Trust the Science, or the Silenced?

There are several issues with Peer reviewed journals that are not discussed or known about, and over the last few years these issues have come to the surface as explained by current scientists and doctors who criticise how the pandemic has been dealt with by governments and health policy makers. Some have disclosed the corruption in the manufacturing of novel medicines and others of peer review processes being compromised. This is very apparent as more and more doctors and scientists and publishers explain that many of those selected to review journal articles are being paid large sums of money to have their name on papers, while they’re not even engaging in the proper peer review processes, instead their names are added for posterity, without much genuine contribution to unbiased critical review, especially with pharmaceutically sponsored research papers.

Peer reviewed journals have been held in the highest esteem and had been respected as a foundation to our scientific knowledge, and perceived by the academic field and universities as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its prestige, the real integrity and goal of peer reviews have been thrown out to the wayside, and taking its place is astroturfed journals and corruption in science driven by political, corporate and financial profits which have crept into this system through the back door, completely damaging the real objective science with political, pharmaceutical and corporate interests, for maximising profits. Today, many of the peers are paid and selected for their preferences, connections, beliefs and predicted assessments along with brown paper envelops being pushed under the table.

A brilliant critique of the ”Limitations of Peer reviewed Journals” was published in 2020. ”Ill-informed generalisations are abound, for example, the oft-heard ‘peer review is broken’ rhetoric, compared with those who herald it as a ‘golden standard’. Peer review is also often taken as a hallmark of ‘quality’, however, despite the acknowledgement that it is also an incredibly diverse and multi-modal process. The tensions between these viewpoints create a strange dissonant rationale, that peer review is uniform and ‘the best that we have’, yet also flawed, often without fully appreciating the complexity and history of the process.‘

The diversity of stakeholders engaging with peer review is now increasing with the ongoing changes around ‘Open Scholarship’; for example, policymakers, think-tanks, research funders and technologists are increasingly concerned about the state of the art in research and its communication and role in wider society, for example, regarding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In this context, developing a collective empirical and theoretical understanding of the function and limitations of peer review is of paramount importance. Specifically available funding for such research is also almost entirely absent, with exceptions such as the European Commission-funded PEERE initiative. This is especially so when compared to relatively rapidly accumulating attention for research reproducibility, now with calls specifically for research on reproducibility (e.g. via the Association for Psychological Science or the Dutch Research Council). There is now an imperative for the quantitative analysis of peer review as a critical and interdisciplinary field of study.” – Jonathan P. Tennant & Tony Ross-Hellauer. 2020. Research Integrity and Peer Review

Our entire system of non-biased science is now compromised and highly endangered, we can see this when looking at prior debates such as the climate change debate which was hijacked as a vehicle for use by politicizing science to gain billions in carbon taxing. The same has happened over the last two since 2020, claimed to be in the interest of public health, driven by pharmaceutical stakeholders, for fast manufacturing and distribution of experimental medicines.

There are those that consider peer reviewed journals as a gold standard, meanwhile science, has been weaponized for pharmaceutical gain and its political investors aggressively driving agendas. We can now say that objective science has mostly been obliterated and turned into a monster of scientism that hides behind the weak phrase ”follow the science”, uttered from the mouths of political investors, creating astroturfed quagmires of journals along the way.

”Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.”- The British Medical Journal editor Kamran Abbasi, on the corruption of science

There is no longer any transparency in who determines those influencing editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers and a deep investigation into conflicts of interest, in the chain of who is providing funding for the research, who is the authority to select those to do the reviewing, have all individuals passed the ”conflict of interest test?”, In most cases, the answer is ”no”, especially today.

If governments, really do care about preserving the integrity of science as they claim, they need to stop interfering with science, hijacking and manipulating data, and research, to fulfil their own agendas, as this is extremely dangerous. Yet, now the Biden administration claims to want to restore the integrity of science.

However, when science becomes politically filtered and monitored by politicians who do not have science backgrounds, how is this going to be achieved? Seems like it will instead encourage more of the watering down of real science, in order to create more biased controlled politicalized science, by certain political entities and their corporate stakeholders and investments.

How can we trust an administration who claims to want to restore the integrity of science, after it has allowed Doctor Simone Gold to be sent to 90 days in prison, (read ++Free Dr Simone Gold), ++

Dr Gold was invited to a free speech rally in Washington, D.C., to speak on January 6, 2021. In the months between the press conference and January 6th, Dr. Gold was asked to present publicly on numerous occasions about physicians’ free speech and her experience of being fired for prescribing early treatment to Covid-19 patients. By this time, she had also founded America’s Frontline Doctors. She had been very outspoken about how governments and health administrators have handled the pandemic, pointing out that they had been oppressing the real science on early preventative treatments for pandemic patients, such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, in favour of new novel drugs that are experimental mRNA gene altering injections, which have skipped the usual 7 year rigorous testing phases and are only under emergency use.

