When SARS-CoV2 hit the streets, there was a pandemic of alleged research purporting all manner of insight into the virus, side effects, treatments, demographic impacts, everything. Surprise! Not all of it was terribly scientific.
Grødeland said that part of the reason this happened during the pandemic was that relatively more people suddenly started conducting research on a topic they really knew relatively little about.
Even prestigious journals such as the Lancet were publishing those articles.
One of Lancet’s studies even caused both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the national government to stop the comprehensive testing of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness against COVID-19.
The extensive Lancet study, allegedly based on research fraud, said that the drug increased the risk of heart arrhythmia and mortality for COVID-19 patients.
There were likely retractions across all “lack-of-disciplines” and subject matter, but the Lancet paper is of particular interest because we covered it. It was a political hit piece designed to give the media fear factor to disqualify Hydroxychloroquine. A Drug NIH researchers had long recognized as “ “… a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” Like Ivermectin, if it were not discredited, even in contraction to decades of research proving safety and effectiveness, there could be no Emergency Use Authorization of the untested Pfizer/Moderna mRNA injections.
The Lancet published the hit piece as scientific research (probably under pressure), the media wrecking ball delivered the damage, and the politicians did the rest (restrictions, bans, threatening doctors and pharmacists). The paper’s claims collapsed quickly when made public. Ten days after publication, The Lancet pulled the paper, and two weeks later, the company that wrote the “research” vanished, but the damage was done.
Not all the retracted research will be the result of that sort of background or history – brief as it was – but what struck me as amusing was the notion that most of these papers lacked rigor, failed to obtain consent from subjects, or were reported in the media as fact when in fact, they failed to meet even basic requirements for publication.
“When you look at the articles that have been retracted, the vast majority were published in the less interesting journals. It is they who are mainly affected by withdrawals,” Grødeland said.
But there were a number of environments that do not normally carry out research, which suddenly started producing research after receiving funding from local hospitals.
“It may have caused things to get a little out of hand in some places,” she said.
And now we know why – or can speculate. The hospital funding was likely COVID blood money leveraged to keep the approved narratives afloat.
The feds had turned everything from testing, diagnosis, and treatment into an ATM if you did as they asked. Hundreds of billions of dollars were handed out, some of which undoubtedly found their way into what amounted to marketing disguised as science. That “science” fed the media propaganda mills keeping fear high along with the resistance to other lines of thinking.
COVID Karens, the pandemic’s political foot soldiers. Masked thugs who fed social media with shares of flawed or incomplete papers while dismissing or shouting down anyone who dared to consider other options, treatments, or outcomes. They even ratted out businesses and neighbors who violated unnecessary and harmful political interventions.
You know the rest. And here we are.
Here’s the list. I you have time, feel free to search it for things from either side of the COVID debate. I’ll be sifting it in the coming days and weeks as well. SOome of them are very strange but more than a few are attributing things to COVID of which COVID does not appear to be the cause – at least not based on the evidence used to justify the paper.
