There's money involved, and a lot of it. It's either (((every single time))) or directly linked to that.
There's money involved, and a lot of it. It's either (((every single time))) or directly linked to that.
Why solve a problem when you can just profit from it?
Archive: https://archive.today/Tcz9P
From the post: "Last summer, I covered the saga of Harvard Business School’s Francesca Gino, who was credibly accused of flagrantly fabricating data in at least four of her published studies. She was caught when some data sleuths on the internet — investigating research misconduct in their free time — found discrepancies in the data for her papers and investigated further.
They eventually raised their concerns with Harvard, which investigated and ultimately requested retractions of the papers in question. (Gino filed a lawsuit against Harvard and the bloggers, accusing them of colluding to defame her.)"
Why solve a problem when you can just profit from it?
Archive: https://archive.today/Tcz9P
From the post:
"Last summer, I covered the saga of Harvard Business School’s Francesca Gino, who was credibly accused of flagrantly fabricating data in at least four of her published studies. She was caught when some data sleuths on the internet — investigating research misconduct in their free time — found discrepancies in the data for her papers and investigated further.
They eventually raised their concerns with Harvard, which investigated and ultimately requested retractions of the papers in question. (Gino filed a lawsuit against Harvard and the bloggers, accusing them of colluding to defame her.)"
At this point, the entire enterprise of "peer reviewed published research" must all be considered to be suspect. There are significant incentives to commit fraud, from monetary gain to fame, prestige and notoriety (don't underestimate the hubris and narcissism of the senior "researchers" who "publish" hundreds of papers, largely by adding their names to the work of others. Others who are heavily incentivized to create papers that their superiors will want to add their names to).
The peer review process is corrupted and is now basically just pal review and gate keeping to ensure that no research that disagrees with the status quo is ever published. The peer review process serves no purpose. It was originally brought in to limit the number of papers that were published in journals as all of the journals were printed in hard copy only and there was a significant cost associated with publication of a paper. That is no longer an issue. Scientific papers are now almost all published online, often on preprint servers. All that is needed to rectify the publication process is to open up the peer review process to the public. All papers must be submitted to a forum where any interested party may review them, critique them and comment on them. If the published methodology is insufficient to reproduce the results, this will be figured out quickly, if the data required to calculate the statistics used in the paper is not included, this can be called out. These are things that peer reviewers are supposed to do, but they don't because the current system is corrupted to the core.
"The Science" continues to support the corrupted peer review system because it is this cult that corrupted it in the first place, for its own ends, to turn "peer reviewed science" into their own gospel. Where only the anointed who hold the "correct" view of any matter may publish. All that is published will be held as true, whether it is factually correct or not, and all that is refused publication will be held as false, even if it is factually true.
At this point, the entire enterprise of "peer reviewed published research" must all be considered to be suspect. There are significant incentives to commit fraud, from monetary gain to fame, prestige and notoriety (don't underestimate the hubris and narcissism of the senior "researchers" who "publish" hundreds of papers, largely by adding their names to the work of others. Others who are heavily incentivized to create papers that their superiors will want to add their names to).
The peer review process is corrupted and is now basically just pal review and gate keeping to ensure that no research that disagrees with the status quo is ever published. The peer review process serves no purpose. It was originally brought in to limit the number of papers that were published in journals as all of the journals were printed in hard copy only and there was a significant cost associated with publication of a paper. That is no longer an issue. Scientific papers are now almost all published online, often on preprint servers. All that is needed to rectify the publication process is to open up the peer review process to the public. All papers must be submitted to a forum where any interested party may review them, critique them and comment on them. If the published methodology is insufficient to reproduce the results, this will be figured out quickly, if the data required to calculate the statistics used in the paper is not included, this can be called out. These are things that peer reviewers are supposed to do, but they don't because the current system is corrupted to the core.
"The Science" continues to support the corrupted peer review system because it is this cult that corrupted it in the first place, for its own ends, to turn "peer reviewed science" into their own gospel. Where only the anointed who hold the "correct" view of any matter may publish. All that is published will be held as true, whether it is factually correct or not, and all that is refused publication will be held as false, even if it is factually true.
Who fakes cancer research?
Good question. Considering the Rothschild (((philanthropist))) created (((cancer cure research))) when many complained about the exploding cancer rates, owed to the takeover of petroleum based medicine. It's more likely to be corruption than anything first anticipated.
> Who fakes cancer research?
Good question. Considering the Rothschild (((philanthropist))) created (((cancer cure research))) when many complained about the exploding cancer rates, owed to the takeover of petroleum based medicine. It's more likely to be corruption than anything first anticipated.
The American Cancer society. Consider they started in 1913, raised billions of dollars, yet here we are.
The American Cancer society. Consider they started in 1913, raised billions of dollars, yet here we are.
(post is archived)