I assume the fraudulent papers were the ones that claimed ivermectin was effective against covid?

That was most of them. But I recall at least one deceptive Lancet paper arguing against ivermectin which was also fraudulent.

I think you're thinking of hydroxychloroquine, but your point stands.

Surgisphere: mass audit of papers linked to firm behind hydroxychloroquine Lancet study scandal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sa...

lol, the same journal that referred to women as "bodies with vaginas."

Not sure why you are downvoted. They have bodies which sometimes have vaginas.

The clorox society police is out in full force on HN.

Why would you assume that? You'd have to read a scientific paper to reach that conclusion (or do the experiment yourself) and the trustworthiness of that is what is at issue!

You’re kidding, right?

That would go some way to explain why the entirety of academia let Daszak's obviously bullshit paper "disproving" lab origin pass muster.

The reasoning Daszak and his co-authors (who failed to declare conflict of interest related to GoF work) employed wouldn't pass a first-year exam.

... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them.

> ... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them.

I agree. Fire them all and replace them with scientists that signed the Great Barrington Declaration, with priority to those that signed earliest.

And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty? What other foundational research papers are yet to be outed as fake? We need to look at all fields of science where a decade or more have past since anyone has made meaningful progress on central problems, or have a pattern of non-replication. Those are strong signs that key papers are made-up and scientists are basically forced to build on unworkable conclusions.

>> And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty?

Almost all of them, but the prime ones to target are the ones whose leading journals do not require open data to be published along with their paper.

Drug trials with pre-registered hypotheses are actually among the more rigorous approaches to research.

While I agree that academic fraud is a blight upon academia, this comment generalises over many thousands of academics.

> _nobody_ cares about any of this. Universities don't care, journals don't care, peers don't care, nobody within the academic system cares.

Please be mindful about generalising over such a large number of people. Maybe those who care have little power to do anything about it.

Academia is far from a democracy, but it's far from being a totalitarian hellscape, either. Nobody gets that far without the significant consent of those around him.

Maybe somebody cares, but an awful lot don't.

Yes, there are people who care. But they tend to get disgusted and leave, so I think it's fair to say that ~nobody in academia cares. We know they'll write open letters and organize outrage mobs at the drop of a hat if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, where is the similar behavior over scientific misconduct?

People care. A lot people care very deeply. The problem is that those whose care powerless and there is no incentive to fighting the system. If we try, we risk our careers.

I mean, yes at some level I totally agree, universities will not back you up if you complain about misconduct or poor work. Absolutely.

At the same time, we (outsiders) see academics set up massive political and pressure campaigns against the public, politicians and each other - that aren't directly sanctioned by the management - and this seems to happen all the time. Academics are some of the most powerful members of society. They are one of the few groups whose collective beliefs are actively dangerous to criticize in public. So the idea that they're all powerless victims in this regard is just so hard to take seriously. If the academy really wanted to, it could hold its own staff to account just like it does over the ideology of the day.