Will science publisher Taylor and Francis do anything about an unethical article that misdirected criticism about researchers doing dangerous virus research and apparently skated past peer review?
Exactly so. There’s very little understanding that losing the public’s trust is devastating in a crisis.
The public is deliberately, calculatedly misled both in mainstream media and in prestigious journals (and it’s still going on—see Worobey’s resurrection of the wet market hypothesis in Science a couple months ago, when even China long since abandoned that) and then our leaders wonder, “Why oh why don’t people mask up / take the vaccine/ follow our guidance?”
Once folks knew that they were playing with fire, the poured gasoline on it
Thank you for throughly documenting these science criminals. Your background makes you the perfect person for this.
I'd love to see their universities demand their doctoral regalia back in formal ceremonies.
I have studied journalism. It was a passion. It was a time when you could "Trust the Journalism". Why? Because journalists were duty bound to double confirm all sources. Journalists were absolutely compelled to provide balance in all reporting. When was the last time Americans could "Trust the Journalism" ?
The same dishonor has befallen the study of Science. It is all agenda driven now just like journalism. When was the last time Americans could "Trust the Science"?
As an author of more than 120 peer-reviewed publications, including Science and Nature, it is absolutely clear to me that one of the basic motivations behind acceptability of contributions is not the net scientific value, but the prospect of massive citations and downloads that are the chief determinants how the journal importance is judged. Hence the mass of "Systematic Review and Metaanalysis" papers, and in the last two years, the avalanche of scientifically inadequate and worthless COVID articles in the "best" of journals (e.g. The Lancet and NEJM). The world of pure science is fading and is rapidly being replaced by commercial science.
There's a certain hubris among the "elitely" educated, who believe their excessive curricular experience makes up for common sense and sheer brainpower. And that hubris convinces them that the average (and especially above average) person will never pick up on their lies, obfuscation, and misdirection. Subtlety and nuance are not their skills.
It reminds me of many fiction writers whose work I've edited. After giving a character some nervous affectation, they'll proceed to mention it about 137 times in the book, then ask me if I noticed it. "Yep, the first time, and the 136 times after that." "Oh, good," they respond, utterly clueless.
But back to the charlatans. They believe their hit pieces and bias aren't obvious despite their grinding axes cutting to the quick and giving me a massive headache. Plagiarists are of the same ilk, believing that readers (including editors) can't spot a change in writing style.
But why? Fauci syndrome. Massive egos that convince them they are not just right but that everyone else is stupid AF and thus they can get away with anything. And to a degree (as with the opioid docs), they're right. My hope, however, is that we can make many of them pay dearly, with infamy, career disgrace, and public shame. And, if there is some medical god up in the sky, with the self-realization that they're not really smart after all but merely criminals and grifters.
"Why Do People Not “Trust the Science”? Because Like All People, Scientists Are Not Always Trustworthy" Catchy titles sacrifice the truth, don't they? One can argue that with regard to vaccine science, it seems that the majority of Europeans, and North Americans did trust it--- otherwise they would not have gotten vaccinated. In general, most scientists, like most journalists, are trustworthy, and most shy away from public attention. Due to the nature of Chinese society, will never know what happened in the labs of Wuhan and although the possibility that it accidentally released the virus is possible and a catchy story, the conflict of interest does not provide evidence in itself.