What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

The Surgisphere Scandal;

It sounds absurd that an obscure US company with a hastily constructed website could have driven international health policy and brought major clinical trials to a halt within the span of a few weeks. Yet that’s what happened earlier this year, when Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation began a publishing spree that would trigger one of the largest scientific scandals of the COVID-19 pandemic to date.

17 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

    1. ….and remember all the right boxes were checked:
      -brown researchers of Indian heritage helping to save the world.
      -Trump had touted the drug and anything Trump says or does is wrong and the research proved that.

  1. MoFo’s aught to Strung up..

    This BS Backlash against a Drug whose efficacy has been CLEARLY shown in numerous cases and studies resulted in how many preventable Deaths..??
    Efficacy..? Just look at Uganda’s Covid Stats.

    All part of the nation wide “Orange Man Bad” Campaign.
    Sickening and beyond Disgusting.
    I DETEST Democrats & MSM whores….

    1. ” . . . a Drug whose efficacy has been CLEARLY shown in numerous cases and studies . . .”

      No later than the “Bird Flu” (H5N1) outbreak of 2005 (and there is a current outbreak in China again, so expect a new panicdemic). Despite the MSM’s attempts to frame it as something that Trump pulled out of his arse it has been considered (with zinc, the actual active ingredient, and vitamins D and A) an effective treatment course for at least 15 years.

  2. When this first hit the news I was asked for my opinion on it. After only a cursory reading of the source, because that’s all it took, I said, “This prima facie looks like it was designed to fail. I have no idea how it got published.”

    I still have no idea why anyone took it seriously.

    1. kfg, for the same reason a flawed computer model shut down the world and is still being used to project numbers to keep people in a state of panic and under government control, we are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

  3. Two things:

    1) The article avoids the large, fluorescent green elephant in the room: This whole thing had just one aim – to hurt Trump. If you ignore that, you will never get to the the core problem.

    2) The Lancet really shouldn’t be publishing anything. They talk about revised measures, but avoid any discussion of their core problem here – their peer reviewers failed miserably. They failed to check the numbers, not just the calculations, but even for basic credibility. They failed to require access to the data. The names of the reviewers need to be published, and they need to be suitably punished for their lack of academic rigor and removed from any future peer review panel.

  4. Pal review not peer review. This is how the likes of Michael Mann get publishes, circular Pal Review. It will not end until peer review can no longer be done in privacy under the cloak of anonymity.

    1. That’s all it ever was. Peer review guarantees that only the scientific cabal gets anything published, and that none of them gets scooped by smart-arse clerks in the Swiss patent office, whose work can be swiftly “desk rejected” and sent to the crank file.

  5. “Now people are so confused about what science can give you—whether hydroxychloroquine works, it doesn’t work, it’s fake, it’s not fake—that it’s going to be very difficult for us scientists then to use any type of article or publication,” says García. “Now that they know scientists can lie, who will believe us again?”

    Maybe he should have been paying attention a whole lot sooner.
    Policy based evidence manufacturing is the “sciency” approach that Progressive Officials use,evidence based policy making is so 19th Century.
    Many of us were drawn into examining this corruption by the blatant abuse of the scientific method that Climatology Inc requires to exist.
    But the medical field has been far worse for far longer.
    So much speculation and subjective “evidence” is stated as gospel.
    Meanwhile medical malpractice kills more people than all the gangbangers combined..
    Behaviour such as the magazine is noted for,is part of the long march through the institutions,our progressive comrades being too stupid to figure out the obvious..
    Trust is a mighty fragile thing.

  6. L – “Follow the money” Some how, some where some people got paid by someone, maybe more than someone ! The main suspect is facing 3 malpractice lawsuits. What about his accomplices? Qui Bono ? Who benefits ?

    Many need to be interviewed regarding a legal standard for civil suits and criminal charges.

    Lancet’s and the New England Journal of Medicine… ? Well, during a pandemic, this qualifies for Crime Against Humanity crime status. Their reputations, tied into medical science’s reputation. Both publications may never recover. See the quote below for proof.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–
    “Americans should oust President Trump from the White House and elect a leader who will support – rather than undermine – public health experts who are battling the COVID-19 pandemic, British medical journal The Lancet says in a newly published editorial.

    The unsigned editorial sharply criticizes the Trump administration, saying it has marginalized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to a degree that is dangerous for both the U.S. and the world.

    “Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics,” the journal says.”

    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/15/856733300/replace-trump-and-bolster-the-cdc-a-leading-medical-journal-urges
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    L- Why would a British Medical Journal have a blatantly political editorial about the politics of a foreign nation ? The Cult. Marxists have infiltrated into the Medical institutions.

    Note the quote, mimicking the “Climate Crisis”, touts blind political loyalty to the “experts” not the scientific standard of “Follow the evidence, where ever it leads. ”

    Medical ethics demands a purge of those failing to uphold a Professional Standard of Medical Ethics. Or doctors lose their status as a Profession and simply become employees of the state, as in the U.S.S.R and other countries, e.i. Communist China.

  7. Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess deaths during the covid-19 pandemic, serological surveys since the peak indicate that at most only around a fifth of people have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: 23% in New York, 18% in London, 11% in Madrid.123 Among the general population the numbers are substantially lower, with many national surveys reporting in single digits.

    With public health responses around the world predicated on the assumption that the virus entered the human population with no pre-existing immunity before the pandemic,4 serosurvey data are leading many to conclude that the virus has, as Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of emergencies, put it, “a long way to burn.”

    Yet a stream of studies that have documented SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in people without exposure to the virus are raising questions about just how new the pandemic virus really is, with many implications.

    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

  8. “Now that they know scientists can lie, who will believe us again?”

    Imagine that, scientists that lie. Let’s hope we are praying to the right ones in our nightly prayers.

Navigation