t factor betting rant definition

eurovision betting odds 2021 silverado

If this is your first season betting on baseball, well, you picked an interesting one. Unlike football and basketball where the majority of bets are based on the point spreadbaseball is a moneyline sport. This means that bettors need to pick only who wins the game, not who covers.

T factor betting rant definition las vegas online superbowl betting

T factor betting rant definition

Congratulations, but that is evolutionary, not revolutionary. So pretty much by definition, this is not revolutionary, merely evolutionary. As a device of a given screen size and price point to view content, it is pretty believable to me personally.

As a device being seriously proposed to replace books? Pretty much a fail in my book. With inferior resolution, and I gotta worry about battery life, dropping it, protecting its fragile self? Not a viable replacement…YET. As a media viewer, it is going to have to boil down to a nice screen and a display engine.

That it can connect wirelessly, even over cellular networks at a notably higher price point , access live data, online content, etc. Small form factor targeted device? That is nice, but not, at this time, something I feel the need to add to my arsenal.

Now, on to the videos — I started with Mail, and yes, it is a decent job of scaling up the UI from iPhone to this size. And rotating to go fullscreen? A very nice touch. And I gotta hover-hands to type rather than touch typing? Watching it be manipulated in the hands, the thing just cries out for a rubberized back — the current metal one is made to slide around on your jeans and fall, or to get scratched if placed on a table.

Beautiful design Apple, but physical usability fail. That was a lower priority. That is not the way to push this device! Retract retract, calm down. This leads to a semantical thought — is iPad a computer or a peripheral? The apps on an iPhone pull it closer to the computer end of the continuum, but not there yet.

But the iPod app puts us back into peripheral context — there is no way to build your own playlists here, gotta do it in iTunes back on the machine you dock it to. But anyway, yeah, interesting to note they call it the iTunes application, not the iTunes Store.

Add a 3G dongle, further tie. So as a routine matter, iPad goes in case goes in bag to carry with you at all times. Hassle, and moreso than a netbook. Which leads to… -multi-tasking — oooooops — iPad, no can do. Wanna run Pandora while surfing the web? Limited multitasking — you can play music to multi-task, you can make phone call—wait, nope, that is iPhone not iPad. So hmmmm…. Yet, scientists must appear to be in control and to have an agenda—to understand disease X, or explain phenomenon Y—all to justify public funding, get a paper published, or prop up an image of competence.

So, are there a lot of spin in the published literature? You bet. Does the spin cross from self-promotion to outright fraud? That's a grey area, and like pornography, you know that line's been crossed only when you see it. When I was a grad student, one of my advisors cautioned that I should treat everything I read in the scientific literature as bull because all of them are spinning facts to some degree.

That same advisor also told me to expect everyone else to treat MY work like it's bull. There's a sort of vague acknowledgement that some spin will always be in scientific literature for any number of reasons. After all, if your work doesn't at least appear to be the best thing that happened since sliced bread, then there's no reason to fund you. There's also an unspoken expectation for the readers to look at the data presented and draw their own conclusions. It's like every paper comes with a presumption of guilt, and the reader's job is to prosecute the hell out of it.

But I don't think the general public was ever clued in on this little charade. The public was never told, point blank, to read between the lines and seriously critique a paper because that would contradict the dispassionate persona science has maintained in the public consciousness—science is supposed to be the distiller of truth. But like all human endeavors, human nature gets in the way and everyone must manage in the best way we can.

That means applying the same level of common sense and skepticism that we may apply to other aspects of our lives. A science paper isn't meant to tell you what to think, it's meant to be prosecuted vigorously based on the evidence presented.

So have at it! Take your best shot! Yavchitz A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. Epub Sep Aa Aa Aa. A humble rant re: spin in science papers. September 29, AM. Love this rant September 26, PM. Ada, you have captured the spirit of matter very well in your 'rant'.

As a professional scientist myself, I wanted to add a little bit to it, specifically two points. But this SciTable platform is not allowing me - rather irritatingly - to post a comment of more than a thousand characters.

FORUM NBA BETTING LINE

I do have more than 2 years of rental income history but didn't even get that far for them to ask for it. I feel like it was determined by computer algorithms. Their loss. I would have been a good customer and they would have gotten a pretty low risk outstanding loc. I went to chase and they don't even offer it. I heard capital one offers it so I might give them a try. Thanks Kyle. Yes it is too late. It is comical though. Had I told them I will use the loc to buy a giant trampoline to host a block party, it would have been approved.

