Springer Nature medical journal Cureus, which has published some good stuff on COVID-19 lately (even if it did retract Mead et al.), has just published a peer-reviewed article (Lataster and Parry) on the corruption of major medical journals and the need for those in the science game to entertain contrarian ideas. The authors are yours truly (University of Sydney) and the always delightful Peter Parry (University of Queensland). Highlights:
- We draw a distinction between science, at least how it is meant to be, and the incredibly dogmatic The Science™ as it currently is. The Science™ is largely shaped by non-scientific concerns, typically financial, and this has led to censorship and worse.
- We outline many dodgy issues and practices of pharmaceutical companies and major medical journals today, including the former’s enormous financial investments into research, universities, medical education, medical journals, political parties, drug regulators, medical colleges and associations, and supranational institutions such as the World Health Organisation, fines, funding of the trials for their products and of their regulators; and the latter’s effectively being part of Big Pharma’s marketing departments, as admitted by some of their own former and current editors.
- Citing way more evidence than is normal for a glorified editorial, we explain that editors of major medical journals have received payments from large pharmaceutical companies, and peer reviewers have also received such payments (as have doctors).
- We managed to sneak in a few cheeky references to some great articles with similar themes (but focused on Covid) such as the ones published in Public Health in Practice and also the Polish Annals of Medicine.
- We briefly mention low-carb dieting as an example, which we are always warned about, despite the significant evidence in its favour (seemed to be good for me BTW).
- We note that “the recent US Congress House of Representatives’ Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic 520-page report fully or partly vindicated contrarian perspectives on many aspects of public health messaging during the pandemic”. I hope to look more into that one, in the style of my critiques on studies apparently showing the worth of the jabs.
- We conclude: “Academic publishing is easier when sticking to approved narratives, but this retards progress. Contrarian ideas are vital to the expansion of knowledge. Epistemologists will understand that the search for truth is akin to carving a marvellous sculpture out of a block of marble. Much must be discarded, but that is part of the process. We chip away the detritus until we at last stumble upon the beauty that is the truth within. Something is rotten in the Academy. We need to improve. One way to improve is to properly address financial and other conflicts of interest. Another way is to entertain contrarian ideas, to indulge those occupied with ‘taboo science’, while still adhering to time-tested scientific principles and methods.”
As you can see, this article isn’t really about Covid (even if, in another sense, it really is) but one of the reviewers seemed interested in that topic so I casually let the editors know that a spiritual sequel to this article could be in the works if they were eager.
Extra fun fact: this opportunity came about because I angrily contacted the editorial team about the retracted Mead et al. Convinced it was due more to political rather than scientific reasons I ended up writing a draft on some of the issues plaguing science nowadays. The editors didn’t seem to be too keen, but after a chance meeting with Parry, who made some excellent contributions, we ended up with something the editors could tolerate.
By the way, it gets worse, because of course it does. Not only does Big Pharma control just about everything when it comes to our health, but the owners of Big Pharma pretty much own everything else, including the legacy media, social media, energy, junk food, ‘healthy food’, etc.
Dr Raphael Lataster is an Associate Lecturer at the University of Sydney, specialised in misinformation, and a former pharmacist. This article was first published in his Substack newsletter, Okay Then News. Read more on his research and legal actions, including his recent win against the healthcare vaccine mandate in New South Wales.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.