by WorldTribune Staff, June 1, 2023
More than 300 “scientific” papers on the Covid virus during the early stages of the pandemic, which were used as the basis for hundreds of thousands of news reports, have been retracted.
“This was the stuff that formed Covid policy. These were the papers and studies and data-driven analyses that the likes of Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci cited to justify their unconstitutional calls for lockdowns,” Washington Times columnist Cheryl K. Chumley wrote in a June 1 op-ed. The “scientific” papers were “used by leftist politicians to justify shutting down churches, while keeping open marijuana and liquor shops.”
The papers were published by “the journals of record that fed Joe Biden’s demand for every man, woman and child to get the Covid shot, then the booster, then the booster, then the booster — and for the members of America’s fine military forces to similarly shoot up, then shut up” or be discharged, Chumley added.
BMJ, one of the world’s top medical trade journals, asked in a recent article: “The pandemic turbocharged scientific publishing. While this was widely considered a collective triumph against a global threat, have the harms of pandemic publishing been overlooked?”
The answer that came back, Chumley wrote, “was a decided — and horrific — yes.”
On the rush to publish Covid papers early in the pandemic, the BMJ states: “An estimated 1.5 million articles were added to the global [medical journal] literature in 2020 — the largest single year increase in history. … Some saw it as an opportunity. There were promises of more open science and publishing … But it also stoked an already, some say, twisted industry — one that thrives on competitiveness — to publish the first data or to have the greatest visibility and impact. This changed the ways that papers were produced and vetted, for good and bad.”
Chumley noted: “Not only were Covid truths short-shifted — because the mass influx of papers combined with the massively fast-tracked process for approval for publication meant data was never clear, never given time for testing, never fully vetted for accuracy. But it also meant that coverage of other diseases, ailments and illness fell to the wayside.”
Chumley cited the case of Danielle Baker, a certified hospice and palliative care nurse in Ohio.
Baker’s employer pushed her to get the Covid injection or face a loss of benefits. Less than three weeks after taking the second Pfizer shot, Baker’s body shut down and she became completely disabled. Baker has sued her employer.
“No one should ever be coerced, bribed, threatened and/or mandated to have a medical procedure done for the benefit of their employer,” said Baker in an emailed press release. “This is just the tip of the iceberg [of lawsuits over Covid shots], and we plan on flipping it upside down by setting precedent for others when we rightfully win this case.”
Baker “wouldn’t have cause to sue if Biden hadn’t pushed the shot mandates,” Chumley noted. “Biden wouldn’t have pushed the shot mandates if scientists hadn’t given him cause to cry for their necessity. Scientists wouldn’t have had the platform to push the need for any shots — or other Covid-related lockdowns and seizures of individual liberties — if the medical journals hadn’t rushed to publish.”
As Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky said in BMJ: The medical journals, from the most esteemed to least, were all engaged in “an arms race for attention, eyeballs and citations.”
In journalism, Chumley noted, “such irresponsible reporting is called ‘fake news.’ ”