What the credit analyst would have missed is that if I buy a trampoline, it will double my primary property insurance, and if someone gets hurt, they can sue me and I will lose my house giant medical bill because it is under my name, not LLC. And buying a rental property got denied? Who came up with the current rules they use.

Good call on the cash out refi. Guess the down side is that I will be paying the interest for the amount I cash out for 30 years instead of paying interest only when I use it. But considering what that additional cash out can generate in extra income, the cash out amount interest will be worth it.

I bet most people don't know about this. Pentagon CU is pretty awesome. If you signed up for BiggerPockets via Facebook, you can log in with just one click! Log in with Facebook. Full Name Use your real name. Password Use at least 8 characters. Using a phrase of random words like: paper Dog team blue is secure and easy to remember. All All. Menu Menu. Recommended Vendors. New Feature. Analyze a property. Real Estate Books. Featured Book. Get the Magazine. Search Nova. Log In Sign up.

Create post. Good things first They will bear the costs of closing. Meaning everything from application, appraisaland everything. Very nice. The rates range from percent depending on the credit score. Amortize over 30 yrs and refi at 10 yrs. This is not that bad actually but the credit person on the phone told me that because I frankly told them I plan to use the line of credit to buy rental property.

So when they process my application, they factor in mortgage that I will be responsible for from the new property. This omission of rental income blow through the require debt to income ratio and hence the primary HELOC was turned down. Say even if the calculation above shows that you have any amount left to apply for line of credit, it has to be above 20k for them to even consider your application.

For example, there was an exchange on a review site whereby Matt Houghton bragged about one of his services being ranked number one on a certain proofing website since a certain date. Somebody pointed out that there was loss of 6 points to industry SP albeit with profit to advised stakes and BSP to which Matt Houghton responded talking about early prices and that this website that he was boasting of having a profit on being unable to proof some of their bets.

The user responded pointing out that if the full proofing showed a combined loss before the said date was actually close to 40 points and simply chastised Matt Houghton for trying to misrepresent figures. Something that many people would agree is a reasonable thing to do. When somebody backed up the original poster a content creator who had also had his own products criticised in saying that it was a misleading comment, the response from Matt Houghton was to simply call them a troll.

He also says that nobody seems to understand what is important to him or what his job is. Ironically, given his penchant for accusing people of finding conspiracies there are none, he then goes on to level the accusation that people have ulterior motives. Once again, I invite you consider that this is a person who is running a business with subscribers. Even within the comments section on his own products, Matt Houghton appears to continue with his tactic of aggressively smacking down anybody who has a concern.

For example, somebody mentions that of 6 tips there was one win which he labelled as odds on and a place. He then highlights 2 minutes later , with no effort to explain the difference, that the customer had erroneously referred to a bet as odds on rather than even money. What I find worrying about this is that Matt Houghton seems to approach the situation by chastising his customer rather than trying to offer them help or insight.

It seems clear to me that there has been some confusion over the odds, so I would personally be asking that customer if they needed help understanding betting so that they could grow. There are several other staff listed as working for The Betting Rant aside from Matt Houghton and each of these seems to have a field of expertise. Luke Towler appears to be the one of the more prominent contributors to The Betting Rant and posts weekly with free tips offered on a variety of sports.

These predominantly appear to be both rugby and NFL based selections. What is interesting about this is that his own profile says that he is a specialist in F1 and MotoGP which he really got turned onto once he supposedly realised that there is cash to be made. This information is somewhat conflicted however as the free tips that I have looked at from him appear to be for almost every sport except these. This author supposedly has a background both in sports specifically rugby league as well as having worked for a betting shop.

Sean Trivass is an occasional contributor to The Betting Rant and he is actually arguably one of the more interesting ones. His articles, whilst infrequent, feature things like stable tours as well as looking at festivals etc. His focus is clearly on horse racing and it would appear that he has a number of contacts in the business that allow him the access that he gets.

I would consider his articles to be one of the more unique aspects of The Betting Rant. These are however mostly hidden behind the walls of The Syndicate service meaning that you have to be a member to view them. In fact, the last post was from February I will start by looking at Miles Tredwell as this is seemingly the easier question to answer. The first service that was launched was called Four Factor Racing. Karl Zanft is an interesting contributor to The Betting Rant to look at for two reasons.

