What is Needed Now: Unbiased Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature and Discourse
As the world grapples with realities warped by faux science, stand up and say "Science is not broken. Fraud is illegal". There is a difference between Science and Fraud. Learn it-and support Science.
In this podcast, an MD and a PhD compare notes on the future of science and share their common views - and where they disagree.
From America Out Loud News, Drs. Peter McCullough and James Lyons-Weiler:
Today, more than ever, we are barraged with government media narratives on emerging crises (COVID-19, MonkeyPox, Bird Flu, Immigration, Climate, etc.) without any ability to vet information or hear other points of view. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law is a journal with an informative and interactive website supported in part by The McCullough Foundation and others.
This new platform now offers a seamless experience with papers available as readable, online full-text papers and news feeds from credible sources, including Courageous Discourse Substack. The influence of censors and advertisers has corrupted the medical and scientific literature. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and LANCET have exclusively published papers declaring the COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and effective. Not a single paper goes against this false narrative or calls for a halt or investigation into vaccine safety.
There are always multiple opinions on any new drug, device, or medical product — some favorable and others unfavorable. You deserve to hear from both sides. This new platform is dedicated to rational discourse and independent scientific inquiry. Subscribing to the journal also enrolls members in The World Society for Ethical Science (WSES), an organization dedicated to safeguarding objective science. Members receive updates on scientific advancements, discounts on events, voting rights, and opportunities to run for office, fostering a global community of ethical scientists.
Our special guest this week is Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, bioinformatics expert and former faculty at the University of Pittsburgh. Lyons-Weiler is the Editor-in-Chief of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law. He emphasizes that the relaunch aims to secure a forum that celebrates rational discourse and independent science. Drs McCullough and Lyons-Weiler invite scientists, physicians, and the interested public to explore the new website, join the WSES, and support the movement toward ethical science.
Let’s get real; let’s get loud on America Out Loud Talk Radio. This is the McCullough Report!
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/news/
The McCullough Report: Sat | Sun 2 PM ET – Internationally recognized Dr. Peter A. McCullough, known for his iconic views on the state of medical truth in America and around the globe, pierces through the thin veil of mainstream media stories that skirt the significant issues and provide no tractable basis for durable insight. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on Apple, Android, or Alexa. Each episode goes to major podcast networks early in the week and can be heard on-demand anywhere in the world.
I have always thought that peer reviewers should be anonymous until an issue is resolved. Then the peer reviewers should be named and held accountable for approving a study without sufficient scrutiny (for example, the famous retracted story in the Lancet that was based on fake data) or without exposing the limitations of the study (for example the Principle study where ivermectin was given exactly contrary to normal guidelines in order to minimize absorption) or when significant high-quality studies are published in lesser known journals after being rejected by peer review for unethical/financial reasons. For the first offense, loss of anonymous peer reviewer status for all publications for one year. Second offense, four years. Third offense, ten years. Fourth offense, twenty years. Of course, in this upside world of ours, this could result in good scientists being banned from anonymous peer review. These banned scientists could still do peer review but they would be named and the controversy resulting in their ban of anonymous review would be referenced. Likewise, editors-in-chief may continue in their positions but a note explaining the controversy would appear on the inside front page of the journal for the specified amount of time and for at least one 12 monthly or 5 quarterly editions after the termination of employment (resignation, retirement, firing, death, etc.)