Scientific Fraud. 'Retractions' are the tip of a massive Iceberg of corruption and criminality.
$cientism. 'Follow the Science' or the fraud? The U$2.5 Trillion science and research market is as corrupt and debased as any single Pharma study on 'safe and effective' poisons.
“Grant Steen (Citation2011a) analysed article retractions and suggested that it demonstrated that research fraud has indeed increased in recent years. In a subsequent paper, Steen (Citation2011b) suggested that apparent increase in incidence of research fraud in medicine is leading to increased harm to patients. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee (Citation2013), suggested that scientific fraud has a range of manifestations, some of which go unchallenged, ‘on a continuum of dishonest behaviours that extend from the cherry-picking of data to fit a chosen hypothesis … to outright fabrication’.” (Source, ‘Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for research grants’, 2020)
Introduction
‘Science’ is full of fraud and quacks and always has been. In this post we list some egregious examples of retracted ‘research’ fraud. It is a tithe of what could be posted. A good book needs to written on the extensive frauds permeating science since the beginning of recorded history. ‘Retractions’ are an insignificant category of the total fraud, but like a canary in the coal mine, a leading indicator of poisons, toxins and catastrophe. In the ‘modern world’, the caveat is always, ‘the fraud and retractions are still a low percentage of publications’. This is because not every submission is audited for fraud and because the definition of ‘fraud’ is vague and ambiguous. The fraud in ‘the science’ is more extensive and pervasive than fraudulent votes in a US election.
[Cambridge University Press, 2022]: Scientific fraud still lacks a precise, universally accepted definition: the borders between unambiguously established fraud, errors, misconduct are uncertain: this frequently complicates decisions on whether or not cases of questionable behaviour can be classified as true fraud…..Also important is the fact that the assessment of the seriousness of suspected cases is incremental: it goes from simple misconduct cases that would border on negligence, to cases of evident fraud, e.g. the fabrication or falsification of data or results, and/or the appropriation (plagiarism) of another person’s ideas or data without giving appropriate credit.
If I use just the last sentence (plagiarism), I will say that Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Darwin, Koch, Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and many other ‘scientists’ are frauds. Forget the fact that much of what they proposed was wrong and without basis. Most ‘scientists’, including the aforementioned, were very good at ‘borrowing’ from others without attribution or reference. That is fraudulent.
Further, if every single published paper was fully audited, and we properly defined all the categories of misconduct, the fraud and retraction rate would probably be in the 80% range. It is not just the vapid and breathless ‘research paper-mills’ churning out non-science for psychology, gender, evolution, climate change and the virus-pandemic complex and hundreds of other activist causes. Most scientific research is fraud on an industrial scale, encompassing every known domain, fuelled and mutilated by money, power and government interference. It is largely intentional, not accidental, and is geared towards accruing profits, power, career advancement and state aggrandizement.
Climate, Corona as examples
The previous sentence is revealed as a fact when one looks at the apogee of outright scientific fraud for money and power in the climate cult. Since the 19th century, this collection of fantasists and green totalitarians have spewn propaganda parading as science on a weekly basis, now premised on fraudulent models, readings, data sources, programming code, and contrived algorithms. Even the Fake News media admits that climate models are useless. A long history of climate predictions and failures, with attendant issues in models which cannot possibly replicate the complex convection systems of long-term weather is collated here. Yet few if any of the ‘climate papers’ are retracted. We should never forget that this criminality was laid naked and exposed in the Climate Gate email scandals. It is fair to say that there is amongst informed critical thinkers a 97% consensus that 97% of all ‘climate studies’ are junk science.
The Corona plandemic followed the same runbook as the climatist religion, as will future ‘pandemics’ and ‘emergencies’. The fraud within the Corona plandemic was outrageous and one of the greatest examples of $cientism. Trillions spent worldwide on a scamdemic when the globe was shut down for almost 3 years. Far more died from the lockdowns, the stabbinations and other policies including treatment protocols, than perished from the ‘virus’. In every country the death from the ‘cure’ was 8-10 times greater than that from the disease (see here). In the UK about 25.000 died from Corona and only from Corona. Over 200.000 died from the stabbinations (‘excess deaths’) and some 20-30.000 from the March to May 2020 lockdown.
