You are right, of course. These conspiracists have to disbelieve excess-mortality data, and believe all vaccine harms are classified as something else, to hide them … except in the public VAERS / Eudra / DAEN databases. It doesn’t make sense.
But a convoluted multi-step argument based on dozens of different errors allows for a Gish gallop, which is good enough to convince many…
]]>Thank you for the update. They have now published at least three such errata for various articles in this series. As Poulas is a frequent co-author of Tsatsakis, and himself frequently publishes in this journal, that still goes against the best journalistic practice.
But the cycle of in-group citation, review, and publication — while subverting the intended function of peer review — is difficult to recognize or stop for a sufficiently large in-group, precisely because there is no longer a single step of COI, but rather a slightly longer chain.
]]>A good point, one I will update this post to include.
There is a small constellation of papers on the manifold harms of 5G, the benefits of nicotine, and the harms of vaccines, which have been published in Tox.Reports, Tox.Letters, and a few related journals, all by this group of authors + editors.
]]>“The publisher wishes to clarify that Dr Aristidis Tsatsakis, the Editor-in-Chief of Toxicology Reports, was not involved in the peer-review of this article. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to the Handling Editor Dr Konstantinos Poulas.
The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
]]>I must have been thinking of the wrong type of radiation.
Toxicology Letters, Vol 323, 1 May 2020, pp 35-40.
Bob
]]>If the reviewers that the editors choose are already anti-vaccine, and interested in publishing work that confirms their beliefs, the tone might have seemed a positive signal. That’s not surprising in itself — there are journals devoted to all sorts of non-science; Infinite Energy Magazine is going to continue to publish reports of perpetual motion machines.
The question is why a top publisher such as Elsevier has health-related journals with such editors.
]]>Patrick.
]]>Thank you, corrected!
]]>A slightly different use case, but that’s helpful to know!
]]>