The first is that when his selections failed to make any profit, he was quietly removed from The Syndicate and all subsequent sales material I am pretty sure that there is a pattern starting to appear here. What is interesting about Karl Zanft is that this is far from his first foray into the world of betting.

In fact, he had previously been a director of Fineform Racing Limited, a company that placed bets for others. The money was paid into an account by customers, and Karl Zanft would supposedly use this as a betting bank. Matt Houghton was clearly aware of this when he took Karl Zanft on as a tipster as a forum user over at The UK Betting Forum contacted him to confirm that the Karl Zanft attached at the time to The Syndicate was the same Karl Zanft who had been disqualified from being a company director.

I am also sure that had this information been more widely known at the launch of The Syndicate, there are a number of people that would have re-thought their decision. This is an admiral mission statement and if I believed it to be entirely true, then there would be no question of endorsement.

The fact is that Agora Lifestyles are firsts and foremost concerned with themselves and their bottom line. Really, the whole Agora Lifestyles team are marketers and this shows in the number of products that they put on people. At the time of writing there are loads of products being sold by Agora Lifestyles both on an affiliate basis as well as their own products. Almost all of these claim to offer you some way or another to make a guaranteed income with very little effort required — where have we heard that one before.

A big part of the way that Agora Lifestyles work is by having different arms of the business deal with different topics. For example, The Betting Rant predominantly concerns itself with making money by promoting betting products, both those operated by Matt Houghton et all, as well as products that are marketed on an affiliate basis meaning that Agora Lifestyles take a cut of the sale price.

As a marketing company, Agora Lifestyles are an undisputed juggernaut and I can easily imagine that they sell thousands, if not tens of thousands, of products each year. What I do find questionable is some of the marketing methods that Agora Lifestyles employ.

They will often suggest that certain figures are the norm and this approach is something that Matt Houghton seems to utilise in his own marketing for The Betting Rant. Whilst some of the products that The Betting Rant sell are made up of various bits from other Matt Houghton products, there are now just 3 examples available. It is more to look at what sort of thing is made available through The Betting Rant. The first product that I will mention is The Football Investor. This is a compendium of products from Matt Houghton all of which are for, not surprisingly, football bets.

This includes his Goal-den Bets self selection system. It also includes tips from Matt Houghton under the title Premier Bets. This is a horse racing tipster service that was initially conceived as having a large number of different tipsters contribute under one brand something that Matt Houghton has experimented with before in the shape of The Network, a football tipster service that used 5 different tipsters.

Unfortuantely, having started with 3 tipsters and having Karl Zanft removed from the product following a seemingly monumental losing season that saw losses hitting at least 60 points. Finally there is a tipster service operated by contributor and winner of the T-Factor, Miles Tredwell. Named The Racing Code, this is a tipster service that provides selections that are supposedly based on a number of different micro systems.

As I have mentioned before now, the overall performances from these different services is generally positive. I have seen The Syndicate being offered for much less than it was when it was launched and this goes some way to justifying it, but as I have mentioned before now, I generally believe that you can find better services for similar prices.

Whether or not The Betting Rant is any good really depends on what it is that you are looking for. If you are looking for general betting advice, reviews and proofing then there are plenty of much better sites out there. If you are looking for opinionated self promotion then The Betting Rant will likely serve your needs very well. There are free tips that are often provided but I can also think of more popular and more profitable free tips that are currently available on the market.

Personally, I am not entirely convinced that it is great. There is a lot missing that I look for in a betting website, several of which I have already mentioned. The fact is that if a website like The Betting Rant really wants to deliver then it needs to move away from simply looking at their own products and ideally replace Matt Houghton with somebody the public actually likes!

This is something that may well be on the cards with a post on the The Betting Rant website introducing a betting product reviewer who has worked on other Agora Lifestyles websites. This is all well and good but given the responses that Matt Houghton tends to give towards criticism to his own products, I can only question how impartial these reviews will be.

In fact they are NOT impartial. Moving away from the idea of looking at more external content, even looking at the content relating to their own services I feel that there is rather a lot of basic information lacking. It is fantastic that there are whole members areas dedicated to the services that The Betting Rant offers, however as a potential customer I would like to see things like proofing.

These are conspicuous in their absence and given how Matt Houghton seems to like manipulating results in his comments, it does make me question quite what full proofing would look like if it were updated day to day. Both of these arguments are valid to some degree and I do think that sometimes, punters tend to get a bit wrapped up in the here and now of a betting system rather than long term results. That having been said, if a customer has subscribed in the middle of a bad run and is losing money, then you have to acknowledge that they are working at a loss.

