Medical journal editor of twenty years says scientific journals can no longer be trusted

submitted by chottohen from (files.catbox.moe)

all 49 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

/s/CorruptScience
Every "science" article should be treated like an advertisement.
The problem of $cience was also stated by Peter Doshi.

But it gets worse: a lot of articles are written by Big Pharma, and scientists only write their names under the paper in exchange for funding. It is called "ghost writing" and is very popular. The funding is necessary to do actual science work. And with more Big Pharma support you can also get into the big scientific journals, because the "peer-review" system has a open gateway for articles that support Big Pharma.
And it has gotten so bad that you can not even get any research funding unless you are supported by Big Pharma. If you write anything bad about it, your article will likely not be published and your career is over.

That is why you see many articles about the toxicity of spike-proteins of SarsCov-2, but not about the injections that use the same spike-proteins.
If the scientists write about that, it is over with their career.

[–]Dregan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said 👆

[–]Alphix 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

That looks like a Jew. When a Jew speaks, you always have to check the angles.

[–]YoMamma 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know that doesn't make sense.

[–]tomatopotato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay, which angle do you suggest we start with?

[–]Alphix 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Let's start with the one where research papers were all perfectly good until we got vaccine injury galore and now research papers are worthless. Interesting cohencidence.

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not how one studies research papers.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It started way way earlier than 14 years ago

[–]Alphix 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I know this. I know this extremely well. What I question is WHY are we hearing about this NOW?

Let me give you an example: in the 1950s, Ancel Keys made a HYPOTHESIS about animal fat being a cause of heart disease. What did he have to defend it with? A big mouth and a politician's instincts. It was all bullshit, we know that now. But it's been 70 years and most people still believe that bullshit HYPOTHESIS story.

Bad science is nothing new. So why now? Now that we have massive numbers of reports of vaccine injuries?

[–]YoMamma 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For 70 years it's been COMMON knowledge that animal fats cause heart disease (because it raises "bad" cholesterol).

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

😮

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I may know why; the vax manufacturers already have the technology for safer adjuvants, but were holding to it for decades. You may hear in a close future talks about replacing the aluminium oxide with phosphates for a safer immune response.

And indeed it is, but there is just so much junk in them that it might not matter and they are just buying time for the next hustle.

[–]tomatopotato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think anything changed tbh. The research papers backed by pharma were always seen as perfectly basically good by the general public. It's just that more people realize they were always worthless this time, due in large part to the authorities overplaying their hand. Also, it's harder to memory-hole stuff in the internet age.

[–]ActuallyNot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To clarify, she says that medical journals can no longer be trusted. Due to funding bias, publication bias, and conflicts of interest.

"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

And she said it 14 years ago.

[–]YoMamma 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep - I'm really sick of this assumption by spreaders of misinformation that we should all believe images with text rather than the original sources.

Corporate-funded bias and conflicts of interest have always been a partial problem in medical research, which is why the scientific community has opportunies to respond to those biases and to request corrections to or the removal of misleading publications. Hence, she's not mentioned anything that's shocking to anyone in medical sceience. There are numerous retractions in medical journals.

More information about her and her specific criticisms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Angell

And specific corrections to medical publications:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2652632

[–]andomedairon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Funding bias, publication bias, and conflicts of interest can really mess things up, not just in psychiatry but across various medical fields.

[–]Alphix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

ALL the fields of ALL the $ciences.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No

[–]twolanterns 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

some have been obviously politically biased for decades already

[–]TiberSeptim 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It’s not surprising to me. The system has been gamed not only by business interests but also activists who either suppress research they oppose or promote favorable studies.

IMO the entire rotting carcass of the modern university needs to be burned and replaced with a new academy that will do actual dispassionate study of issues and ideas.

[–]chottohen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely agree but did you notice that several users were triggered? One even accused me of being a liar. How would that be possible? They go on the possible shill list.

[–]clownworlddropout 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And then they'll do a meta-analysis based on a collection of biased research. AI would be one way to cut through the bullshit but they've already hamstrung it with political correctness.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Wow, really?

Scientists, dorks who have no life, can be persuaded with large sums of money! Wow 😮

[–]chottohen[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The inventor of the PCR test and Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis, surfed up until late 2019 when he was arkancided. He certainly had a life.

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

there is supposed to be professional ethics with some oversite groups that are supposed to push adherence to standard upon any less ethical individuals

[–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

In reality, those professional ethics are used to censor anyone who does real science.

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

assumptions of .... leveraging what they used to have ... misuse of position/authority

sellouts

[–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Provide references.

[–]chottohen[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

You might begin by looking up the editor's name online. I am not your gopher. You sound like a teenybopper fresh from reddit. And do not speak to me in the imperative.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please die in the most horrible way possible.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Or you could post a link to the actual quote, rather than an image that's 14 years out of context.

[–]chottohen[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

And so could you.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

this kind of reply is a sign of being caught in a lie

[–]chottohen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What lie Bill? Please explain. The quote is a matter of record. The meme seems to have triggered a lot of zionists. Shouldn't you be out killing Palestinian children?

[–]William_World 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

post the link son

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Note there are free English classes online that could help you understand how to communicate in written English.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

bzzt bad take

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Hmmm.

You post an image rather than text. This is more time consuming that posting the text and link, but it also makes checking it more time consuming.

Is that you're goal?

And is that why you get triggered when asked for references? Because it would undo all your good work, screenshotting, uploading and linking your image?

[–]chottohen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

My goal is to rid the world of zionists without harming them. And note that I said zionists and not Jews. Oh, and blow it out your ass.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Does intentionally obfuscating quotes advance that goal?

Or does it just make you look like so many other internet trolls that aren't worth the bandwidth?

[–]chottohen[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Explain how I obfuscated anything by posting a quote. Also quotes do not go out of date. Why were so many users triggered by this simple post? Do you have a dog in the fight? Sus. Very sus.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Explain how I obfuscated anything by posting a quote

You say "scientific journals", then quote only the part that could be misinterpreted to mean that.

Then you make the context many times more time consuming to find by posting an image rather than something that can be copy-pasted into google.

Also quotes do not go out of date.

They're still quotes. But the timing can affect context. John the revelator wrote revelations in the late first century CE. So the when he says "The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion," you would be mistaken if you thought that was Bill Gates, even if you do convince yourself of some physical similarity.

But certainly the biases in medical research that Angell wrote about are not resolved.

Why were so many users triggered by this simple post?

Why did you go to the effort of making a screenshot and uploading it when a quote and a link would have been quicker?

Sus. Very sus.

Do you have a dog in the fight? Sus. Very sus.

Oh, the irony.

[–]chottohen[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I did not make the meme; I found it. It took less than a minute to post. The post really hit a nerve with, uh, some groups.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It really did

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did you add "scientific journals can no longer be trusted" in the title of your meme in order to spread misinformation yourself?

Or were you just spreading the misinformation for other people?

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent point

[–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

doesn't say no longer believes.

says finally figured out it was a fraud

guy that invented the MD never used one

[–]chottohen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It says "scientific journals can no longer be trusted." There has obviously been a huge push since the start of Covid to corrupt scientists and science in general, even more than when she said this. Who would do that?