Wow, some amazing news as of late. I will start out with the bad news for the cult of vaccines, then a good peer-reviewed story. Including this flashback 6-months ago (video to the right).
Here is the video description for it:
As of November 18, 2022 Retraction Watch has documented 270 peer reviewed articles about COVID-19 that have been retracted by their publishers. Articles about the unusually high retraction rate have appeared in the journal Accountability in Research and in the journal Nature. The articles about the high retraction rate suggest that lowered stringency and standards on the part of publishers and the eagerness to publish on the part of researchers may have been driving forces in the unusually high retraction rate (typically only about 4 out of 10,000 research papers are retracted).
The high rate of flawed / junk science published raises questions about the effectiveness of the peer review process which was greatly expedited to get articles published quickly.
That FLASHBACK aside, here is the latest news via DAILY CALLER on the issue:
At least 330 COVID-19-related medical papers have been retracted since the coronavirus pandemic began, oftentimes for scientific errors or ethical shortcomings, according to watchdog Retraction Watch.
Many of the papers were published in smaller, less influential publications, although a number were published in the highly-prestigious Lancet and other influential journals like Science. The topics covered in the papers ranged from alternative proposed COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to false COVID-19 side effects.
One example of a U-turn from researchers occurred at the University of Manchester, where researchers two years ago asserted that hearing loss could be a result of COVID-19. Now, those researchers admit that was a faulty assumption.
Professor Kevin Munro of the University of Manchester audiology department admitted that many COVID-19 studies had been rushed. “There was an urgent need for this carefully conducted clinical and diagnostic study to investigate the long-term effects of Covid-19 on the auditory system. Many previous studies were published rapidly during the pandemic but lacked good scientific rigour,” he said.
One retracted paper published in Science examined the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in South Africa. It was withdrawn after social media users pointed out that some of the samples used could have been false positives. A number of the retractions were also social science papers, including one that used an inadequate sample size and imbalanced search terms to try and report on COVID-19 vaccine “misinformation” on social media……
This is why PJ-MEDIA headlines it as “Unfollow the Science.” and HOT AIR has a decent little break down as well:
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 Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.
[….]
…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.)
— Mike James (@m1kejames44) November 20, 2022
So all of that unpleasantness is simply disappearing from medical journals and research archives. And the media would like us all to pretend that it never happened. But it did happen. And if we don’t learn anything from all of this, it will happen again when the next pandemic inevitably comes along. The need for speed must be moderated by adhering to proven practices from the past. And if you’re trusting the government to deal with you honestly and fairly based on the best available science rather than “The Science,” I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.
HEADLINE USA notes some of the main ideas in the general public that were overturned pre and post pandemic:
- Studies about the effectiveness of masking and other COVID-related control efforts pushed by government officials are under intense scrutiny. Some second looks even revealed that masking and other measures put people in more danger than was necessary.
And don’t forget that these retractions happened while the general public still went on having their mind warped by previous headlines and what they thought was “honest reporting”
JIMMY DORE SHOW w/Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
LA Times Prints DUMBEST Covid Article In History!
Even as the dominant COVID narrative rapidly unravels more every day, the establishment’s wagons are being circled, and a perfect example is a recent LA Times article by Michael Hiltzik insisting that the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration should have faced professional consequences for “getting COVID wrong.” Except that the horrific consequences of COVID took place following establishment guidelines, NOT The Great Barrington Declaration.
Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger talk to The Great Barrington Declaration co-author Jay Bhattacharya about this LA Times hit piece filled with blatant misinformation.
I forgot to add this when I posted this originally… then I was off for a quick turn-around d to Arizona Thurs/Fri. So here is the missed PJ-MEDIA post I wanted to share. The entire post is worth linking over to, but I will emphasize the last sentence in my excerpt:
The pre-print for this study, prior to the peer review process, came out late last year. It showed, in a nutshell, that more COVID-19 shots correlated to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19.
But the COVIDians predictably, in eternal denial as is their nature, pounced on the fact that the initial paper was a pre-print. They dismissed it for not being peer-reviewed, which is often described as the “gold standard” stamp of approval by The ScienceTM.
Mind you, the corporate state media expresses no such criticism of pre-print studies that say what they want them to say about the alleged efficacy of masking, the wonders of Pfizer’s mRNA injections, etc. It’s only when a study counters the narrative that they pump the brakes.
Via McGill, February 2023:
Recently, some people have been spreading the idea that getting additional doses of the COVID vaccine increases the risk of catching the virus. The suggestion was made in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal and repeated recently by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The notion seems to stem from a preprint uploaded last December by researchers from the Cleveland Clinic. Opponents of vaccines have been using it to argue their case, worrying a fair number of people, if the emails I have received on the subject are any indication.
Well, now it is peer-reviewed, and none of the conclusions have changed….
