Are Consensus Science “Gold Standard Peer Reviews” Fraudulent BS Science?
“We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.” [1-2]
The above is an ingenious spoof proving fraudulent ‘science’ actually is “peer reviewed” and published; it’s something that goes on in most, if not all, the sciences!
The male gender better secure and protect male genitals because, if pseudo-science is to be believed, males just may castrated and become eunuchs, especially if the penis is considered as contributing to climate change. Now wouldn’t that solve the population explosion?
Please pardon my literary license and tongue-in-cheek humor, but I just could not prevent myself from writing an “epilogue” to that ‘penis peer reviewed’ article.
Waking Times published a fascinating exposé titled “Why Scientific Peer Review Is A Sham” [2] by Brendan D. Murphy, which tears apart the peer review process as nothing short of BS science!
Widget not in any sidebars
As Murphy states in his article,
Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” — what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.
The authors tell us:
The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal. [1]
Murphy goes on to say,
In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.
As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one — not even Boghossian and Lindsay — knows what it is actually saying.
Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.” [1]
Folks, this is serious stuff: fraudulent, peer-reviewed science becomes “consensus science” and there is no more flagrant violation of scientific and professional ethics than that which occurs within pharmacology, vaccinology and medicine!
Once healthcare consumers wake up to the boondoggle being pulled over on them under the guise of healthcare, preventive and prophylactic measures, the sooner consumers will become healthier and the costs of healthcare will tank!
Murphy goes on to quote numerous luminaries in the healthcare profession such as Dr. Marcia Angell.
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. [3]
Most “experts” in medicine are, psychologically speaking, simply engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises, vigorously affirming and defending their ego’s (lucrative) construction of the world. To paraphrase physicist Max Planck, medicine, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”
Ah! Now there’s a “catch phrase: groupthink,” which morphs into “consensus science,” the newer gold standard of peer review research, which apparently reigns supreme at the U.S. CDC and FDA regarding vaccines!
The CDC and FDA are infamously notorious for their fraudulent studies as documented in VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe
Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe Official Trailer from Cinema Libre Studio on Vimeo.
Then there’s the outrageous position CDC/FDA take in promoting Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD, and his fraudulent MMR-vaccine-no-autism-connection study, wherein Thorsen did not include the proper Danish demographic information, plus he eliminated certain implicating cohorts from his published and accepted “peer review” study. Thorsen is a wanted criminal/fugitive; below is his listing on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General Fraud Report “Fugitive Profiles” https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp , and still the CDC/FDA will not retract that fraudulent report, but promote it as one of the primary evidences of MMR vaccine safety! FRAUDSTERS?
OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen
From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.
Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.
The initial grant was awarded to the Danish Medical Research Council. In approximately 2007, a second grant was awarded to the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Both agencies are governmental agencies in Denmark. The research was done by the Aarhaus University and Odense University Hospital in Denmark.
Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.
In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.
According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.
Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States.
Probably nothing confirms the above CDC Thorsen and Thompson fraudulent research “acceptability, not validity” consensus science than what The Lancet editor Richard Horton said:
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. [4]
However, the most unfortunate part about fraudulent peer review research publication is that it infects all the sciences and winds up being a cancer of scientific rot, which destroys people’s health and, ultimately, their lives!
Many thanks to Brendan Murphy for an excellent job of exposing “Why Scientific Peer Review Is A Sham.” [2]
References:
[1] PETER BOGHOSSIAN, ED.D. (AKA PETER BOYLE, ED.D.) AND JAMES LINDSAY, PH.D. (AKA, JAMIE LINDSAY, PH.D.), THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: A SOKAL-STYLE HOAX ON GENDER STUDIES, https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/#.WR_ysma0ssk.facebook
[2] http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/02/19/scientific-peer-review-sham
[3] MARCIA ANGELL, DRUG COMPANIES & DOCTORS: A STORY OF CORRUPTION
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
[4] RICHARD HORTON, “GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD: CONSTERNATION, CONFUSION, AND CRACK-UP,” THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 172 (4), 2000.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
