Daniel Eicher isn't even a real scientist

Alpha_T83 said:
I doubt it. At this point you're just trolling again. You obviously didn't even know what the term "Impact Factor" meant before today. You probably googled it in the last hour.

That alone allows me to completely discount your irrelevant posts.
Click to expand...
again, genius, you're trying to prop up YOUR OWN FUCKIN CREDENTIALS against a guy who has been lead science director for multiple anti doping agencies (large ones) and one of 2 wada labs in the US. you somehow think your findings make him less credible to issue a statement on the topic of ped's. lol. you're amazing.
 
kflo said:
again, genius, you're trying to prop up YOUR OWN FUCKIN CREDENTIALS against a guy who has been lead science director for multiple anti doping agencies (large ones) and one of 2 wada labs in the US. you somehow think your findings make him less credible to issue a statement on the topic of ped's. lol. you're amazing.
Click to expand...
Yes, having the greater titles is what makes someone have the correct answer in science.
 
MenthosLine said:
Yes, having the greater titles.
Click to expand...

As opposed to having the greater titties

ezgif-1176449174.gif
 
MenthosLine said:
Yes, having the greater titles is what makes someone have the correct answer in science. Oh, wait that is feudalism.
Click to expand...
no, having a long history as science director for leading ped agencies makes him less credible than posters on sherdog.
 
-Dim- said:
you said he had ZERO published peer reviewed papers

he has more than twenty on researchgate alone

You know full well that papers are almost never authored by a single person but by whole lab teams

stop now.
Click to expand...
Oh and you're also wrong about Eichner being the lead on some of those papers. I haven't checked them all but the Analytical Chemistry paper lists Cox as the corresponding (lead) author: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02492?src=recsys&journalCode=ancham

The order of the names on the paper doesn't actually matter. Typically the first-author is, well, first, and the lead (corresponding) author is last. There is one common exception though: When the person doing the majority of the work (first-author) is also the corresponding author, their name will go first, but they will be the corresponding author with the * next to their names.

Eichner is only getting his name on these papers because he provides the funding. He's a businessman.
 
Alpha_T83 said:
Yes you do. It's easy to write a thesis. I've done it no problem.

Writing peer reviewed, first-author papers in impact factor 10+ journals is incomparable. It's much, much more difficult to do that, than to write a simple thesis. Especially when you're getting a Mc PHD.
Click to expand...

No you don't, and it's obvious to anyone with any real experience in science, or even a small amount of cheeky logic (how did the first "real" scientist get trained if having a PhD + extensive publication is a requirement to be a real scientist?).

Expertise and competence aren't binary ideas, and neither is complexity in a given field. Plus, like I said, there are many *industries* where people do science and are actively discouraged to publish for various reasons (business competitiveness being a chief one).

Yes, there is a correlation of publication/citations to expertise to some extent, but it sure isn't perfect, interacts with multiple aspects, and you don't need to be tops in your field or even average to competently answer a given question in your field.

Ask 100 Math PhDs, 100 Math MSs, and 100 Math BSs what 2 plus 2 equals, and you'll see the same percentage in all groups get the right answer (obviously an extreme example, but same principle).

This isn't even taking into account specialties within field, where a more specialized person can very easily have an advantage over someone more published, owing to more concentrated knowledge in the exact fields/topics that the question draws from.
 
-Dim- said:
As opposed to having the greater titties
Click to expand...
We can find common ground in that.
kflo said:
no, having a long history as science director for leading ped agencies makes him less credible than posters on sherdog.
Click to expand...
You are still taking the position of just accepting the authority. Good argumentation should be able to beat any authority. Since authority is just a postion of being able to argue better.
 
MenthosLine said:
We can find common ground in that.

You are still taking the position of just accepting the authority. Good argumentation should be able to beat any authority. Since authority is just a postion of being able to argue better.
Click to expand...

when you have multiple authorities taking the same position you have to start asking whether you know better and why they would be making things up. they aren't issuing a scientific study on jon jones lab results. they offered their expert opinions based on available information. again, it's fine to be a skeptic, but the radical they must be making it all up positions many here take is nonsensical. these are heads of leading institutions who are in the business of "protecting integrity of sport" and working for very high profile organizations and government run programs, that make up far more of their business than the ufc. taking public positions that could destroy their credibility (again, sherdog experts have exposed them!) isn't really in their best interests.
 
kflo said:
when you have multiple authorities taking the same position you have to start asking whether you know better and why they would be making things up. they aren't issuing a scientific study on jon jones lab results. they offered their expert opinions based on available information. again, it's fine to be a skeptic, but the radical they must be making it all up positions many here take is nonsensical. these are heads of leading institutions who are in the business of "protecting integrity of sport" and working for very high profile organizations and government run programs, that make up far more of their business than the ufc. taking public positions that could destroy their credibility (again, sherdog experts have exposed them!) isn't really in their best interests.
Click to expand...
It is unlikely that they are making things up as you say. The ones that are scientists are I assume trying their best. However intelligence isn't a linear scale. Somebody ingenius can be fairly stupid in an another field. The argument lies on some of them being ingenius in their field yet being incompetent in detecting the criminal intent the police is used to. As we saw with the latest results Jones tested positive yet the scientist guessed it was not intentional. They superseded their own competence. Their job is to report the results not to make subjective decisions on compliance. They are entirely incompetent to do so.
 
tenniswhiz said:
Doesn’t matter.

