Censoring of scientific research that is "unpopular"

[Genava]

Speaking of rejection, in 2014 we got a "Reject" from a journal that was either geology/mining or similar of an article about coal before it went to peer review with the editor rejecting it outright because "We wouldn't want articles about coal at this time." They didn't even read the article.

Honestly, I don't believe you. Or at least I don't believe you are understanding correctly the motives for the rejections of your article, or that you give us enough information about the context.

If you really hope to make me believe that geology journals censor articles on coal, there is no chance that your personal anecdote will be sufficient compared to my experience in a faculty dedicated to Earth sciences. Just saying.

[NorthernXY]

This is really bad faith and a very dishonest comment. In all IPCC reports there is this information as well as the bibliographical references of the articles giving an estimate of the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Yet you fail to provide it.

EDIT: Pointing to the IPCC as a reference is about as reliable as other international organizations that say they perform a service. It's like asking the UN whether there is a genocide in China, they voted not to talk about it.

[Ludicus]

Yes I was little unclear but basically Bailey has repeated the Littman study with expended sample size and not really responded to the core problems of methodology. The same problems remain. In some way when he describes his co author 'otherwise unnamed mother and a website' and how they derived the data they practically doubled down.

I should have been clear why I cited the criticism of Littman it is core the point.

This was the source of the parent sample:

https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/

Really thing you are dealing with a random sample that has any statistical power?

You are right, of course.

---

-it was covered positively by the conservative press
-my coauthor, “Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it.
- we had only the parents’ perspectives
-with few exceptions, all of the parents we surveyed were progressive.(*)
- gender dysphoria is a problem that should be treated. Conversion therapy is a religiously motivated attempt to change sexual orientation.

No, it’s not.
New study reveals risks of transgender 'conversion therapy

…Another important finding: There was no significant difference in risk for people who reported receiving conversion therapy from religious advisers versus secular therapists.

(*) Really.

[alhoon]

Honestly, I don't believe you. Or at least I don't believe you are understanding correctly the motives for the rejections of your article, or that you give us enough information about the context.

If you really hope to make me believe that geology journals censor articles on coal, there is no chance that your personal anecdote will be sufficient compared to my experience in a faculty dedicated to Earth sciences. Just saying.

I wish I had kept the rejection letter but I haven't. I understand your suspicion as we often publish in such journals. And Coal Geology is dedicated to that.

[Kyriakos]

Crazy/wrong stuff occasionally do pass peer review in magazines. There was a funny and infamous case of the published thesis of one of those Bog brothers. At some point, while trying to defend their thesis, they made the memorable argument that "phi is a transcendental number", and even attempted to use calculus to prove so!!!!
Only to later on try to blame their editor for a "mistake" in arguing it was such

[conon394]

Crazy/wrong stuff occasionally do pass peer review in magazines. There was a funny and infamous case of the published thesis of one of those Bog brothers. At some point, while trying to defend their thesis, they made the memorable argument that "phi is a transcendental number", and even attempted to use calculus to prove so!!!!
Only to later on try to blame their editor for a "mistake" in arguing it was such

I would not say it occasional, or rather really crazy is rare but if you 'poor science' particular in social sciences does often pass. Its well known problem in Sociology, phycology and into economics for example. The real problem is peer review has real limits. The reviews are essentially not rewarded for the job. They if their are lazy or buried in their own work might not get or demand access to raw data. But critically they are certainly not in a position to stop everything and replicate the the experiment. Also the bland title of say Chemistry or Genetics hides innumerable sub specialities you might easily spot poor wook or outright cheating but more subtle slight of hand buried in the margins can pass.

Over all Peer review is probably akin to the famous description about democracy the worst system except for all the other options. It mostly gets the job done. In the OP case this pretty clear it failed when nobody flagged initially the way the sample was collected its in both cases deeply flawed.


--------
Delayed

@NorthernXY

As a biochemist, I'll give my two cents.

You totally avoid addressing the core methodology problem in how the data was gathered. The study should not have cleared peer review.

----------

@Ludicus - what we managed to agree on 2 things in one month I might fall off my chair.

[Muizer]

What is your scientific specialty? Most scientist agree with GW, but cannot explain why. They just keep their heads down and not draw any attention to themselves for fear of the non-scientific backlash. I did a pole in my undergrad and I think 1 of 15 professors could properly explain why.

I have an Msc in earth sciences. I don't quite believe there are many scientists speaking on GW who cannot explain its fundamentals, because they are quite simple: Firstly, CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the planet's surface that would otherwise radiate back out to space. Secondly, the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is significant and near instant when put in a context of geological records*. That should really be all anyone needs to know to understand the reality of GW. The big difficulty with GW is not causation, but attribution and prediction: the impact at a particular place and time.


* perhaps I should add here there many climatic fluctuations in the geological record involve causation or mediation by atmospheric CO2. Denying the pivotal impact of CO2 would not just leave the present impact in doubt, but basically pose many, many questions about the planetary past.

[Phier]

If the Covid response didn't show people that science can be just as corrupt and biased as the worst politician, nothing will.

