September, 16, 2020 | 1 Comment


  1. Michael’s excuse reminds me of the days when mothers were blamed for giving paradoxical messages to children so causing them to become mentally ill. Does he understand what he has said!?
    He and his chums can get away with publishing dangerous papers if the bodies they destroy as a consequence remain hidden and denied by those in positions to expose them Yellow Cards? – Yellow bellies who never speak up and undermine those who do for another chair on another committee.Another interview on the telly. People who trust those who ally themselves with ‘patient’ groups are, sometimes with well intentions, the snakes in the grass and just as dangerous.. It’s ‘interesting’ how many of them are described as charming…seductive even.

    Hopefully one day they will be top of the leaderboard published by Retraction Watch
    Although even being outed doesn’t stop them. They are a type of sub human beings with no conscience

    Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
    Ten takeaways from ten years at Retraction Watch

    As we celebrate our tenth birthday and look forward to our second decade, we thought it would be a good time to take stock and reflect on some lessons we — and others — have learned.

    Retractions are more common than we — or anyone else — thought they were. Two decades ago, journals were retracting roughly 40 papers per year. Although we were pretty sure they needed to be doing more to police the literature, we had no idea how much more. We also assumed the number was somewhat similar in 2010, but we were off by at least an order of magnitude, depending how you count. Journals now retract about 1,500 articles annually — a nearly 40-fold increase over 2000, and a dramatic change even if you account for the roughly doubling or tripling of papers published per year — and even that’s too few.
    Oransky and Marcus Retraction Watch

    Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

    Thanks for visiting Retraction Watch. I’m Ivan Oransky, Vice President, Editorial, at Medscape, and Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University’s Carter Journalism Institute, where I teach medical journalism in the Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. I’m also the president of the Association of Health Care Journalists. The views here do not necessarily represent those of any of those organizations.
    In the past, I’ve been vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today, executive editor of Reuters Health, managing editor, online, of Scientific American, deputy editor of The Scientist, and editor-in-chief of the now-defunct Praxis Post. For three years, I taught in the health and medicine track at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism.were motivated to launch the blog to increase the transparency of the retraction process.[5]
    They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, and the reasons for retractions are not publicized.[5] One result is that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results.

Leave a Reply