Quote:

---

More than 300 papers and scientific articles have vanished in the past year. (PJ Media)

Quote:

---

More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted long after they'd done their damage due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch, a website that monitors retractions of science-related articles.

A total of 330 COVID-related papers have been retracted thus far.

According to Gunnveig Grdeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.

---

Researchers taking "ethical shortcuts" when composing scientific papers doesn't sound like a very good way to handle "The Science," does it? Some of the authors cited trials with sample sizes that were far too small. Others performed a copy/paste of the original article and drew deceptive conclusions.

The Lancet journal (which dubs itself as "The best science for better lives") was described as having used "fraudulent research" when it concluded that hydroxychloroquine "caused an increased risk of heart arrhythmia and even death" in COVID patients. The World Health Organization used those findings as a justification to shut down their research into what turned out to be a very effective medication for treating COVID and the media lectured us endlessly about the dangers it posed, particularly after Trump endorsed it.

Another paper from the University of Manchester that has since disappeared reported that COVID "was associated with vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus." They later admitted that this is not the case. The author of the paper apparently had no research to draw on, but since viruses such as measles, mumps, and meningitis can cause auditory damage, she said "it was reasonable to assume" that COVID would do so also. I see. So policy was being made based on assumption.

And then there was the whole Ivermectin debacle. (Also endorsed by Trump initially.)

---

Remember this? Never forget. FDA: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." pic.twitter.com/5T6znnyFob

— anne faith (@FreidaAnimals) November 20, 2022

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/05/30/the-medical-field-is-erasing-its-own-covid-era-history-n554277

What happens to these researchers who take "ethical shortcuts" and use "fraudulent research"?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What happens to these researches who take "ethical shortcuts" and use "fraudulent research"?

---

They get grants from NIH

5 years from now it will be the unvaccinated who made the vaccinated take the jab.

captkirk said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What happens to these researches who take "ethical shortcuts" and use "fraudulent research"?

---

They get grants from NIH

---

One of them might become the highest paid employee of the federal government.

Can't let pesky things like truth get in the way of a good authoritarian fear campaign.

Election season coming

Got to start the gaslighting about how Dems were NEVER for mandates, masks, jabs or any COVID authoritarianism and it was those mean old Republicans who wanted those things

And all the local crazies got their own special forum...smh.

captkirk said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What happens to these researches who take "ethical shortcuts" and use "fraudulent research"?

---

They get grants from NIH

---

And tenure

This breaks my heart. I grew up being trained by the best of the best who were guided by integrity.

Guys like Cooley, Debakey, Hall, Frazier, Duke, Temple Williams, Major Bradshaw, Barcenas, Etheridge, Farmer, Thaller, Schweppe, Feigin, and the list goes on.

Remember the Chinese scientists that was on Fox in 2020 saying this was man made and came from WuHan lab?

She disappeared.

The FDA removing things doesn't surprise me at all.

Lastly the people and forces behind all this accomplished their goals and have had zero consequences.

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with. For example, six of the papers were published or funded by the FLCCC and consisted mostly of just made up numbers.

For as shoddy as some of the published data regarding covid dangers are/were, the fact remains that statistically the sizable majority of overtly fraudulent papers were and still are published by contrarians pushing a narrative every bit as hard form the other side. Which is especially notable given this is a relatively small minority of papers published on the topic overall.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with. For example, six of the papers were published or funded by the FLCCC and consisted mostly of just made up numbers.

For as shoddy as some of the published data regarding covid dangers are/were, the fact remains that statistically the sizable majority of overtly fraudulent papers were and still are published by contrarians pushing a narrative every bit as hard form the other side. Which is especially notable given this is a relatively small minority of papers published on the topic overall.

---

You seem a little defensive, wonder why

Quote:

---

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with

---

That certainly isn't evident skimming the list of retracted studies. You have a link for that?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with. For example, six of the papers were published or funded by the FLCCC and consisted mostly of just made up numbers.

For as shoddy as some of the published data regarding covid dangers are/were, the fact remains that statistically the sizable majority of overtly fraudulent papers were and still are published by contrarians pushing a narrative every bit as hard form the other side. Which is especially notable given this is a relatively small minority of papers published on the topic overall.

---

You probably know more than me but I have been in medicine a long, long time.

Why was Covid treated differently than every respiratory virus in history?

Why did noted doctors proclaim that masks and "social distancing" work?

What caused the uproar about having to get the vaccine? Granted, I think it helped with severity initially. But the fear and anger fomented by docs in power was off the chart.

Why were schools closed down when you want to get herd immunity with the population least affected by
Covid?

And why did no doc in the public eye ever bring up the point that historically all respiratory spread viruses always mutate to a more contagious, less virulent form?

And who is paying for the vaccines?

