Health Friday 6.5.2026 Open Thread: Betrayal by the FDA?

old notes:

Dr. Meryl Nass Discovers Hydroxychloroquine Experiments Were Designed to Kill COVID Patients 

𝗥𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘅𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹, [𝗚𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘅𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹’𝘀 𝗗𝗮𝗱] 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘁 AND DESTROYED IT.

From:
Eye of the Storm Ep. 138
https://rumble.com/v551pqr-eye-of-the-storm-ep.-138-1030-pm-et-.html

1:04:40 They show a clip from The Joe Rogan Experience @ 3:34 mark (3 min clip)

The guy talking is Eric Weinstein: The Mathematician turned Physicist & Economist (It is an interesting article about Dr Weinstein.)
ERIC: ” … Maxwell figured out how to DESTROY SCIENCE and MAKE A FORTUNE. So he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals. This was a high quality informal enterprise. Now most of the destruction of science in terms of how high quality it used to be, has taken place relatively recently. POST ROBERT MAXWELL. Because we now have an enormous number of journals staffed by people who can’t spot publication cartels, where we agree to cite each others work and we agree to publish stuff, you know Pay for Play. ALL the nonsense you see with irreproducible research…

The peer review thing got woven in so that people think that the scientific method and peer review ARE THE SAME THING. Hwere ONE IS THE UNWANTED INFECTION FROM THE BIOLOGICAL BIOMEDICAL UNIVERSE, which had peer review much longer than anything else…”

From the article:

…Eric Weinstein’s ideas have awakened me and showed a world unknown to most people, such as the real world of academia and science.

One of these ideas is what he calls 👉the DISC (Distributed Idea Suppression Complex) which explains how disruptive and innovative ideas that challenge the status quo are suppressed.👈 Keeping institutions safe from individuals who create change….

…

So much for “peer review” — Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers
By Jo Nova

Proving that unpaid anonymous review is worth every cent, the 217 year old Wiley science publisher “peer reviewed” 11,300 papers that were fake, and didn’t even notice. It’s not just a scam, it’s an industry. Naked “gobbledygook sandwiches” got past peer review, and the expert reviewers didn’t so much as blink.

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

ABSTRACT

….A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12%< (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…..

Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration:
Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Importance

Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature….

Objectives

To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature.

Design and Setting

Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found.

Results: Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems:

falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%);

problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%);

protocol violations, 42 trials (74%);

inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%);

failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%);

and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%).

Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

Conclusions and Relevance

When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

(Blogs are now performing the important tasks of scrutinizing papers and conclusions often finding gross mistakes.)

Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue”

… “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”
Posted on June 1, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science

“Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.

It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.

The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote:
*http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale….

That is just a few of my scientific FRAUD notes.