The entire “expert opinion” of Kate Hurley is built on flawed “research” which is not even research but rather paid for doctrine by Maddie’s Fund. If you look at her article in Frontier Science, “rethinking the role of community cats” one can see how poorly it is cited, often with stats not even found in the original citations, articles that talk about truly feral cats, citing articles that are paid for by Maddie’s and Best Friends, and statements with no research backing. It’s truly a disgrace to research in America and calls into question the validity of the journal and all articles contained. The irony is the divisions editor is employed by UC Davis, the exact institution Hurley works for and an institution that gets millions from Maddie’s Fund. It’s all a scam.
Wow! I suppose they expect that no one will follow up and look at the "research". After repeatedly failing to perform magic with a "research based" reading and math program, I looked up the study that claimed fantastic results with teenagers. It didn't exist. One study had been done on twelve teenagers with learning disabilities in a juvenile detention facility. Only nine were still participating at the end of the study. Their results were unremarkable. All of the other studies had been done on non-disabled elementary school students. I asked to teach Literature to students who could decode and cooking instead of math and lived happily ever after.
Truly disappointing that so many people with doctorate degrees don’t use research correctly or conduct it correctly. Education use of research is deplorable. They follow whatever way the pendulum is swinging. In the community cat case, they have created doctorine based on nothing.
Kelly, I think your original hypothesis is the most likely explanation. I don't think the faulty research is a bug, it's a deliberate feature of the closed loop within the Consortium to sustain the crisis narrative.
Oh it was absolutely deliberate. You can tell by the main article Hurley wrote. She backs the intro up with research but when it come to why leaving them in the streets is better it is complete opinion with citations based on a paper she helped the national animal care and control association write. That is the org SDHS chief law enforcement officer is on the board of. It explains why Gary hired “out of town” unqualified talent instead of finding a local.
The entire “expert opinion” of Kate Hurley is built on flawed “research” which is not even research but rather paid for doctrine by Maddie’s Fund. If you look at her article in Frontier Science, “rethinking the role of community cats” one can see how poorly it is cited, often with stats not even found in the original citations, articles that talk about truly feral cats, citing articles that are paid for by Maddie’s and Best Friends, and statements with no research backing. It’s truly a disgrace to research in America and calls into question the validity of the journal and all articles contained. The irony is the divisions editor is employed by UC Davis, the exact institution Hurley works for and an institution that gets millions from Maddie’s Fund. It’s all a scam.
Wow! I suppose they expect that no one will follow up and look at the "research". After repeatedly failing to perform magic with a "research based" reading and math program, I looked up the study that claimed fantastic results with teenagers. It didn't exist. One study had been done on twelve teenagers with learning disabilities in a juvenile detention facility. Only nine were still participating at the end of the study. Their results were unremarkable. All of the other studies had been done on non-disabled elementary school students. I asked to teach Literature to students who could decode and cooking instead of math and lived happily ever after.
Truly disappointing that so many people with doctorate degrees don’t use research correctly or conduct it correctly. Education use of research is deplorable. They follow whatever way the pendulum is swinging. In the community cat case, they have created doctorine based on nothing.
Kelly, I think your original hypothesis is the most likely explanation. I don't think the faulty research is a bug, it's a deliberate feature of the closed loop within the Consortium to sustain the crisis narrative.
Oh it was absolutely deliberate. You can tell by the main article Hurley wrote. She backs the intro up with research but when it come to why leaving them in the streets is better it is complete opinion with citations based on a paper she helped the national animal care and control association write. That is the org SDHS chief law enforcement officer is on the board of. It explains why Gary hired “out of town” unqualified talent instead of finding a local.