There is also the old staple of the cost of subscribing. There is however I feel several examples of results clearly being manipulated. For example, I have already looked at how Matt Houghton has picked out certain dates when talking about the profitability of his service on a proofing website. I also think that the sales material that is put out often exaggerates the abilities and results of his services. This has been called into question a number of times by users and none users alike, only to have the same old arguments thrown at them.

There are plenty of betting websites online that actively encourage independent discussion and thoughts on not just their services, but other peoples. These are both multi faceted things. But the issue that I have on a personal level is how much crap do you put up with for the good? The biggest problem that I have with The Betting Rant is that it seems to be mostly concerned with its own products. This is just an opinion at this point, but if I am going to conduct business with anybody I would expect them to behave in a professional manner at all times.

In terms of the systems that The Betting Rant puts out, this is a very mixed bag and it is rather difficult to argue that at least some have performed reasonably. I find that Matt Houghton is antagonistic and argumentative to the point where he just comes across as insulting to his customers and potential clientele. The systems that The Betting Rant puts out I would call passable at best and the actual website itself seems to serve to do nothing more than advertise other Agora Lifestyles products.

Whilst this could be overlooked to a degree, I have lost count of the email shots that I have had from Matt Houghton saying that his colleagues have the best and most profitable method of betting, or that you can bet on a sure thing, only to be taken to a product for Forex trading. This seems very duplicitous to me as the two are completely different and require a different skill set.

Despite this, the Forex trading products are sold as being an extension of betting. Instead, I would say that he is an internet marketer and in this regard, he is very good at what he does. I have already provided examples of not just how he can be selective with statistics for his various products through The Betting Rant, but shows what I would call a disregard for his customers in his other offerings even on The Betting Rant website home page there is an advert for a spread betting service for sports betting.

This has in the small print that you can lose significantly more than they invest. For my money, there are far better websites out there than The Betting Rant in all degrees and I would definitely be looking at these instead. My final thoughts on The Betting Rant are that this is a service that is heavily publicised by one of the biggest publishers of information products online, and as such I would always be somewhat sceptical of the motives of the site.

I would also say that having this financial clout behind it makes The Betting Rant look like the biggest, and as many people will think, the best. Tags: bettingrant. Great review! I always love reading articles that are well-researched and well-written, such as this one — while simultaneously being backed up by facts and actual numbers. I agree whole heartedly about Mr Houghton.

Stay well clear a nasty peice of work if I ever saw one, well read. Great review Ben, anything associated to Agora is usually overpriced nonsense. A very well written piece Ben, I think you captured the essence of Mr Houghton perfectly, he seems to have become quite bitter as time has passed! Nicely put together and echoes my sentiments entirely, with not only Betting Rant but the much bigger problem of Agora who pass themselves off as being the consumers champion whilst touting over priced and ill researched garbage.

Well done. Four Factor Racing members has their subscriptions transferred over to the Syndicate where they received more content for the same lower price. Researcher: The Miles Treadwell thing, the service was launched initially independently and there is actually a review of the service on the Betting Rant website at the following link:.

Whilst Matt Houghton is saying that the service has been absorbed by The Syndicate, I would argue that this would still mean that the independent service has been closed down. From my research however, there was no mention that this had been the case.

As I say, it never closed not as far as its members were concerned certainly it was merely added to. Is that excessively dangerous too? I went with Racing Index because I wanted to proof and they were recommended to me. Then pointing at a proofing site that we are holding a prominent position in for the last x months. Then getting accused of manipulation. Yes, we got off to a prickly start, but as I said on another post, text and comments can sometimes come over in a way that means one thing to the writer, but different to the audience.

It could be that a large part of some issues some readers could have is with your style. The fact that before MMR closed, your products were talked about in the same vein as being part of Agora, and where trolling was accepted. The bottom line is that we both know a minority of customers will complain about anything, not putting effort in, looking to blame, etc.

So I understand the frustration very well. I wish you well with Betting Rant, and I suspect many of the trolls will have followed you over from MMR, and are reading, and waiting. Quite a claim. You mean that you actually work for Agora, and the reviews mentioned are promoted by Agora, so how can any review you do be impartial, when subsequent sales go to Agora, or a branch of their business.

Wrtiting reviews for a company, when you work for the company, and the company own the products or services, or will profit from them cannot be impartial. The Syndicate is proofed to Racing Index. Researcher: In regards to his statement about proofing, I stand by what I said.

