“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:

• …etc

    

Yet we hear that US government ‘scientists’ received U$700 million for their fraudulent research supporting the scamdemic narrative. Cui bono indeed? 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

More here