Science as a tool is great, but in a world with little faith (and for new people here I'm a near life long atheist) many need a new faith. "Trust the Science" ... (until it shows something I don't like).

I left environmental sciences back in the early 90's because it was already brain dead and corrupt, but I never thought it would get this bad.

Now take your boosters, because scientists are never wrong or lie.

[conon394]

Now take your boosters

I do thank you very much and have avoided any number of nasty illnesses my lifetime. NOt what the public health response to COVID has to do with a guy who wrote a paper that should not have passed peer review but did because the system has its problems and is whining about it.

[Phier]

I do thank you very much and have avoided any number of nasty illnesses my lifetime. NOt what the public health response to COVID has to do with a guy who wrote a paper that should not have passed peer review but did because the system has its problems and is whining about it.

I was unaware that this was focused only on one removed paper. And here I thought the topic was censoring science.

Because of the censoring, lies and misinformation with Covid, I have two patients with extremely severe vaccine injuries in my practice.

I do not treat for these conditions, they come to me for other reasons. In my prior 20 years of practice I had to deal with zero vaccine injuries.

Lies and censorship made reporting or warning of such things difficult to impossible. Both these patients were young and healthy prior. They had no possible benefit from taking the vaccine and only risk *which was suppressed*. Anyone who understood the process of vetting these things knew there was no way they properly investigated its effectiveness or ability to stop transmission. Which after being lied to by our government, it turns out it does nothing to prevent the spread.

These people were hospitalized for months, one is on oxygen still a year later, because of censorship and lies.

There should be trials more akin to Nuremburg over these this if there was any justice.

[alhoon]

I was unaware that this was focused only on one removed paper. And here I thought the topic was censoring science.

I disagree with Phier's posts here in mostly every sentence. I agree with him in this. The topic is censoring science.

[Phier]

I disagree with Phier's posts here in mostly every sentence. I agree with him in this. The topic is censoring science.

Please feel free to expound on the disagreement.

[alhoon]

I was unaware that this was focused only on one removed paper. And here I thought the topic was censoring science.

Because of the censoring, lies and misinformation with Covid, I have two patients with extremely severe vaccine injuries in my practice.

I do not treat for these conditions, they come to me for other reasons. In my prior 20 years of practice I had to deal with zero vaccine injuries.

Lies and censorship made reporting or warning of such things difficult to impossible. Both these patients were young and healthy prior. They had no possible benefit from taking the vaccine and only risk *which was suppressed*. Anyone who understood the process of vetting these things knew there was no way they properly investigated its effectiveness or ability to stop transmission. Which after being lied to by our government, it turns out it does nothing to prevent the spread.

These people were hospitalized for months, one is on oxygen still a year later, because of censorship and lies.

There should be trials more akin to Nuremburg over these this if there was any justice.

I have tried answering that... and I got a connection issue losing my half-post.

So, here it is in a quick form as I want to discuss censoring here and not Covid:

- It is false to say the Vaccines didn't work at all; they didn't work as well as advertised. Look how the deaths / hospitalizations per 1000 sick persons were reduced after the vaccines.

- Two (2) people with very negative reaction to the vaccine is not too many. The numbers that have had a very bad reaction to the vaccine were a tiny miniscule number and much smaller than the lives saved by the Vaccine. And on topic: Those (very few) numbers were heavily censored and even mentioning what I said in 2021 would get a health-official in trouble in much of Europe. USA had it better on the censoring of bad news.

- Young people died from Covid, even without prior problems (or at least diagnosed problems). Vaccines lowered the chance to die significantly so let's say by 70%.
How many healthy below 35 years old died once catching Covid? Let's say 1 in 3,000 if unvaccinated and 1 in 10,000 if vaccinated. In USA, about 1/3 of the population has been infected by Covid by now.
There are about 77 million people of ages 18-34. Most of them are healthy. So, let's say 25 million healthy people of ages 18-34 have contacted Covid.
1/3000 ~> 8000 dead that were healthy young people. 1/10,000 ~> 2500 dead previously healthy young people. So, the vaccines prevented roughly 5,500 deaths.
They did cause severe complications in a few hundred young people. That's true. Unfortunate, but true.
BUT:
A few hundred young people suffering unfortunate significant health complications is better than 5,500 dead.

[Phier]

I have tried answering that... and I got a connection issue losing my half-post.

So, here it is in a quick form as I want to discuss censoring here and not Covid:

- It is false to say the Vaccines didn't work at all; they didn't work as well as advertised. Look how the deaths / hospitalizations per 1000 sick persons were reduced after the vaccines.

- Two (2) people with very negative reaction to the vaccine is not too many. The numbers that have had a very bad reaction to the vaccine were a tiny miniscule number and much smaller than the lives saved by the Vaccine. And on topic: Those (very few) numbers were heavily censored and even mentioning what I said in 2021 would get a health-official in trouble in much of Europe. USA had it better on the censoring of bad news.

