Posted on 11/02/2024 4:16:56 PM PDT by T Ruth
Americans’ trust in the scientific establishment took another hit last week with the revelation that a prominent advocate of adolescent transgender treatments had suppressed the findings of her federally funded research showing that puberty blockers did not improve mental health in children with gender distress. Johanna Olson-Kennedy worried that the study’s findings would be “weaponized” by opponents of the transgender treatments she promotes. This reinforces suspicions that scientists and their publications are less interested in the search for truth than they are in promoting progressive political causes. This advocacy extends to partisan politics itself. In only the second presidential election endorsement in its history, Scientific American urged readers to “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment.” Two months earlier, Nature, the prestigious British science publication, extolled Harris’s background as the daughter of a scientist and her support for diversity initiatives in STEM, a single-payer health insurance program, abortion rights, and climate change, enthusing that her candidacy has “stirred optimism among scientists.”
Both publications broke with their traditional nonpartisanship in 2020 when they endorsed Joe Biden. Similarly, the normally nonpolitical New England Journal of Medicine published an October 2020 editorial castigating the Trump administration and unfavorably comparing its pandemic response to that of China, which “chose strict quarantine and isolation.” Trump administration officials, the editorial alleged, were “dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”
Never mind that it was already known, from countries such as Sweden, that lockdowns were unnecessary and that Chinese officials suppressed information about Covid’s outbreak and underreported cases and deaths. …
***
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
"Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database .... And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? ..."
Following in the grand tradition of Fake Climate Science.
Why do people still think that scientists are more ethical and principled? If that’s true, Nazi wouldn’t be able to conduct any experiments on Jews.
Yes, I am aware of the IRB. However, those reviews mostly done on procedures. It doesn’t cover not publishing if the results are against the “desirable” ones
Whoever controls the funding controls the results.
Unfortunately, we can no longer rely on the honesty of scientific researchers; perhaps we never could...
True of all human endeavors. That’s why peer review and falsifiableresearch is imperative.
Wait. You mean mutilating healthy children’s genitals and pumping them full of unnatural hormones could be harmful?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.