-death-wishes-survey/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=mastodon #japan #sciencehealth #cancer #surveys #health#covid19

@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big vs
Ironically, they demanded what we in demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(

I touch upon that in a recent on open data: doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_

"Long before today’s movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the industry aimed to research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers."