4 ms·
> Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous. Absolutely wrong. If a medical student pub
by sazz 4y ago
> Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous.
Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen:
1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry.
2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups.
3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings.
4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying
5. the university will distance itself from the paper
6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations
7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun
P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
- skyde 4y agoso basically, your theory is that "Lancet & co" is magically under the control of the illuminati and that all science is broken :)
- origin_path 4y agoThere's no Illuminati, just incentives. Why would scientists and people who depend on science being respected publish papers showing that science created problems instead of solved them? Every incentive they have is the opposite.
- skyde 4y agoThe incentive for researcher working for an university is simply to publish as many paper as possible and get as many citations as possible on those papers. They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
- origin_path 4y agoAnd guess what, if you publish papers showing that your colleagues and funding sources have no clue and may actually be hurting people, you won't get paid in future.
- sazz 4y agoStraw man argument. Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale. The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science. But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
- skyde 4y agoacademic publication are not necessarily at all for the approval of a drug. All they need is to do a safety study following the GLP methods to make the FDA happy.
- joeman1000 4y agoIf you want to call many separate systems with differing interests, ideologies and goals ‘the Illuminati’, go ahead. Nice strawman. The comment clearly name different parties.
- skyde 4y agoYou just can’t attribute a behavior that require coordination by a group of people. It’s common for 2 people to make a deal to execute an illegal scheme ex: 2 CEO of 2 different company. But it.s impossible for all employee to knowingly participate in the illegal scheme and no whistleblower leaking the whole operation.