https://www.psychotropical.com/medical-science-publishing-a-slow-motion-train-wreck/

Abstract

This commentary traces influences that have shaped medical science publishing. It starts with the history of the initiation of the modern model of medical publishing, by the psychopathic fraudster Robert Maxwell, of Pergamon Press, back in the 1960s, and finishes with the current ‘pay-to-publish’ problem. The number of journals in medical sciences has increased greatly in the last few decades, to the point where even wealthy libraries cannot afford the subscriptions, and many researchers are denied access to papers for want of money. The number of suitable experts, with time to referee the papers offered for publication, has become less as career promotion and time pressures on academics have become steadily greater. The rules of supply-and-demand make it inevitable that the result is that standards of editorship, refereeing, and papers, have decreased to the point where many papers are so unremarkable that 50% of them never get cited. The accuracy and relevance of the bibliographies in papers has also decreased greatly; most referees no longer check citations. Behind-the-scenes manipulation of supposed knowledge continues unabated: ghost-writing has thrived, and ghost-management of the whole medical science knowledge-space can now be considered the norm. The key function, and obligation, of editors and referees to guard the quality and probity of the scientific literature, which was always problematical, is no longer being accomplished to an acceptable standard.

The situation continues to worsen, especially since the recent exponential increase in predatory pay-to-publish, frequently bogus, journals: these have been enthusiastically embraced, perhaps because they offer an easy route to the accumulation of the publications required for career progress.

It is time to ask, why still have journals? It is now logical and efficient for ‘papers’ to be archived by institutions, and their merit assigned post-archiving, both by various computer-generated algorithms, such as those that have been developed by Google, and by humans. Such changes would achieve two things: first, it would place the responsibility for monitoring the quality of ‘published’ material directly onto the University itself, which would thus be a direct indicator and measure of the University’s perceived excellence and status; second, it will free-up billions of dollars paid to rich publishers, who add little of value to the scientific endeavour. It is time for academics to consider carefully whether it is smart to continue supporting the current model, and to what extent doing so betrays the values of democratic science.

>

Witness the logical fallacy and religious style defense of medical dogma used to hide honest science regarding inoculations from the public: the assumption that vaccines are beneficial and necessary for public health is made and used as a justification for censoring any evidence that challenges that assumption. Real scientific inquiry would accept that increasing our knowledge requires confronting new evidence and if the new evidence on this topic is accurate then the shots are not benefiting public health but are actually causing net harm to public health. There has for a long time been a filtering process and control system in place for medical and scientific publishing that has been used to perpetuate coverups of truthful information on a number of subjects. - Jedi

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/brian-hookers-paper-showing-vaccines

"The question the study does answer is arguably more important: if vaccines are genuinely harmless, vaccination timing should have zero relationship to death timing.

The fact that it does — consistently, across all vaccines and 55 subgroups — is exactly the kind of signal you’d want to investigate further, wouldn’t you?

Calling this “impossible to interpret” seems unjustified.

I’d also like you to explain your reference to immortal time bias in your note as there is no immortal time bias in the study. Anywhere. Both groups had the exact same rules for the exposure and observation windows."