Post 21: Drawing The Line in the Sand for Scientific Integrity
Scientific integrity flows in one direction - highly biased articles are allowed and promoted in the literature, but articles that challenge the narrative (with data) are blocked...let's call BS
I recently started a campaign at Change.org (see button) to push against the blatant censorship and bias that is becoming more and more obvious by the day. Scientists that are funded by small, transparent public grants and report results that run contrary to agency or government declarations are blatantly being censored.
Scientific publications, which should be parsimonious and even in treating submitted articles, have become de facto agencies in corporate and governmental communications strategies. The publishers of scientific information have to tow the line in keeping with certain approved narratives in society (COVID-19 injections are Safe & EffectiveTM; HPV vaccines prevent cervical cancer; there are no studies that show a link between vaccines and autism).
The publication of James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. and Paul Thomas, M.D. was an analysis of ten years’ worth of data from a pediatric practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas. The study, titled “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination (htpps://doi:10.3390/ijerph18157754)”, revealed and interesting split in long-term health outcomes of vaxxed versus unvaxxed patients. What they found was telling, namely when all variables were adjusted to reduce a biasing effect, the unvaccinated children had FEWER office visits associated with the listed conditions:
Guess what the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health do to the paper AFTER BEING PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED FOR A MONTH!!? The publishers withdrew the paper…against the authors wishes and objections. A SINGLE COMPLAINT from an ANONYMOUS OBJECTOR was the cause of the withdrawal. No data on the analysis the editors claimed to have done to support withdrawal has been presented (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157754).
Doesn’t it make you want to press the button even more?
This is not the only incidence of editorial/publisher malfeasance. Peter McCullough, M.D. and Jessica Rose, Ph.D. had a similar experience with their “TEMPORARILY REMOVED” paper entitled:
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
Now, the paper was removed with this little summary for an excuse:
“This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.”
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011
I can guarantee you that the authors did NOT request to having this paper withdrawn.
Guess who we will go after next to correct the record!?
Oh! Don’t forget to press the button!!