The Corruption of Medicine
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Fake Science Proves Problematic for Academic Publishing as Journals Close From Research Fraud
I noted that City Journal did a detailed review of the ideological capture of science journalism. The must-read article ended by begging for a return to “the core principles of science—and the broader tradition of fact-based discourse and debate—our society.”
Facts are necessary for good science, the foundation of sensible and effective policy-making. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to learn that several academic journals were recently shuttered because their articles contained fake science.
The journals are associated with Wiley’s Hindawi subsidiary, an Egypt-based house that published 250 journals and was acquired in 2021. One contributing factor to the increasing number of fraudulent research papers is the use of artificial intelligence (AI).
Professional organizations are asking if AI can be used to detect AI-generated paper-milled articles.
Where have they been the past few years. Of that's right, waiting for Europe to perform the study and publish their findings.
Unless you marry a Marine officer and win a beauty pageant.
What have I been telling you about $Science? Three weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an exclusive headlined, “Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures.”
Publicly traded John Wiley & Sons, one of the largest and most well-regarded science publishers, has been polishing its sterling reputation for over 200 years. But over the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than eleven thousand papers that turned out to be faked, and last month Wiley announced it was closing nineteen journals “infected by large-scale research fraud.”
Trust the science!
The Wall Street Journal spotted the awful risk that morons like us will conclude the whole Science industry is just a big casino-like shell game where the house always wins:
Ha. I say, threatens what credibility? Maybe Big Science still has some pus-filled pockets of credibility remaining among credulous New York Times editors, liberal elitists, and petty bureaucrats. But as for the rest of us, we survivors of the iatrogenic pandemic, have had our fill, thank you.
This story should surprise no one.
Way back in 2009, Marcia Angell, the executive editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine for twenty years, dropped this truth bomb in an article she published in the New York Review of Books:
Ten years ago in 2015, Richard Horton, chief editor of top journal The Lancet, also raised the alarm, and he was even more pessimistic than Marcia:
A turn toward darkness! And just in time for the pandemic. It’s too bad nobody listened. That dose of scientific skepticism might have been very helpful back when the pandemic modelers swamped us with fake studies exaggerating the risks of covid mortality by orders of magnitude.
But the Journal, and all the downstream articles also wringing their hands about the loss of trust in Science, overlooked the more meaningful problem. During the pandemic, when fake studies based on “models” filled the journals hyping massive covid mortality — which were then used to justify the draconian pandemic mitigation laws — journal editors were systematically canceling any submitted studies with different conclusions.
You can argue about “study mills” and “pharma capture” all you want, but the truth is the journal editors failed. They earn their salaries as gatekeepers with the duty to ensure fair peer review. They are expected to actually read the studies to make sure they make sense. They failed. Worse, they reason they failed to do their job was on purpose, because the editors decided their job was not to ensure good science, but to enforce the official narrative.
But the narrative was wrong.
Given the stakes and the dollars involved, and how the system markets “peer review” as some kind of false scientific gold standard, of course pharma will try to get its fake studies published. Fake studies mint billions. But, if “peer review” is to be used as the gold standard, then editors like Wiley must ensure their products are not just a shiny artifice.
They are selling us fool’s gold. The good news is the whole rotten frame is falling down on them. And what started it tipping over was how far they overreached during covid. It’s another unexpected covid blessing.
☕️ THE BLUE WALL ☙ Wednesday, June 12, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Jury convicts Hunter and media starts smugness contest; June temps disappoint activists; 10th Circuit raises tough questions of body autonomy; WSJ reports fake science; Trump W's; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
11,000 FAKE RESEARCH REPORTS
As a trans man or non-binary person assigned female at birth, do I need to get screened for cervical cancer?
Fact Check: Canadian Cancer Society Did NOT 'Apologize' For Using 'Cervix' Instead Of 'Front Hole' -- It Explained Its Word Choice
Amy Hamm: A cervix is not a 'front hole' no matter what the tyrants say
Front hole: it’s not your mouth, or one of your nostrils — it’s, umm, apparently the cervix, which both men and women can possess. At least according to the Canadian Cancer Society.
Last week, the society found itself in a global media maelstrom after True North published a story about the registered charity’s unprompted justification for using the medically accurate, concise term “cervix,” rather than “front hole,” when describing the importance of regular cervical cancer screening.
“We recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like ‘cervix.’ You may prefer other words, such as ‘front hole.’ We recognize the limitations of the words we’ve used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity. Another reason we use words like ‘cervix’ is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too,” reads a cancer society webpage on cancer screening for LGBTQ communities.
This language likely comes as a shock to many Canadians, as it should — it reads as though the country’s largest cancer charity has hired a gaggle of budding comedian pre-school children to write their public health advice. (What’s next? Bum-bum or pee-pee cancer?) Unfortunately, though, this act of referring to females and their anatomy or biological functions with offensive, vulgar, or astoundingly bizarre terminology — in the name of “inclusiveness” — is not a new phenomenon. Nor is it rare. It is, infuriatingly, becoming the norm in the “progressive” West. It is not strictly limited to health-care settings, either.
Surgeon should have been stopped before my daughter’s leg was amputated
Bunty was operated on by Yaser Jabbar, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who is now the subject of an urgent review. The hospital trust is investigating the care of 721 children seen by Jabbar, who specialised in limb-lengthening and reconstruction surgery.
Bunty had a condition that caused her left tibia to be bowed and short, alongside a genetic condition which causes tumours to grow on her nerves.
She was allegedly subjected to procedures such as bone grafting and lengthening of the tibia with the use of frames in order to prevent amputation. All the operations were unsuccessful and she had a below-knee amputation in May 2020.
Stalham said that he complained to the hospital, claiming that Jabbar “used to sweep into the ward and talk himself up as some sort of miracle man, whilst nothing he did ever improved Bunty’s situation”.
