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?”
From my on-going perusal of scientific journal topics, there are definitely journals and science blogs today that are 100% a tool for propaganda/those that have planned and organized this global "reset".
Just a single example is the blaring tip off of those touting vaccines safety for pregnant women - because that has never been the case w anything that is experimental. I mean "never" since all the birth defects of Thalidimide(sp?). But a recent article in online Nature would be convincing to anyone that is not already familiar w scientific deceit tactics or actively looking for them. As far as I can surmise, it is probably nothing short of murder.
Who was it that said one intentional killing was murder but millions is just a statistic?
So if you have data, please share it with links. Re "scientific deceit tactics" -- yes, there are deceit and lies in every field, and science is not exempt -- just think of the way various people actively covered up information indicating that a lab leak origin was a reasonable hypothesis that needed to be investigated. That's a crime. Anyone who covered that up should be locked away and never see the light of day again. Millions of people are dead because of their bad choices. It happens, so you don't have to convince me of that.
But look: If there's compelling evidence of deceit in science, there's generally clear _motivation_ for the deceit too -- who wants to be blamed for a global disaster and 5.5 million dead people (and counting)? The guys who covered up a potential lab leak, their incentives are quite clear.
What are the incentives for anyone "murdering" pregnant women? Who wins? To me, that's preposterous, unless you have a reasonable explanation for that. Show me some evidence of wrongdoing, along with a reasonable incentive for the wrongdoing.
If your hypothesis is "it's just Pharma being greedy" -- Pharma IS greedy, yes; but no, there are a bazillion drugs that are unsafe for pregnant women, and they are labeled as such. If it were just greed, it doesn't fit everything else we know about how an (admittedly greedy) industry handles dangers to pregnant women in every other context.
If Pfizer or Moderna were "killing pregnant women" with their vaccine, their name and their brand would be completely trashed.
In my experience with Big Pharma, and experience sifting through a lot of information on clinicaltrials.gov, what _really_ happens with (admittedly greedy) Big Pharma is they push a lot of drugs that do basically nothing, or very little. Statins for blood lipids? Pretty much not needed, but a huge cash cow. Drugs for depression? Ditto. "New" (expensive) drugs that are slightly different from a perfectly serviceable drug that is cheaper? Yup, no one really needs those. Their greed is on display, too, in all those "Ask your doctor about _________" ads. They have no business "selling" prescription drugs to people. If they need a prescription drug for a problem, any intelligent doctor will know that.
No doubt Big Pharma stinks, and they sell people a lot of crap they don't need. But there's been no evidence they psychopathically and knowingly kill people with the help of stooges in government. In fact, our own government kept us safe from thalidomide although some doctors distributed it as part of a clinical trial. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/health/thalidomide-fda-documents.html. Frances Kelsey was instrumental in preventing the FDA from marketing it here in the US and got a presidential award from JFK.
For all its flaws, our system does a pretty good job protecting us from dangerous drugs. It doesn't protect us from expensive useless drugs (there's the big problem in my view), but it does protect us from being "murdered."
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.
This has long been true about review articles, which is why journals have long loved them. It's easier for a researcher outside the field to spend a couple hours reading a few reviews rather than spending weeks going through primary studies. This is also why pharma companies worked so hard to ghostwrite so many reviews in medicine.
Having been subjected to the torture of reading many of the so-called COVID-19 articles, I can affirm that fewer than 1 in 10 would be worthy of turning in for a high school biology course let alone any journal. Most have no numbers at all, just random brain diarrhea.
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.
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?”
From my on-going perusal of scientific journal topics, there are definitely journals and science blogs today that are 100% a tool for propaganda/those that have planned and organized this global "reset".
Just a single example is the blaring tip off of those touting vaccines safety for pregnant women - because that has never been the case w anything that is experimental. I mean "never" since all the birth defects of Thalidimide(sp?). But a recent article in online Nature would be convincing to anyone that is not already familiar w scientific deceit tactics or actively looking for them. As far as I can surmise, it is probably nothing short of murder.
Who was it that said one intentional killing was murder but millions is just a statistic?
So if you have data, please share it with links. Re "scientific deceit tactics" -- yes, there are deceit and lies in every field, and science is not exempt -- just think of the way various people actively covered up information indicating that a lab leak origin was a reasonable hypothesis that needed to be investigated. That's a crime. Anyone who covered that up should be locked away and never see the light of day again. Millions of people are dead because of their bad choices. It happens, so you don't have to convince me of that.
But look: If there's compelling evidence of deceit in science, there's generally clear _motivation_ for the deceit too -- who wants to be blamed for a global disaster and 5.5 million dead people (and counting)? The guys who covered up a potential lab leak, their incentives are quite clear.
What are the incentives for anyone "murdering" pregnant women? Who wins? To me, that's preposterous, unless you have a reasonable explanation for that. Show me some evidence of wrongdoing, along with a reasonable incentive for the wrongdoing.
If your hypothesis is "it's just Pharma being greedy" -- Pharma IS greedy, yes; but no, there are a bazillion drugs that are unsafe for pregnant women, and they are labeled as such. If it were just greed, it doesn't fit everything else we know about how an (admittedly greedy) industry handles dangers to pregnant women in every other context.
If Pfizer or Moderna were "killing pregnant women" with their vaccine, their name and their brand would be completely trashed.
In my experience with Big Pharma, and experience sifting through a lot of information on clinicaltrials.gov, what _really_ happens with (admittedly greedy) Big Pharma is they push a lot of drugs that do basically nothing, or very little. Statins for blood lipids? Pretty much not needed, but a huge cash cow. Drugs for depression? Ditto. "New" (expensive) drugs that are slightly different from a perfectly serviceable drug that is cheaper? Yup, no one really needs those. Their greed is on display, too, in all those "Ask your doctor about _________" ads. They have no business "selling" prescription drugs to people. If they need a prescription drug for a problem, any intelligent doctor will know that.
No doubt Big Pharma stinks, and they sell people a lot of crap they don't need. But there's been no evidence they psychopathically and knowingly kill people with the help of stooges in government. In fact, our own government kept us safe from thalidomide although some doctors distributed it as part of a clinical trial. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/health/thalidomide-fda-documents.html. Frances Kelsey was instrumental in preventing the FDA from marketing it here in the US and got a presidential award from JFK.
For all its flaws, our system does a pretty good job protecting us from dangerous drugs. It doesn't protect us from expensive useless drugs (there's the big problem in my view), but it does protect us from being "murdered."
Once folks knew that they were playing with fire, the poured gasoline on it
Wow
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"?
Wow, you must be really old.
"It (science) is all agenda-driven now." "All" is often an emotional term. Provide evidence for your extraordinary claim.
Let me help: "Virtually all."
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.
This has long been true about review articles, which is why journals have long loved them. It's easier for a researcher outside the field to spend a couple hours reading a few reviews rather than spending weeks going through primary studies. This is also why pharma companies worked so hard to ghostwrite so many reviews in medicine.
Having been subjected to the torture of reading many of the so-called COVID-19 articles, I can affirm that fewer than 1 in 10 would be worthy of turning in for a high school biology course let alone any journal. Most have no numbers at all, just random brain diarrhea.
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.
https://twitter.com/barbout/status/1482724461170376704?s=21