I always laugh when someone demands to see a “peer reviewed” paper on a topic, as though that means anything worthwhile.
The editors of the world's most prestigious medical journals are sounding the alarm, and nobody is listening.
— MAHA Action (@MAHA_Action) July 1, 2026
"We have peer reviewed, high impact editors in most of the journals that are the most high impact, saying that they don't believe what is being published in those… pic.twitter.com/YxwpgSKKH4
Worth noting, of course, that Michael Mann’s papers were “peer reviewed.”
I am a published author – papers (first or second author on close to 100), medical textbook chapters…I’ve also been a peer reviewer. I also have an extensive background in biostatistics (masters degree in mathematics, taught biostats in medical school).
When I get papers to review I do the math. And find it’s usually suspect. A few authors actually take my questions seriously and fix it. Most others don’t. And lately, I get fewer requests to review…because I “may be too critical”, according to one editor.
Well, OK then. If these were fly by night medical journals (There are entirely too many of them, IMHO) that’d be one thing. But from highly respected journals in my fields?
Glad I’m at the end of my career (I retired from clinical medicine a couple of years back). Both medicine and medical school pedagogy has gone to hell in my lifetime.
So…. Don’t get sick?
AI s going to ultimately ferret out a lot of this garbage posing as research.
What will the AI be trained on, if most of the research is irreplicable and they’ve found corruption everywhere they’ve looked?
It should be trained to always prefix every statement with the phrase: “I believe that…”
I’m pretty certain [Anthony Fauci]* is broken.
I know [Michael Mann]* of climatology is.
*The Science
Worth noting, of course, that Michael Mann’s papers were “peer reviewed.”
Yes indeed. I highly recommend the reviews by Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and Abraham Wyner.