Re: Science Fruad

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:21:35 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

“Folks think that if it is published in a top peer-reviewed journal,
therefore it must be true, ..."

Dumbasses

>
>
There is a sucker scientists born every minute. Only stupid people read
'Science Journals'.

Stupid people swallow them.

>
>
>
How Scientific Journals Became MAGA’s Latest Target
Publications like Science and the New England Journal of Medicine have
long been essential forums for new research. Now the Trump
administration is accusing them of political bias, corporate influence
and fraud.

Good, good. Let El Presidente Trumpo insert a bamboo of considerable
girth up theirs.

>
In April, the Justice Department sent letters to 15 of the country’s top
science and medical journals inquiring about “fraud,” “political bias”
and “censorship.”

Yay!

>
  “You have a bunch of leftists who are sitting on big pots of money
from pharma, and they all entertain each other and publish their
friends,” McCabe said. “They were basically publishing lies.”

Bigbang blackhole wallahs are liars through and through. Their toxicity
spreads to all areas.

>
“We’re probably going to stop publishing [the work of government
scientists] in the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and
those other journals because they’re all corrupt,”

Obsolete at best. Peer to peer information transmission via online works
best for research. Word of mouth. Patents. Recoveries.

>
Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is crucial to advancing any
scientist’s career,

For careerist political minded bigbang blackhole pseudoscientific
jabbering types, yes.
so researchers overwhelmingly pursue studies that

have a strong chance of getting published. This demand has led to a
proliferation of journals, many of them for-profit and sometimes of
dubious quality. The number of articles published in science journals
grew 47% between 2016 and 2022, from 1.92 million to 2.8 million,
according to a study published in the journal Quantitative Social
Sciences.

Wow and Arindam's one second video of his new design railgun is worth
far more than all of them.

That growth—and the vastly expanded reach of these journals online—has
also been accompanied by increased attention to errors. Retraction
Watch, a website that monitors journals and pushes for greater
transparency, documented 41 retractions in scientific journals in 2000.
Last year, the number was 5,128. Roughly two-thirds of those retractions
are due to misconduct, typically fabricating or falsifying data or
plagiarism.
>
“Folks think that if it is published in a top peer-reviewed journal,
therefore it must be true, ..."
>
"Why should a small group of people be the gatekeepers of which research
is read by most doctors in America?”
>
>
>
https://www.wsj.com/science/how-scientific-journals-became-magas-latest-target-9874b6f7?mod=itp_wsj
>
>
>
wanna place your paper in my Science Journal? i take payapl!
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1166218593597444102/photo/1
>
If it is in my science journal it's all true!
>
>
>
>
>
>

--