There is not a single shred of evidence that ‘viruses’ exist, nor any experimentation showing end-to-end, how a ‘virus’ emitted by a human (sneezing, coughing, touching), is transmitted by air or surface to someone else, how the DNA and RNA of the virus survives outside the host, how this molecule infects a second host and causes the same illness (same DNA, RNA). Yet endless research is published yearly on ‘viruses’ ‘proving’ a correlation with ‘diseases’. They should all be retracted until there is proof that ‘germs’, or ‘viruses’ exist. But they never are.
The ‘scientific’ claims and ‘studies’ issued during the Corona plandemic were ludicrous including inter-alia:
Corona 19 was a ‘pandemic’ when a pandemic was redefined to be ‘cases’ from false PCR tests, not actual people who were sick or dying in real life (the death rates never changed during the plandemic);
mRNA stabs sold as ‘safe and effective’, preventing transmission, disease or even death;
mRNA ‘clinical trials’ proving they were safe and effective when the trials themselves were fraudulent (with the drugs cooked up in a matter of months and the ‘trials’ rushed and scientifically invalid);
Claims that face diapers/nappy rags would stop a 0.3 micron size particle, when diapers were proven in hundreds of studies to be useless;
That the unstabbed would die in legions because they were not ‘protected’ (the unstabbed death rate was at least 2x below the stabbed);
The fake PCR tests were ‘gold standards’ in SARS-II virus hunting and if the test was positive you were going to die;
The scariants (mutations) were ‘worse’ than the original CV-19 genomic structure which is anti-science and biologically impossible (mutations don’t add functionality, they destroy);
Models showing that lockdowns were necessary to flatten curves and sombreros;
…etc
Yet we hear that US government ‘scientists’ received U$700 million for their fraudulent research supporting the scamdemic narrative. Cui bono indeed? 35 million ‘excess deaths’ from the stabbinations according to the BMJ and Dutch researchers, in a study released this week. The fake science around Corona is so astounding and obvious, that one can only include evil intent from those who planned, implemented and enforced this medical Nazism.
Below in this post are listed a small sample of fake mRNA studies later retracted or destroyed by real evidence. Yet the mass of that propaganda still persists. Most of that lurid junk science posing as ‘scientific studies’ informed policies and protocols and they still stand to be reused to support and calibrate a ‘response’ to future ‘emergencies’.
Much of what passed for ‘science’ during the Corona Medical Nazism was simply psychological brainwashing and acclimating the mass (the sheeple) to lockdowns, mRNA injectables and totalitarian control including digital IDs and passes, vaccination status and compliance. We see the same brainwashing and anti-reality program with ‘climate’ and ‘boiling’, ‘changing’ or ‘weirding’.
Fraud and Markets
Those of us who have been through a peer-review process and had papers or submissions approved for publication or issue, know that it is a deeply flawed approach. It is the equivalent of forming a committee to create a sausage. Some basic questions a farmer would ask about peer review would reveal just how broken and disjoined it is.
1. Is your purported ‘problem statement’ really a problem? Or is it concocted to fulfil other non-scientific (social, political, activist) objectives?
2. Are you investigating an observed hypothesis, and then going through experimentation to try to shed light on why the observed phenomena behave in the way that they do? Or is it really the reverse, where you are using data, measurements and maybe experimentation, to prove your pre-determined conclusion.
3. Is the research using inductive (bottom up from observations) or deductive (top down from generalisations) logic? Both methods should be used to reach a valid conclusion.
4. Who within peer reviews fully understands the topic, or has time to investigate the claims and their attributed sources in detail?
5. Who in the peer review community understands the data, the code, the schemas, the sources, the logic, the links, the references and attributions? Who can explain any of the backup detail to support the paper’s ‘conclusions’?
6. Are the data sets, code and programming logic, including all documentation, ‘open science’ and accessible to anyone with an interest in the topic? If not how is this ‘scientific’? [If IP protection is used as an excuse, masked or obfuscated data and code can still be presented with documentation explaining how the system logic operates.]
7. Did IT experts verify the application code, data schemas, data sources and logic?
8. Are biases, worldviews, philosophies, conflicts of interest and financing openly declared? Cui bono from the ‘research’?
