Articles from COVID era being deleted from online medical journals (5:40)

submitted by chottohen from (153news.net)

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

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

    Really only false and fraudulent. Misleading is usually left in, certainly if its unintentional, and it's up to the person doing the literature review to note the refutations that are published later.

    Although sometimes with the bigger journals they'll add a link online to a refutation if the paper is likely to directly affect policy.

    [–]chottohen[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    They don't want anyone to see them because they have been, "proven false or misleading." Those articles are down the memory hole (Winston Smith's job) and will never be seen again unless you have a physical copy of the journal. The articlles were deleted, not archived, because they are embarrassing for the publishers and researchers who wrote them.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

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

      If the paper is retracted, there'll be a note on the paper that it is retracted, but you'll still be able to read the abstract, and, importantly, the names of the authors.

      This is what a retracted paper usually looks like online.

      They don't get "deleted".

      There are many retracted Covid-19 papers.

      Some from highly regarded journals: RETRACTED: 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study

      Some less so: RETRACTED: 5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells. (◔_◔)

      [–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      for references browse /s/CorruptScience

      Sadly, medical journals are all advertising for Big Pharma in practice.
      That is how the journals and the researchers get their money and future funding.

      Unrelated to the video, but here are some articles that were removed:
      Study by dentists to determine the effect of masks. Found out masks don't work against respiratory viruses.
      Jessica Rose & McCullough on the extremely high rate of side-effects.
      Recent article McCullough about many autopsies that showed the vax caused the deaths.
      Many articles related to Ivermectin (but only if they gave positive results).
      Unknown: The PCR does not work.
      Unknwon: Lab Origin of SARS-Cov2.

      Downplayed articles:
      Peter Doshi - The effectiveness of the vaccine is not 90%, but closer to 19%.
      Why do we want to vaccinate children against Covid-19?

      Articles that should be labeled as false (but not removed):
      Natural origin of SARS-Cov2. Often written by those involved in gain-of-function of SARS-Cov2.
      Articles that showed negative results for HCQ or IVM. All were not using the basic protocols, many were fraudulent.
      Articles that showed positive efficacy for covid-vax. All were based on frauds.
      With the false-label, there should be an article explaining exactly why it is regarded false. With possibilities for discussion.

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

      Sadly, medical journals are all advertising for Big Pharma in practice.

      Not really. They make their money selling their journals to libraries and universities.

      Traditional journals charge a fee to publish, but not a larger one for a paper from a big pharma lab than a university.

      The problem that they have is that Big Pharma can obfuscate bias in methodology and p-hacking from changing the end points in the middle of a trial. And they can p-hack by not using all the data, or for a trial comparing to other drugs on the market, they can choose an inappropriate dose or a drug other than the most effective one for comparison.

      These things are time consuming to find, and often slip through peer review.

      That is how the journals and the researchers get their money and future funding.

      Not really. Researchers in an academic institution get money from their salary. Publication history is an important factor in winning these positions, so having a paper retracted is a really shit career move.

      Scientists working in big pharma labs must be under some pressure to have results that are financially beneficial to the company. I don't know how that works, but there's a shitload of trial designs that aren't done with uncovering the unbiased truth in the literature.

      There is also a replication problem in academic publications. I suspect that this is publication bias rather than intentional fraud (In most cases). You get an unexpected result, and it's more likely to be considered interesting by a high profile journal. So statistical anomalies are over-represented in the published literature.

      Got a link to any of those removed articles? Or the title, authors, journal and year?

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

      Haha. Always shilling.

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

      I'm just explaining the economics of an academic journal. They make money by selling the journal. That depends on how highly the journal is regarded by the academic community.

      If they're under any economic pressure, it is to provide good (meaning repeatable, reproducible, and that adds to or changes our knowledge) content and to keep costs of editing and peer review down. They don't derive any income from big pharma.

      Big pharma certainly produces slanted research, but that's not related to the big medical journals. They're independent.

      Big homeopathy and big alt-med have their own journals. That's because no journal trading on its reputation would publish that crap, and they kept getting shot down in the policy space for not having any published research. So we have to suffer that pollution of the scholarly literature.

      How is that shilling? And who do you think it is shilling for? Big Academic Journal?

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

      Which of the following is more convincing?

      1. Verifiable proof of the claim, such as a list of articles that have gone missing or even archived links to those articles

      2. A guy ranting for nearly 6 minutes with meme format text above and below the video

      [–]bucetao6969 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Archive culture, people.