- Young people died from Covid, even without prior problems (or at least diagnosed problems). Vaccines lowered the chance to die significantly so let's say by 70%.
How many healthy below 35 years old died once catching Covid? Let's say 1 in 3,000 if unvaccinated and 1 in 10,000 if vaccinated. In USA, about 1/3 of the population has been infected by Covid by now.
There are about 77 million people of ages 18-34. Most of them are healthy. So, let's say 25 million healthy people of ages 18-34 have contacted Covid.
1/3000 ~> 8000 dead that were healthy young people. 1/10,000 ~> 2500 dead previously healthy young people. So, the vaccines prevented roughly 5,500 deaths.
They did cause severe complications in a few hundred young people. That's true. Unfortunate, but true.
BUT:
A few hundred young people suffering unfortunate significant health complications is better than 5,500 dead.

As a start as you dumped a lot of points, lets start with a question. Do you feel doctors were censored by governments via social media from stating their opinions on the Covid response and origin?

[conon394]

As a start as you dumped a lot of points, lets start with a question. Do you feel doctors were censored by governments via social media from stating their opinions on the Covid response and origin?

What does that even mean the response to a novel virus was kinda by the play book you expect. The Origins? How were generic doctors censored kinda vague questions.

[alhoon]

As a start as you dumped a lot of points, lets start with a question. Do you feel doctors were censored by governments via social media from stating their opinions on the Covid response and origin?

Yes. And it is not about "Feelings" we have proof now that governments pressured doctors and organizations about the origin of the virus and of course to criticize the response. It was not full censorship of course, just "Strong discouragement". Also, it was not just via social media.
When you got the USA Surgeon general revising his position and losing his job for saying masks don't work well for the public when we now know the governments were aware that common masks or those "make t-shirt-to-mask" masks (from the surgeon general!) didn't work, it is not about "feelings".

HOWEVER!
Of course the governments and health organizations would lie to us about the China Flu for various reasons: To prevent mistrust between governments and China in a time where it was CRUCIAL to get whatever help we could from China. Another reason was to prevent attacks or discrimination on Chinese. I remember early in the Pandemic, before we even had the first actual hit in Greece, people would stand and leave shops when Asian customers showed up. We were concerned they may have Coronavirus.

And back then, we the people thought the first Coronavirus was MUCH more transmissive than it actually was. Then came Alpha that was "5 times more contagious!" then came Delta that was "10 times more contagious than A!" then came Omicron that was "10 times more contagious than delta!"... and about that time we were told "Omicron is Extremely contagious! It is nearly as contagious as the common cold!!!!"
NOW it is as contagious as the common cold!?! Then the one in the beginning, the one that was x500 times less contagious was not that contagious was it, BUTTHOLES?
####
YOU!!!!


The response... quarantines at first was a mistake. We closed up too early. BUT, the governments had no idea what to do and nobody alive even vaguely remembered what a pandemic was about. Decades of "there will be no bio-warfare" have completely eroded the ways we prepare for a new disease. And if the next serious pandemic comes in 50 years, then the response will be crap again because in 10 years those auto-responses will start getting defunded and the updates and research on response will get much less interest... and in 50 years we will not know what to do and people will be looking at what we did now and adjusting.
Which would be a serious mistake.
Anyway, no, I do not blame the governments for making mistakes. Better to try something and fail than not try. Which I expect will be the reason the next pandemic in 50 years will kill 5% or so of the entire population: Governments will react too late.
And they will censor the dramatic results of their inactivity. Because if once 1% of the 2070 population is dead, if the government doesn't censor that their future-stupidity will eventually kill 4% more people... the resulting mistrust will result in 10% more dead people.

So ... yes. Governments and health organization censored to a degree the results of their mistakes or even lied to the public in order to prevent panic, foster cooperation etc. And to not lose the elections, obviously. And since authoritarian countries did not have that issue with the elections, you saw many authoritarian governments reacting more reasonably to the pandemic.
But hindsight is 20/20.

[Phier]

So ... yes. Governments and health organization censored to a degree the results of their mistakes or even lied to the public in order to prevent panic, foster cooperation etc. And to not lose the elections, obviously. And since authoritarian countries did not have that issue with the elections, you saw many authoritarian governments reacting more reasonably to the pandemic.
But hindsight is 20/20.

So why with 100's of billions of dollars spent, people wanting more, political carriers at stake and perhaps even potential criminal charges, do you trust the information they gave you on the effectiveness of the vaccine and need for it in the younger population? Lets not forget the average age for a Covid death was 2 years higher than the average human life expectancy in Western Countries.

They lied, we know they lied, they illegally suppressed information, we know they did that, they were wrong about things like the vaccines stopping the spread, we know that too.

[alhoon]

So why with 100's of billions of dollars spent, people wanting more, political carriers at stake and perhaps even potential criminal charges, do you trust the information they gave you on the effectiveness of the vaccine and need for it in the younger population? Lets not forget the average age for a Covid death was 2 years higher than the average human life expectancy in Western Countries.

They lied, we know they lied, they illegally suppressed information, we know they did that, they were wrong about things like the vaccines stopping the spread, we know that too.

Naughty of them but from that entire post only this is relevant: "they illegally suppressed information"