I’ve recently been getting a ton of spam—something like 200 messages a day in my inbox! The Columbia people tell me that soon we’ll be switching to a new mail server that will catch most of these, but for now I have to spend a couple minutes every day just going thru and flagging them as spam. Which does basically nothing.
Anyway, most of these are just boring: home improvement ads, quack medicine, search engine optimization, sub-NKVD political fake news, invitations to fake conferences around the world, Wolfram Research employees who claim to have read my papers, etc. But today I got this which had an amusing statistical twist:
Understand how to do a coverage analysis at the Clinical Trial Billing Compliance Boot Camp
Become Clinical Trial Billing Proficient at the Only Hands-On Workshop to Guide You through All of Your Billing Compliance Challenges
Do you want to know the ins and outs of performing a coverage analysis? This year’s Clinical Trial Billing Compliance Boot Camp series will walk you through the process from “qualifying” a trial — to putting actual codes on the billing grid, so translation to the coders can occur. . . . Register today to learn how to do a coverage analysis from soup to nuts! We will help you start a coverage analysis grid that you can take home with you that will help you with your process improvement. . . .
Something about the relentless positivity of their message reminded me of Brian Wansink. Or Amy Cuddy.
I mean, really, why does everyone have to be so negative all the time? So critical? I say, let’s stop trying to check whether the numbers on published papers add up. Let’s just agree that any paper that’s published is always true. Let’s believe everything they tell us on NPR and Ted talks. Let’s just say that everything published in PPNAS is actually science. Let’s accept every submitted paper (as long as it has “p less than .05” somewhere). Let’s tenure everybody! No more party poopers, that’s what I say!