OPINION:
The widely recognized, highly esteemed medical trade journal BMJ wondered aloud in an early 2023 feature — this: “The pandemic turbocharged scientific publishing. While this was widely considered a collective triumph against a global threat, have the harms of pandemic publishing been overlooked?”
And the answer that came back was a decided — and horrific — yes.
Decided, because tens of thousands of medical studies, papers and data analyses were fast-tracked into publication at unheard of, never-before-experienced speed, with unheard of, never-before-experienced failures to properly vet and peer review; and so far, hundreds have been retracted.
Horrific, because this was the stuff that formed COVID policy. These were the papers and studies and data-driven analyses that the likes of Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci cited to justify their unconstitutional calls for lockdowns. This was the scientific evidence — LOL — used by leftist politicians to justify shutting down churches, while keeping open marijuana and liquor shops.
These were the journals of record that fed Joe Biden’s demand for every man, woman and child to get the COVID shot, then the booster, then the booster, then the booster — and for the members of America’s fine military forces to similarly shoot up, then shut up or get the you-know-what out; don’t let the discharge door hit you on the way home.
Lookie here.
Some astonishing quotes from the BMJ about the rush to publish, mid-COVID pandemic: “An estimated 1.5 million articles were added to the global [medical journal] literature in 2020 — the largest single year increase in history. … Some saw it as an opportunity. There were promises of more open science and publishing … But it also stoked an already, some say, twisted industry — one that thrives on competitiveness — to publish the first data or to have the greatest visibility and impact. This changed the ways that papers were produced and vetted, for good and bad.”
What’s that you say?
Submissions of scholarly articles to 885 select medical and health journals increased by more than 60%, or a quarter of a million, in the first few months of COVID? And that led to the “usually rare practice of ‘fast tracking’ select papers” to become “expanded, so that ‘practically everyone and everything was accelerated with the goal of disseminating critical knowledge,’” as Lancet senior executive editor Naomi Lee said in BMJ?
Well, now, Lassie, in layman’s, that’s called a recipe for disaster.
Not only were COVID truths short-shifted — because the mass influx of papers combined with the massively fast-tracked process for approval for publication meant data was never clear, never given time for testing, never fully vetted for accuracy. But it also meant that coverage of other diseases, ailments and illness fell to the wayside.
“Concerns are being raised that the domination of covid related papers in medical journals came at the cost of other health issues such as non-communicable conditions, violence and mental health,” BMJ wrote.
Good point.
Context is key.
For instance: It would have been helpful had the same medical journals that were racing to publish the next unvetted, unreviewed, unclear finding about COVID that fed into the fears that demanded the total shutdown of society — if these journals had also, simultaneously, perhaps at least once or twice, or maybe even a few hundred times, deep-dived into some studies about the long-term effects on keeping kids home from school for months and months on end, masked and afraid, separated and socially distanced. It would have been helpful if the medical publications’ community had talked up more about the science of separation than the what-ifs of one mask, two masks, why not wear three or more masks — it’s common sense, dontcha know.
But don’t expect the world of science to change.
Even with the 301 report retractions reported by Retraction Watch, do not expect these paragons of scholarly snobbery — these titans of intellectual elitism — these unparalleled pinheads of the “Do as I sayeth!” scientific circles — do not expect them to apologize, to meekly beg forgiveness for the trouble their faulty, rushed Science-Not Science caused, and to promise to never again rush to publish without proper oversight, vetting, checking and double-checking. Or in lieu, time. Nothing stands the test of time like a study that’s been given time to be tested, right?
“Ross Upshur, pandemic governance expert at the University of Toronto, Canada, who also teaches research integrity, says that all this opportunism [to publish in medical journals] is nothing new,” BMJ wrote. “To him, what happened during the pandemic reflects an already perverse system of academic reward that has little motive to change: the gold rush to publish was simply an extension of the usual ‘publish or perish’ culture. It’s therefore unsurprising that ‘people had to become a covid expert to survive, or at least a self-appointed expert,’ [he said].”
And there you have it.
That’s exactly what happened during COVID — hype driving fear driving ego driving fear driving ambition driving fear.
Driving devastations.
Danielle Baker was a certified hospice and palliative care nurse in Ohio for decades. Then her employer pushed her to get the COVID shot, or else face a loss of benefits. Less than three weeks after taking the second Pfizer shot, her body shut down and she became completely disabled. Her day in court, Danielle Baker v. Ohio’s Hospice Inc. is coming this January.
“No one should ever be coerced, bribed, threatened and/or mandated to have a medical procedure done for the benefit of their employer,” said Baker in an emailed press release. “This is just the tip of the iceberg [of lawsuits over COVID shots], and we plan on flipping it upside down by setting precedent for others when we rightfully win this case.”
Here’s the thing: Baker wouldn’t have cause to sue if Biden hadn’t pushed the shot mandates.
Biden wouldn’t have pushed the shot mandates if scientists hadn’t given him cause to cry for their necessity.
Scientists wouldn’t have had the platform to push the need for any shots — or other COVID-related lockdowns and seizures of individual liberties — if the medical journals hadn’t rushed to publish.
As Retraction Watch cofounder Ivan Oransky said in BMJ: The medical journals, from the most esteemed to least, were all engaged in “an arms race for attention, eyeballs and citations.”
In journalism, such irresponsible reporting is called “fake news.”
For medical journals, the tag is even more damaging: fake science. And this is what fed the fury and the flurry of the left’s attack on individual, God-given liberties, both in America and around the world.
Fake. Science. In the hands of the left, it’s not just an “oops.” It’s an outrage, an offense to humanity, an assault on individualism. Too bad nobody will pay; nobody will bear the consequences for these horrific lies and spins and deceits.
At the very least, Americans must never allow it to be used as a weapon to steal liberties again. Bogus science kills.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “Lockdown: The Socialist Plan To Take Away Your Freedom,” is available by clicking HERE or clicking HERE or CLICKING HERE.
For more information, visit The Washington Times COVID-19 resource page.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.