The editors of the world’s most prestigious medical journals are sounding the alarm, and nobody is listening.
“We have peer reviewed, high impact editors in most of the journals that are the most high impact, saying that they don’t believe what is being published in those journals is trustworthy anymore.”
“The BMJ, The Lancet, all of those editors have come out and said, we have a huge problem. We can’t replicate this research and we actually don’t even know who did the research.”
“Everywhere we’ve looked for corruption, we’ve found it.”
Surprise, surprise!
Their reaction to this still will be : “ Shut up and take the jab, eat the bugs, trans your child, etc. etc. etc.”
Could it be that when politics is mixed with science, science loses?
Asking for a sciencey friend of mine.
As I’ve said to our resident fanatical peer review worshipper many times, I miss the days when scientists weren’t just shills for whoever was paying the most. It was nice to just be able to believe what they were saying rather than wondering who was profiting from it.
Peer review became worthless to me after the East Anglia University affair was exposed.
“It was nice to just be able to believe what they were saying rather than wondering who was profiting from it.”
It was a gentleman’s agreement sort of thing. Lies regarding global warming, guns, things like that were given the “wink and nod” treatment, whereas “serious” research was taken seriously. You don’t lie about kidney replacements or stomach ulcers, right?
But now they lie about the kidney all day long. Every second paper is 100% made up. It’s amazing, really. And since AI became so easy to use, now there is a -tsunami- of BS flooding the market.
And where’s the mammal? Hiding in his burrow, of course. Evidence that the Gold Standard of Science is actually gilded tin, and the gilding is actually brass? SILENCE of course.
Hi carb diet is great for you. Bacon causes cancer. Low fat yogurt. Don’t eat meat. Yeah, they lost me a long time ago. But the big issue was when they started playing the numbers game (the more papers the better) to qualify for tenure or to make money in publishing journals.
One thing I could never figure out was why do I need to pay to read a research paper that was done with public money. Don’t I own enough of the research to get a free copy of the paper?
“…why do I need to pay to read a research paper that was done with public money”?
Because science publishing is one of the most horrific ripoff scams in the modern world, Steve. With the active and may I say enthusiastic cooperation of government as well.
I don’t believe the ONE “study” by the WHO that claims glyphosate (RoundUP) causes human cancer. Sorry. I don’t buy it as multiple other studies did not find that. Yes, I still spray Roundup extensively for weed control. And no, I don’t drink it. But I don’t drink 409 bathroom cleaner either.
Oh for f sake. I’ve been saying this since 1992.
Read -any- gun control paper published since 1968 in -any- medical journal, and you will see CORRUPTION on display. Lies, d@mned lies, and statistics. For FIFTY YEARS, my friends.
And did any of those learned men in those august Ivory Tower pinnacles raise so much as an eyebrow at any of it? No they did not. They leaned into it and did it more. They are STILL doing it.
One (1) guy objected. April 1994, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 83(3):133-48 “Guns in the medical literature: A failure of peer review” by Dr. Edgar Suter. He objected. He called bullsh1t on the whole thing. The response to his -scathing- review of their d@mned lies was CRICKETS. They just kept going.
So here we are, 2026, and suddenly the Bigwigs are concerned. Because now it isn’t just their special pets lying in their journals, pushing their special Leftist propaganda projects. Now ALL of them are lying. ALL of the papers are bullsh1t. “The BMJ, The Lancet, all of those editors have come out and said, we have a huge problem. We can’t replicate this research and we actually don’t even know who did the research.” Surprise surprise.
Back in the ancient times of 1992 I asked a question of those big Ivory Tower dudes. “If it’s okay to lie about guns, how long before they lie about everything?” Well now we know. Twenty four years.
“Read -any- gun control paper published since 1968 in -any- medical journal, and you will see CORRUPTION on display. Lies, d@mned lies, and statistics. For FIFTY YEARS, my friends.”
So true. I remember when doctors in the US were required (by their medical associations, I think) to ask patients if there were any firearms in their home. That didn’t last long due to the enormous backlash, but still…
Great example!
Masters of the Obvious shit.