9. Can I, the little peasant farmer, replicate your research and methods?
The above questions highlight the issues that have always distorted ‘science’. Peer-review as a process is more garbage in-garbage out, than some magical filter of honest appraisal and confirmation. It means nothing to say your paper was ‘peer approved’. You pass mine; I will pass yours. Especially if money, prestige, a professorship, or publication is at stake.
Money
Enormous sums of money and prestige is on offer with ‘scientific research’. Governments and their controlled organisations are by far the largest financiers of ‘scientific research’. This means that most research is simply tied to governmental-state objectives, or Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex.
Total global Research and Development spend is U$ 2.5 Trillion per annum. Health, IT, pharmaceuticals, ‘science’, aerospace, engineering dominate.
About 2% of World GDP is spent on ‘science’ research or U$1.5 trillion. Climate, IT and other domains are conflated with ‘science’ and included in this calculation.
The global academic publishing market size is U$16 billion and growing at 30-40% per annum. This is however dwarfed by government and private corporation funding as given above.
Total scientific paper publication and research constitutes a more than U$ 100 billion per annum if we add up all the domains and spheres including non-academic sources of funding.
The UK government alone invests U$10 billion per annum in ‘research’ making the UK government the most prominent player in ‘science’ within the UK. This model is replicated across every G20 nation.
In reality the coffers of ‘science’ are largely filled by governments and their allies. An example is the climate-cult and its ‘scientific paper-mill-model-complex’ which is a fundamental cornerstone of a U$ 1 trillion per annum business. It is the ‘propaganda’ wing of the climate political party. The climate cult research industry alone, is worth more than $30 billion per year. Other industries are similar in size and reach.
· Pharmaceutical ‘research’ supports an industry worth some U$ 1.5 trillion per annum. The endless paper mills spewing out pro-Pharma studies and ‘clinical trial’ data are essential for the vaccine-drug narrative and its ‘safe and effective’ marketing dogma. Tens of billions are spent each year by Pharma and their allies in Government to produce these studies.
· ‘Evolution’, a philosophy miscast as a biological science, as one part of academic publishing is worth more than U$5 billion per annum and is essential as a philosophical premise which informs most ‘scientific’ and educational domains.
· Cosmology controlled by NASA and a few academic institutions constitutes a U$25 billion per annum market, with billions going to ‘studies’ and interpretations of data which confirm the ‘narrative’ of the Copernican-Einsteinian Big Bang universe.
And on it goes in every domain.
There is an inconceivable pile of spoils on offer for scientific publications, authors, academics, institutions and researchers who can please the gatekeepers. Entire careers, journals and academic institutions, are at stake. In reality, few ‘researchers’ or institutions will object to being paid, bribed or cajoled with financial ‘emoluments’ to publish something pleasing to a massive and powerful industry and lobby. Not many will vote with their conscience and refuse to participate. To go against the whims of these huge, vested interests and the state-corporate military-industrial complex will compromise not only your institution, your career, your influence and power, but maybe your life.
Scientific Retractions - a short list
The last few years have witnessed scientific papers being retracted at an alarming rate. But this is only the tip of the massive iceberg of fraud. Entire industries are largely absent such retractions including virology, pharmaceuticals, climate, evolution, psychology and cosmology. If we were to use a precise definition of fraud to include unsupported and uncorroborated conclusions which do not have mechanical-experimental proof which is replicable, entire industries (and philosophies) would disappear overnight.
It is quite likely that 50-80% of all published scientific material is rubbish.
All domains
Lancet 2015: Maybe 50% of scientific literature is simply untrue.
Retraction Watch 2022: 5000 papers were retracted due to fraud, a tiny fraction of what should be pulled.
Semafor 2023: 33% of all scientific papers might be fraudulent.
December 2023 Nature: More than 10,000 papers were retracted in 2023 -- a new record. “Among large research-producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China have the highest retraction rates over the past two decades, a Nature analysis has found.” ‘Paper mills’ setup by individuals, institutions, private concerns were blamed.
May 2024, Wall Street Journal: Flood of Fake Science forces Wiley Science publishing to close 19 journals and threatens $ 30 billion academic (or quackademic?) publishing industry (also on Jo Nova’s site). “In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each.”