In the document I sent you, there is conversational transcripts where he makes a claim about the results which are picked apart by another commenter. Matt then goes on to talk about how if you factor in other bets, then you would be right. Given that he goes from making a claim about the position of his service with a website that monitors proofing, only to go on and make amendments to make it fit, I would say that could constitute potential manipulation.

Not entirely sure what your issue is with this? The small print is a legal requirement when carrying spread betting adverts. Spreadex — who you are referring to — are a perfectly respectable spread betting website. Researcher: In regards to his point about the spread betting advert. On a website that deals exclusively with gambling, I feel that it could easily be perceived as irresponsible to advertise a service in which people can lose more than they invest.

It was simply to highlight that the advertisement that he carries is for a potentially high risk betting strategy. Screenshot can be provided if required, although I can see from your following message you found the reference. There are also points in the above that I agree with, specifically regarding the added commercialisation of the franchise. However, as mentioned, I would very much like a response to the points above.

Also, your messages went into the spam section, so please refrain from spamming, if you have a question ask it in a singular post. I broke the points up as I felt it would be easier to digest than in one big long post.

I assume so. When something is taken out of context in such a way it can be quite difficult to recognise the comment. I do not own any product on this website myself, and the feedback given from readers, and users suggests that such reviews are appreciated. If you think that is the same as working for a company who provide reviews for their own products via proxy websites, then I can only assume you are missing the point completely.

Please note, that although you may wish to be antagonistic on your own website, it will not be allowed here, so if you wish to continue the debate, then I suggest you do so in a respectful manner. I really am trying to be nice Ben. Appreciate you posting the full comment above for clarity. I was referring to banter as being used as a defence.

For example:. What I should also say is that the reviews from my website are imported over from More Money Review. Regarding the banter comment, you asked for an example of where you portrayed the participation of your website as banter and this was provided.

Великолепная horse racing websites betting почаще

This will be revisited eventually. There is a home court advantage consideration, also. More on that, later. The adjusted game efficiencies are then averaged with more weighting to recent games to produce the final adjusted offensive efficiency. While the pythagorean winning percentage is calibrated to the likelihood of winning, the efficiencies are based purely on scoring per possession with no consideration of winning or losing.

This allows us to get both a chance of winning and a predicted final score with the system, and makes the system much more predictive than if we ignored scoring margin. It also has the advantage of giving a rating in offensive and defensive terms, and an SOS in those terms, as well.

Want to know which team has faced the toughest defenses? Well, with my system you can. See the link referred to at the beginning of this piece. More games will push these teams to their rightful location. I add 1. The new ones are Cons Consistency and Luck. The luck factor has nothing to do with the rating calculation, but a team that is very lucky positive numbers will tend to be rated lower by my system than their record would suggest. Consistency is basically the standard deviation of scoring difference by game for a team.

It can be an aid in determining which teams are overrated by my system. Highly rated teams that are inconsistent tend to look beatable more often. As of this writing, Georgia is ranked in consistency and Oklahoma is at Strength of Schedule now has three columns. The way I compute SOS is to average the opponents offensive and defensive ratings and to apply the pythagorean calculation to them to rank the overall schedules.

Therefore, the implied probability equals Moreover, the odds displayed by different bookmakers can vary significantly, meaning that the odds displayed by a bookmaker are not always correct. The key is to consider a betting opportunity valuable when the probability assessed for an outcome is higher than the implied probability estimated by the bookmaker. The odds on display never reflect the true probability or chance of an event occurring or not occurring.

There is always a profit margin added by the bookmaker in these odds, which means that the payout to the successful punter is always less than what they should have received if the odds had reflected the true chances. The bookmaker needs to estimate the true probability or chance of an outcome correctly in order to set the odds on display in such a way that it profits the bookmaker regardless of an event outcome.

If you notice, the total of these probabilities is This is because the odds on display are not fair odds. The bookie has an edge built into the odds. According to a study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies , the more hands a player wins, the less money they are likely to collect, especially with respect to novice players.

Behavioral economics comes into play here. A player continues playing the lottery , either in hopes of a big gain that would eventually offset the losses or the winning streak compels the player to keep playing. In both cases, it is not rational or statistical reasoning but the emotional high of a win that motivates them to play further.

