In a normal world I would agree with you that what the journals offer a higher level of credibility. From what I've observed in the last 2 years (ex: Lancet retraction; refusal to accept new papers re HCQ and IVM; complete hit jobs resulting in conclusions that HCQ and IVM are dangerous) I'm no longer sure.
Beyond the on-going cull, the complete destruction of the credibility of "experts", medical or otherwise, ... Well, I was going to say its tragic collateral damage. But maybe not. Maybe its time we start to take a good hard look at "experts" and the concept of iatragenics in medicine.
Fair enough, then. I did see that retraction. But the Lancet also kept a pretty large study that damned all the lockdowns countries were doing and those researchers shit all over all the other studies that were trying to shill for it:
Let me find it...it's pretty good.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
So about that specific study that was retracted? Man, I don't know. Could have been corruption. Could have been legit. Perhaps the editor assigned to the research was feeling buttmad that day? No idea.
But maybe not. Maybe its time we start to take a good hard look at "experts" and the concept of iatragenics in medicine.
Oh, there are DEFINITELY agendas and corruption (you don't need me to tell you this). Buddy deals, back door deals, fudging data, issues with results duplication, etc.
(post is archived)