Thereafter, the FBI stormed her home and claimed she was part of the plan to storm the Whitehouse, this really doesn’t fit in with Dr Simone Gold’s background as a lawyer and doctor, mother and good Christian. It appears the government desperately want to censor her because of her calling out the true culprits and manipulators and holding the weight of her professional and respectful background, she had drawn crowds of thousands to her conferences held by doctors for truth across America. It seems she has been censored, as she is deemed a threat to their agenda, which is still to continue to cover up and censor science, not restore the integrity of science, this is the only way they can achieve their goal. Doctor Gold is not the only Doctor and Lawyer who has been oppressed in this way over the last two years, there are many doctors all over the world who have had their ability to practice taken away in order to silence their critique of the manipulation of science in favour of pharmaceutical gain.

The best thing politicians can do is to leave science to the scientists, and stop interfering, politicians pretending to be scientists or doctors, kills people, repressing some science in preference to other astroturfed science for financial profit also kills people.

There needs to be more transparency involved and a long hard objective review of the now highly compromised peer review process which has been manipulated and astroturfed. Moreover, to keep science evolving, the other limitations to peer reviews, is that many selected to review a new science, may not be in favour of the work or findings or are on another polarized spectrum of the theme which may lead to further bias, if we want to expand science, we must allow new ideas and discoveries to be explored and funded without oppression and bias, or science becomes stagnant and declines in its ability to remain objective. The beauty of science is that it is always questioning and exploring and being objective, not stagnating, not trying to protect agendas, or archaic indoctrinations, not declining into politicised scientism, not being biased. The foundations of our scientific beliefs are based theories, they’re not set in stone, there is room for new discoveries and new theories in science and medicine.

In Robert .F. Kennedy’s book on Dr Fauci, (who did his degree in Humanities), Kennedy remarks on the power accumulated by Fauci, is supported by hard data: the director of the NIAID is the highest paid federal official in the US, with a salary of 417 thousand and 608 dollars a year, (compared to the president who earns 400 thousand a year); Fauci manages an annual budget of 6,100 million and obtains another 1,600 million from the military to carry out gain- to-function research for the development of biological weapons; He serves on the editorial boards of many scientific journals and as an author, co-author, or editor of more than 1,400 scientific publications, he controls 57 percent of the world’s direct and indirect biomedical funding and research through the NIH, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Welcome Trust, and thus controls the scientists who seek research funding from him; fuelling biased astroturfed outcomes, supporting pharmaceutical profits, Fauci owns 57 vaccine patents. In addition to his already large salary.

Aside from his pharmaceutical profits and stakeholds, Fauci and other officials receive up to $150,000 annually in royalty payments for products they help develop and for the execution of pharmaceutical project approvals. See Evolve to Ecology article ++Dr Fauci Sociopath at the Service of Pharmaceutical Companies ++

Returning to the words of The British Medical Journal editor Kamran Abbasi, who published a courageous critique on the corruption of science ”Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science”

”How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what’.

”Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”- Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the The British Medical Journal, London, UK.

13 experts share their views on the fall of science in peer reviewed journals.

Dr. Marcia Angell, Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ) – “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”
Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet (considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world) – “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.”
Dr. Herbert L. Ley Jr, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration – “The FDA protects the big drug companies, and is subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers, they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as day and night.”
Dr. Raeford Brown, chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics – “Congress is owned by pharma.”
A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or (CDC SPIDER), put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to CDC Chief of Staff. The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution – “It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests… and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception,” the letter states. “These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”
Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis, Editor-in-chief, European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010 – Present) – “Most current published research findings are false.”
Dr William Thompson Senior Scientist at the CDC (Center for Disease Control) – “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the M M R before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”
Assistant Professor Ray Moynihan , one of the leaders of The BMJ’s campaign – “When we want to decide on a medicine or a surgery, a lot of the evidence we used to inform that decision is biased,” “It cannot be trusted. Because so much of that has been produced and funded by the manufacturers of those healthcare products.”
Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ – “I think we have to call it what it is. It is the corruption of the scientific process.”
Susanna Rees, an editorial assistant with a medical writing agency until 2002 – “Medical writing agencies go to great lengths to disguise the fact that the papers they ghostwrite and submit to journals and conferences are ghostwritten on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and not by the named authors,’ she wrote. ‘There is a relatively high success rate for ghostwritten submissions – not outstanding, but consistent.”
Sydney Brenner, winner Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 – “..and of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean…..I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist – “When people say follow the science, what I’ve seen is they often mean censor scientists who don’t agree with some scientists…the people who are sort of controlling policy.”
Kamran Abbasi, executive editor British Medical Journal – “Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. C nineteen has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.”