Awesome! Please thank him for all his amazing work! Weird peer review question: many great scientific breakthroughs in history were so paradigm shifting they rendered the scientist’s peers irrelevant, and they certainly weren’t welcome by those peers initially. Doesn’t peer review retard scientific progress? Alt: does he believe science/medicine made more significant/impressive breakthroughs in the centuries before peer review, or the period after it was so rigorously adopted?
Hey Rav. How do we address the problem of Principal Investigator bias in clinical trials? As an example: In the original J & J adenovirus vector vaccine trial, a young man suffered a cerebral venous thrombus (VITT) after receiving the vaccine. This was deemed "not related to therapy" by the PI, and the vaccine was approved. As we all know, it was later withdrawn from the market because of the "rare" and "unforeseen" incidence of VITT (which it should be noted was 1/22,000 in the study group). There were incidences of PE's and DVT's that were similarly dismissed in the vaccine arm.
I am glad to hear there will be some changes in the system. The medical journals have become compromised. Agencies and the people we trust to be telling the truth and doing the right thing are more and more often found to be compromised. It’s difficult enough to navigate healthcare!!
However, from my understanding of credibility and reach, two things are problematic:
1) some of the papers therein have the founders of the journal as authors or reviewers;
2) none of the papers have DOI numbers or PubMed registration and so may not be located or cited easily.
How will Dr. Kulldorf's new journal address these issues?
For example is there a new competing/complementary body being organized to rival PubMed?
3) How do you or Dr. Kulldorf feel about the SciHub effort which archives all available scientific papers for free public access regardless of publisher's terms and conditions?
Awesome! Please thank him for all his amazing work! Weird peer review question: many great scientific breakthroughs in history were so paradigm shifting they rendered the scientist’s peers irrelevant, and they certainly weren’t welcome by those peers initially. Doesn’t peer review retard scientific progress? Alt: does he believe science/medicine made more significant/impressive breakthroughs in the centuries before peer review, or the period after it was so rigorously adopted?
Great questions! I will be sure to ask him.
Hey Rav. How do we address the problem of Principal Investigator bias in clinical trials? As an example: In the original J & J adenovirus vector vaccine trial, a young man suffered a cerebral venous thrombus (VITT) after receiving the vaccine. This was deemed "not related to therapy" by the PI, and the vaccine was approved. As we all know, it was later withdrawn from the market because of the "rare" and "unforeseen" incidence of VITT (which it should be noted was 1/22,000 in the study group). There were incidences of PE's and DVT's that were similarly dismissed in the vaccine arm.
I will ask Martin. I know he has thoughts on the J&J shots
I am glad to hear there will be some changes in the system. The medical journals have become compromised. Agencies and the people we trust to be telling the truth and doing the right thing are more and more often found to be compromised. It’s difficult enough to navigate healthcare!!
Indeed.
Another group of researchers and doctors recently started a new journal for similar reasons (Science, Public Health Policy and the Law : https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/editorial-board/ ). See article by one founder at https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/help-bring-your-journal-science-public There are some great papers already that could be used to support dissident health science views.
However, from my understanding of credibility and reach, two things are problematic:
1) some of the papers therein have the founders of the journal as authors or reviewers;
2) none of the papers have DOI numbers or PubMed registration and so may not be located or cited easily.
How will Dr. Kulldorf's new journal address these issues?
For example is there a new competing/complementary body being organized to rival PubMed?
3) How do you or Dr. Kulldorf feel about the SciHub effort which archives all available scientific papers for free public access regardless of publisher's terms and conditions?