Quote:

---

Why was Covid treated differently than every respiratory virus in history?

---

It was the first pandemic of this scale to hit in the modern Information Age. The 2008-2009 flu pandemic was widespread but ran its course relatively quickly, killed a lot fewer people and was caused by a virus we had a much firmer scientific grasp of at the outset.

In short, this was different because it's the first time something like this had ever happened in our current media/information landscape. It was going to be different almost by definition.

Quote:

---

Why did noted doctors proclaim that masks and "social distancing" work?

---

A lot believed they did, because they do for lots of existing respiratory viruses. It turns out they really don't with respect to covid, and that becomes more and more the case as the R0 increases with newer variants. Beyond the point at which this became apparent, there isn't really a better answer than a lot of people didn't want to be wrong.

Quote:

---

What caused the uproar about having to get the vaccine? Granted, I think it helped with severity initially. But the fear and anger fomented by docs in power was off the chart.

---

A combination of fear, emerging knowledge, social contagion and animosity towards certain segments of the population.

Quote:

---

Why were schools closed down when you want to get herd immunity with the population least affected by
Covid?

---

This is probably the most glaring failure relative to the knowledge available going into the decision. There was never a good reason to do this.

Quote:

---

And why did no doc in the public eye ever bring up the point that historically all respiratory spread viruses always mutate to a more contagious, less virulent form?

---

I feel like a lot did, but I'm also in a position to be exposed to a lot more such types than most so perhaps my perception on that is skewed. I certainly know people in public health that have discussed this all along.

Quote:

---

And who is paying for the vaccines?

---

It was a joint public/private venture, so in part your tax dollars.

Ultimately there are/were a lot of physicians who just didn't want to concede certain aspects of the pandemic to those outside of medicine whose ideological bent from the outset led them to accidentally being right on those topics. It's hard to admit you were wrong, it's REALLY hard to admit you were wrong to someone who didn't actually know anything about the issue and ended up being right by happenstance. Ivy League MD/MPH/JSSBIRDBBEHSVEJE from Harvard isn't gonna want to concede a point on masks to Jeb from Alabama when Jeb just didn't want to wear one and hates "the libs". I wish the answer were deeper than that because that's a bad look, but that's really what it comes down to in many instances.

Finally, this board is in many ways an echo chamber and the perception here with regards to the true data on covid vs the reality is very much skewed. Many here think they are "right" on many points that the data still clearly shows them being wrong on. This idea that the "narrative" was wrong in every way is just not true. For example, the "doctors were killing thousands by intubating them too early" is a frequent point that is just laughably untrue and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what intubation even is.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with. For example, six of the papers were published or funded by the FLCCC and consisted mostly of just made up numbers.

For as shoddy as some of the published data regarding covid dangers are/were, the fact remains that statistically the sizable majority of overtly fraudulent papers were and still are published by contrarians pushing a narrative every bit as hard form the other side. Which is especially notable given this is a relatively small minority of papers published on the topic overall.

---

The OP posted examples. Can you?

You know, it's ok to admit you were wrong, often.

dermdoc said:

---

.

Why was Covid treated differently than every respiratory virus in history?

Why did noted doctors proclaim that masks and "social distancing" work?

---

It was their moment in the spotlight, the medical profession that is. Maybe one day insurance agents will have a chance to shine, or shoe salespeople.

They took it and ran with it. Unfortunately, their 15 minutes of fame ran for a couple of years. And now they will try to excuse themselves from all the errors they made.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It should be noted that nearly two-thirds of the retracted papers in question reached a conclusion that those touting this as evidence of some grand conspiracy theory would have agreed with. For example, six of the papers were published or funded by the FLCCC and consisted mostly of just made up numbers.

For as shoddy as some of the published data regarding covid dangers are/were, the fact remains that statistically the sizable majority of overtly fraudulent papers were and still are published by contrarians pushing a narrative every bit as hard form the other side. Which is especially notable given this is a relatively small minority of papers published on the topic overall.

---

I call bull***** You were wrong about everything covid and you come into this thread makong a bull**** claim with no supporting evidence.

How much Remdrsivir have you prescribed today? What's your opinion of Fauci now? You still think he's awesome?

Your covid resume is about as bad as possible.

Coming to a commercial near you.

one safe place said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

.

Why was Covid treated differently than every respiratory virus in history?

Why did noted doctors proclaim that masks and "social distancing" work?

---

It was their moment in the spotlight, the medical profession that is. Maybe one day insurance agents will have a chance to shine, or shoe salespeople.

They took it and ran with it. Unfortunately, their 15 minutes of fame ran for a couple of years. And now they will try to excuse themselves from all the errors they made.

---

With all due respect, I disagree.

The problem is younger docs lack confidence and are going to do whatever the medical establishment says.