Once Rogan has made his declaration all dispute is concluded.
Click to expand...
Clearly for all the idiots here who takes Rogan's word as the 11th commandment. 'But it could've been the dick pills or the contaminated cocaine that made Jon run away from the scene of the accident'!
 
Last edited:
MenthosLine said:
It is unlikely that they are making things up as you say. The ones that are scientists are I assume trying their best. However intelligence isn't a linear scale. Somebody ingenius can be fairly stupid in an another field. The argument lies on some of them being ingenius in their field yet being incompetent in detecting the criminal intent the police is used to. As we saw with the latest results Jones tested positive yet the scientist guessed it was not intentional. They superseded their own competence. Their job is to report the results not to make subjective decisions on compliance. They are entirely incompetent to do so.
Click to expand...
no, their job in this case was to do exactly what they did - assess whether he actually cheated or not. they didn't "guess" that it was not intentional. they stated they couldn't prove that he reingested from his prior result. that his results were consistent with residual amounts. that it was very plausible that he didn't in fact cheat. again, this was why csac said it was an easy decision to move forward with the fight.

again, why would 2 leading science directors take the public positions they did?

and again, this thread was laughably created to dismiss the credentials of eichner.
 
kflo said:
no, their job in this case was to do exactly what they did - assess whether he actually cheated or not. they didn't "guess" that it was not intentional. they stated they couldn't prove that he reingested from his prior result. that his results were consistent with residual amounts. that it was very plausible that he didn't in fact cheat. again, this was why csac said it was an easy decision to move forward with the fight.

again, why would 2 leading science directors take the public positions they did?

and again, this thread was laughably created to dismiss the credentials of eichner.
Click to expand...
Please, stop with the appeals to authority. I do not care for the reasons this thread was created. I am trying to counter your points.
They broke their common tradition of handing out punishments on fail. Formerly failing a test was sufficient for a sanction. The rhetoric has obviously changed. Failing a test no longer results in a sanction.
 
-Dim- said:
His BS and PhD came from the Australian National University which is their national research Uni.

Ive no idea about his thesis, but the fact you say he has no published research papers when he has over 20 leads me to suspect you might be wrong about that as well.
Click to expand...
Upon further review, your original post was full of shit. You claimed he had over 20 "lead" author papers, but he doesn't. I looked through them all, and the only lead (corresponding) author paper I found from him was this paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dta.1537

And of course, that's in a trash tier journal. From what I can tell Eichner has ZERO first or corresponding (lead) author publications in impact factor 5+ journals. This means he is not a true scientist.

Honestly, YOU should get YOUR facts straight. You come here trash talking me, and then claim he's got 20 lead author papers, when he doesn't. If someone else made that post to you, you'd give them so much shit it's not even funny.

Are you going to give yourself shit for your own misinformed post??
 
Alpha_T83 said:
So I finally got around to doing some research. I'm more of a "scientist" than "Dr." Eichner is. The guy has no peer reviewed publications from his PhD. Anyone that knows anything about the scientific community would know that peer reviewed publications measure the worth of a scientist. Myself I have one peer reviewed, first author publication in Dev Cell. I'm working on my 2nd now.

Eichner has one* decent peer reviewed publication recently, but thesis supervisor didn't even put his name on his thesis. The guy was an orphan PhD student failure that was granted a mercy PhD. Many institutions will fail students, refusing to grant a PhD without first author, peer reviewed publications.

Basically, Eichner has a Mc PhD.

Edit: This is the guy that runs the SMRTL facility and is the "expert" that Dana White keeps citing, who determined Jones "did not re-ingest" Turinabol.

Edit: Dim pointed out that he does have his name on papers as a lead investigator. However, 90% of these papers are in garbage tier journals, where you can literally buy yourself a publication. A post-doc friend of mine makes a side income running an impact factor 2 journal in which people PAY HIM to have their papers published. He shops out the "peer reviews" to other PhDs and post-docs.

Basically only impact factor 5-6+ papers actually matter in biological sciences. And even then, many bigger PIs won't even publish below impact factor 10.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=DA+eichner+dendritic+cells+immune+ANU&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=1995&as_yhi=2007
Click to expand...
God damnit why do you keep conducting ACTUAL research into the EXPERTS???

I am here people - I am the person who was hired by WME/UFC to make up "Pulsing and Turinabol" to cover up the Cheque Drops that Jones was microdosing with. Ask me anything.

(seriously though, amazing post as usual. I hope to see your posts converted into some sort of long-form journalism piece that makes it to a real publication and converts into a sting operation exposing drug cheats in professional sports)
 
Well, people probably had a lot of belief in what Novitsky said... Before he told everyone that he’s an accountant and not an expert.

Then he talked about old people flushing their meds down the toilet so Jon tested positive for turinabol metabolites.

That or someone opened a can of roids and the airborne roid dust tainted Jon’s body!

<DisgustingHHH>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,459,937
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top