Comments
JKUAN108 t1_iu7jsul wrote
> Abstract
>Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled “Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs” was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as “billions of lives are potentially at risk” with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.
JKUAN108 t1_iu7k2zv wrote
> In April 2022, Food and Chemical Toxicology, an Elsevier journal, published a review article dealing with mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [10], pretending that these vaccines are at the cause of a series of dreadful diseases for a large number of people (neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis).
Ahh, Elsevier…
HiImTheNewGuyGuy t1_iu7mxr4 wrote
All human trials should also be published, regardless of outcome.
HungryZack t1_iu7ua56 wrote
It also requires publishing negative results.
[deleted] t1_iu7v1uz wrote
[removed]
wufnu t1_iu7whpl wrote
> Elsevier
Oooh, sounds exotic.
[deleted] t1_iu82sgd wrote
[removed]
gamingthrowawway2021 t1_iu8and4 wrote
The publishing industry needs more oversight. They're about as bad as the oil industry in my opinion.
Heyblorp t1_iu8dov9 wrote
The scientific publication industry needs to be completely reviewed IMO.
From direct knowledge of someone in a publishing company which charges money for access to stuff that could literally be on an open website, the whole thing is actually an industry and a lot of articles "peer review" just means "is this internally consistent and typo free?" and reviews are rarely done by actual peers with the niche knowledge required to review.
Perhaps a single NGO with transparent policies and procedures that hosts approved papers in a freely accessible public location would be a better option.
The Open Access movement is good, but not enough IMO, because it's not digging down in to the entrenched communities working at some of these publications.
kanuck84 t1_iu8grl9 wrote
Wow, the authors really did not pull any punches, eh?
> The problem … is when seemingly rigorous scientific journals publish false science under pressure from the Editor in order to increase their impact factors points and, they think, notoriety. Such an attitude is also predatory and authors, editors and publishers of such articles should be publicly condemned by the scientific community.
> This technique of using science to vehiculate nonsense has been named ‘agnotology’ by Robert N. Proctor, which he defines as “the study of deliberate, culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product or win favor, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data” [9]. There is some similarity between the connivance of the tobacco industry with some ‘key opinion leaders’ who made the propaganda in favor of tobacco consumption …
Elphya t1_iu8num3 wrote
What, no diabetes? Hm...
Jokes aside, all the fancy, high IF journals publish research papers and reviews where authors blow up the discussions section like they found the one and only true cause/treatment of certain diseases.
porkly1 t1_iu8p463 wrote
Publishers' greed is fueled by the intense pressure on investigators to publish. I know several investigators who publish 15 to 20 papers a year, an only a few of those papers are actually worthy of publication. Several can be combined into one paper telling a complete story rather than a serial presentation. Some may be repetitive or incomplete. Very few are maliciously misleading.
cessationoftime t1_iu8su9l wrote
And it requires an entirely different medium from english language text.
UnfinishedProjects t1_iu8tire wrote
Exactly. You can't continue to call yourself a "scientific publication" if you're not publishing REAL science. It's literally only hindering.
[deleted] t1_iu8ukiu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu8yft7 wrote
[removed]
Socky_McPuppet t1_iu8z32t wrote
"Fragile" - must be Italian!
zenzukai t1_iu91iol wrote
The publishers, the researchers , the universities, the pharmaceutical companies, seems like perverse incentives all the way down.
edzimous t1_iu921e6 wrote
I’m reminded of Thomas Midgley reading this
therealdannyking t1_iua3m4r wrote
What medium and language would you suggest?
matthisonfire t1_iua4loo wrote
Am out of the loop here, Is Elsevier notorious for being bad?
TheArcticFox444 t1_iub2v1z wrote
>Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.
Going back how many decades? (Just curious.)
slashgrin t1_iub7y2q wrote
They control a lot of science publishing, while adding little or even negative value compared to everyone just dumping their papers online.
I think they get called out not because they're worse on a per-paper basis, but more because they're so damn pervasive.
Rud1st t1_iub9klu wrote
It's the biggest scientific journal publisher
Portalrules123 t1_iublj4w wrote
Mutually reinforcing, positive feedbacks of corruption.
HuntersDiseasedDick t1_iucl16s wrote
When article about how clot shots aren’t really vaccines and don’t actually work at all?
collegefurtrader t1_iud69gt wrote
Hello fellow human
cessationoftime t1_iudb3tj wrote
An engineered language similar to Lojban or a programming language that can keep track of dependencies and have an enforced structure.
[deleted] t1_iugomh9 wrote
[removed]
SokoJojo t1_iugpovo wrote
Agree to disagree. If people want to translate work by all means go for it but English should be the standard
lonnib OP t1_iuh9g9b wrote
As many as need be!
lonnib OP t1_iuh9jm3 wrote
Can't agree more!
lonnib OP t1_iuh9l0g wrote
ABSOLUTELY! But the issue is in the file-drawer effect. I have written a bit about this too!
cessationoftime t1_iuidzse wrote
English isn't structured enough. The current system is a complete mess and causes most experiments to not be reproducible. Translations could potentially be in the other direction. So that things are written in a structured language and then automatically translated into english. But translation to English causes information losses.
AutoModerator t1_iu7jiud wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.