Consider a casino. The house wants you to stay and continue playing. Naturally, the games offered by the casino have a built-in house edge, although the house advantage varies with the game. Moreover, novices find it particularly difficult to do cognitive accounting and people often misjudge the variance of payouts when they have a streak of wins, ignoring the fact that frequent modest gains are eventually erased by losses, which are often less frequent and larger in size. A betting opportunity should be considered valuable if the probability assessed for an outcome is higher than the implied probability estimated by the bookmaker.

Furthermore, the odds on display never reflect the true probability of an event occurring or not occurring. The payoff on a win is always less than what one should have received if the odds had reflected the true chances. Science Daily. Journal of Gambling Studies. Business Essentials. Trading Psychology.

Wealth Management. Auto Loans. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses. Key Takeaways The three types of odds are fractional, decimal, and American. One type of odd can be converted into another and can also be expressed as an implied probability percentage.

LIVE BETTING 365

Pentagon CU is pretty awesome. If you signed up for BiggerPockets via Facebook, you can log in with just one click! Log in with Facebook. Full Name Use your real name. Password Use at least 8 characters. Using a phrase of random words like: paper Dog team blue is secure and easy to remember.

All All. Menu Menu. Recommended Vendors. New Feature. Analyze a property. Real Estate Books. Featured Book. Get the Magazine. Search Nova. Log In Sign up. Create post. Good things first They will bear the costs of closing. Meaning everything from application, appraisaland everything. Very nice. The rates range from percent depending on the credit score. Amortize over 30 yrs and refi at 10 yrs.

This is not that bad actually but the credit person on the phone told me that because I frankly told them I plan to use the line of credit to buy rental property. So when they process my application, they factor in mortgage that I will be responsible for from the new property.

This omission of rental income blow through the require debt to income ratio and hence the primary HELOC was turned down. Say even if the calculation above shows that you have any amount left to apply for line of credit, it has to be above 20k for them to even consider your application. Rotate Log in or sign up to reply. Hey Daniel, a couple thoughts that came to mind while reading your post.

Best of luck to you. Originally posted by Linda Weygant : I am unsure why they would not include additional rental income if you've already got two years of rental history on your other two units. Originally posted by Carter Melvin : I got the same story from Wells. Originally posted by Kyle J. Originally posted by Oliver T. I will definitely try that. Calling up all the small banks I can find. Originally posted by Aly NA: I used TD Bank for 4 Helocs on investment properties, and said it was for home improvement and purchase of a 2nd home vacation property.

I may give them a try. Log in Sign up. Log in Email Password Forgot password? Name required. Why create an account? Find local real estate meetups and events in your area. Start analyzing real estate properties, we do the math for you. On the one hand, scientists are expected to present their data dispassionately and objectively; at the same time, they are also expected to make their research sound "sexy," or at least relevant and orderly.

Scientists must appear to know what they're doing, even though research is a messy, disorganized affair as researchers grope around in the dark in uncharted territory. The unexpected always happens and Murphy's law holds sway. Yet, scientists must appear to be in control and to have an agenda—to understand disease X, or explain phenomenon Y—all to justify public funding, get a paper published, or prop up an image of competence.

So, are there a lot of spin in the published literature? You bet. Does the spin cross from self-promotion to outright fraud? That's a grey area, and like pornography, you know that line's been crossed only when you see it. When I was a grad student, one of my advisors cautioned that I should treat everything I read in the scientific literature as bull because all of them are spinning facts to some degree.

That same advisor also told me to expect everyone else to treat MY work like it's bull. There's a sort of vague acknowledgement that some spin will always be in scientific literature for any number of reasons. After all, if your work doesn't at least appear to be the best thing that happened since sliced bread, then there's no reason to fund you. There's also an unspoken expectation for the readers to look at the data presented and draw their own conclusions.

It's like every paper comes with a presumption of guilt, and the reader's job is to prosecute the hell out of it. But I don't think the general public was ever clued in on this little charade. The public was never told, point blank, to read between the lines and seriously critique a paper because that would contradict the dispassionate persona science has maintained in the public consciousness—science is supposed to be the distiller of truth.

But like all human endeavors, human nature gets in the way and everyone must manage in the best way we can. That means applying the same level of common sense and skepticism that we may apply to other aspects of our lives.

A science paper isn't meant to tell you what to think, it's meant to be prosecuted vigorously based on the evidence presented. So have at it! Take your best shot! Yavchitz A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. Epub Sep Aa Aa Aa. A humble rant re: spin in science papers. September 29, AM. Love this rant September 26, PM.