What they do with retracting papers powerful enough to seriously wound a false narrative, they did all through covid, and before, but much more during covid. The same media that smugly lied about "horse de-wormer", that had to protect us from crazy doctors (some of the best people on the planet), using repurposed medicines - off label, s…
What they do with retracting papers powerful enough to seriously wound a false narrative, they did all through covid, and before, but much more during covid. The same media that smugly lied about "horse de-wormer", that had to protect us from crazy doctors (some of the best people on the planet), using repurposed medicines - off label, sometimes for a week or so - to save lives or make an illness much less severe, has no problem with off label use of far more dangerous drugs for much longer, by children with no ability to consent.
And of course, the can't-make-this-stuff-up level hypocrisy - "The pressure then shifted to a bogus claim — by Springer itself — that the study’s participants did not provide written informed consent to have their data published in the article."
Informed consent. For having (probably anonymized / name protected) data published. When the real issue is complete lack of informed consent when children poison and maim themselves. And those who push medical experiments with no informed consent, while - of course - calling it an "informed consent" model, force a legit paper to be retracted, because they claim lack of informed consent in submitting data. Meanwhile, children submit their breasts, bone marrow, genitals, self confidence, present and future family, and so much more ...
What they do with retracting papers powerful enough to seriously wound a false narrative, they did all through covid, and before, but much more during covid. The same media that smugly lied about "horse de-wormer", that had to protect us from crazy doctors (some of the best people on the planet), using repurposed medicines - off label, sometimes for a week or so - to save lives or make an illness much less severe, has no problem with off label use of far more dangerous drugs for much longer, by children with no ability to consent.
And of course, the can't-make-this-stuff-up level hypocrisy - "The pressure then shifted to a bogus claim — by Springer itself — that the study’s participants did not provide written informed consent to have their data published in the article."
Informed consent. For having (probably anonymized / name protected) data published. When the real issue is complete lack of informed consent when children poison and maim themselves. And those who push medical experiments with no informed consent, while - of course - calling it an "informed consent" model, force a legit paper to be retracted, because they claim lack of informed consent in submitting data. Meanwhile, children submit their breasts, bone marrow, genitals, self confidence, present and future family, and so much more ...
I will write a letter and share this, thank you.