2018 Science.org study: Number of articles retracted due to fraud, or honest mistakes, has increased by a factor of 10 times since 2008. “…released to the public as a searchable database, is now the largest and most comprehensive of its kind. It includes more than 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts dating back to the 1970s (and even one paper from 1756 involving Benjamin Franklin)”
Nature 2016: More than 70% of researchers cannot replicate colleagues work.
2005, Standford researcher, John Ioannidis: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," citing conflicts of interest as one factor driving the generation of false positives.
Wikipedia list of scientific crimes – a long list but missing domains such as climate, pharma, psychology, evolution, gender, cosmology and physics to name just a few.
Corona mRNA fraud
BMJ and the Pfizer study fraud(s)
Pfizer admits to mRNA clinical trial fraud in a US Federal court
CDC admits to hiding data about mRNA injury
October 2022, Pfizer admits no testing for stopping transmission
Feb 2024, ModeRNA admits mRNA shots are toxic (versus the false ‘safe and effective’ trials)
WHO Covid Vaccine study was a fraud
Neil and Engler: SARS II was not novel nor a threat
Health-Medical/ Biomedical
2021 BMJ: ‘Time to assume that most health research is fraudulent’. (one example given); “anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials.”
May 2023 Science.org: “After screening some 5000 papers….up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010”
May 2023, NPR: Almost a third of biomedical submissions are fraudulent.
2023 National Library of Medicine: About 10% of all oncology, ophthamology, and cardiology papers are retracted.
Nature 2022: Dozens of papers authored or co-authored by a Nobel laureate geneticist were false.
2016 Stanford study: A large portion of published papers in just one journal mRio during 2016, contained false and fraudulent imagery.
CBC 2012: Study of 2047 fraudulent biomedical papers found that 67% were due to outright and deliberate fraud.
2011 Journal of Medical Ethics study: 750 retracted studies were analysed, the main culprit was outright, deliberate fraud (not honest mistakes).
2009: New England Journal of Medicine: Pharma fined $ 9 billion between 1996 and 2005, from whistleblower actions, which revealed fraudulent claims, studies, data.
Cancer
May 2024, Vox: Much of cancer research is fake and fraudulent (where do those endless billions for ‘cancer research’ go to?)
2014: Georgetown cancer research and supposed insights falsified by wrongly attributing results to melanoma.
Science/Engineering
June 2021, Science and Engineering: 15% of researchers have direct knowledge of colleagues committing fraud.
Psychology
2015 study of Psychology papers: At least half of submitted papers are fraudulent.
Nature 2015: Out of 100 top psychology papers only 39 could be replicated in part.
Nature 2011: Massive fraud in psychology and sociology papers in Dutch universities.
Ad nauseum. Take any domain and you could spend a long-time accounting and collating the retractions just in the past decade. Retractions are just one small part of the scientific fraud. Fraud includes taking money but not doing the research, or accepting the money (bribe) and giving a ‘positive answer’ from the tortured and fraudulent ‘research data’. Retractions are just the tip of the iceberg from the calving science-fraud ice sheet, the glittering scum on the putrid pond named ‘the science’.
Yet, we are to blindly follow the mantra ‘trust the science’, which is translated as, ‘follow our propaganda and lies’.
Bottom Line
A worthy PHD would be to catalogue the fraud running riot in ‘science’ across just a few domains. It is quite likely that 50-80% of mainstream ‘science’ and ‘research’, is fundamentally rubbish and nonsense. The destruction of real science and proper research is a sobering and alarming fact. The negative impact on culture, policy, health, real science, engineering, technology, morality, reality and worldviews is absolutely astounding and incomprehensible.
How many hospitals, schools, sewers, charities, orphanages, technologies, welfare systems and real jobs could have been created and sustained with this massive river of fraudulent largesse? Africa could have been ‘modernised’ 3 times over just with the money from the climate cult. National debts could be repaid. How many lives have been destroyed or lost from fake science and research?
The entire complex of scientific fraud always serves the masters, gatekeepers and the cults of $cientism they are advertising and pushing. The principle of ‘draining the swamp’ transcends politics and the deep state. The fetid marshes of scientific research and publishing fraud need to be drained and civilised.