The obvious “sciency” lies about climate have been published for a quarter century.
What is a marmot to do…
The marmot’s restraint on this thread is notable.
Also, I remember a “meta study” done by some guy at the U of A years ago, wherein his team assessed a plethora of research papers and found biases and selective use of data in most papers/studies/theses etc.
I have also seen many peer review sessions in action, and it was an eye opener.
People pushing bullshit as science should be put in the public pillory.
They are facilitating mass death … such as Fauxci … so … an eye for an eye
?
l gotta ask, are we being set up for a monty python skit?
because it sure looks like it . . . . . . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ptUMe9eqYE
I spoke with a professor I know, years ago, about the need to stay in one’s lane. He could somewhat acknowledge that, but when I suggested medical journals were turning out shute, I was rudely dismissed as buying into conspiracy theories. He I’m sure will not believe this either.
pfffft. lm WAY ahead on this. here’s the part they wont tell us: the research is done again. they pick off the most medically etc keenly critical. and publish the results. which show the research on that was was legit.
except it aint. the ‘follow up’ is ALL corrupt also. the net result no one can trust any scientific journal ever again. and The End Times take another HUGE step forward.
trust is gone at every level.
cackle cackle cackle as my bullysister would say. (l got a big big head start on being bullied. now, meh, l ALREADY dont believe sweet f all. anything else, ‘their loss’)
There goes 99% of the rodents defence of the kill shots.
But, but, but the Science is settled!!!!
(settled in whatever happens to be the local currency)
Nice.
Government funded “scientific research’.
Is a government product.
Policy based evidence Manufacturing.
When lying is the norm,truth is abandoned.
The 2009 release of the Climate Research Institutes internal emails,took the mask off of “Climatology”.
Almost no “scientists” spoke out against the blatant fraud that government funded climatology is..
And now?
“if you can’t beat them? Join them”.
The scientific method is out of fashion.
Pushed aside along with common sense.
But fear not,the Mighty Dead Weasel will be here soon,to comfort all with its assurances that “peer reviewed experts” are certain that the Government Goo of those Covid vaccines was found to be “safe and effective” by government funded experts..
Wearing real white lab coasts and their opinions were “peer reviewed” by their peers of course..
These are the claims of Broken Science Initiative, not the most credible group out there.
https://brokenscience.org/
They are correct that scientific publishing has problems. It’s easy to find examples. But BSI makes sweeping generalizations about the extent of those problems without presenting good evidence backing it up.
This video is a good example. Sweeping generalizations, but no solid evidence, or even citations or links of where we can find such evidence.
Why is it that Brokenscience.org has an X page … but has made no posts, ever … and hence takes no dissent or community notes …
https://x.com/broken_science
Any so-called Science org that refuses to debate their … beliefs … is JUNK science.
It’s a weird organization. They’re main purpose seems to be pushing a diet and exercise regime they call MetFix, but with commentary on science on the side. Not sure how they make their money, or if they make much money.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”
Lancet Editor Richard Horton
No doubt Richard Horton is also not credible………
Well, I don’t think he’s credible. Now Johnny Horton, he’s credible!
https://youtu.be/Mdpc5FmrjSc?si=4vyuu_W5sRwRBypi
All of these things occur. What Horton doesn’t tell you is that much of the abuse is occuring in so-called predatory journals, whose only goal is to get researchers to pay to get their papers published. If a paper looks like a scientific study, it’ll be accepted after a rudimentary review.
The more carefully the journal carries out peer review and upholds other editorial standards, the less likely that a study with obvious flaws will get accepted.
But even highly respectable journals will sometimes publish a paper whose conclusions are wrong. This is not necessarily a sign of corruption or incompetence, but rather a sign that science is difficult. Even the best sometimes get it wrong.
“But even highly respectable journals will sometimes publish a paper whose conclusions are wrong. This is not necessarily a sign of corruption or incompetence, but rather a sign that science is difficult.”
And when those ‘highly respectable’ journals continuously and deliberately publish the same false narratives over and over while steadfastly refusing to air the other side of the story, that’s called ACADEMIC FRAUD.