The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Some Countries Are Just Prone to Scientific Fraud. So Are Their Immigrants to the West
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Scientific fraud—falsifying scientific data or manipulating the scientific evaluation process—has become a serious problem. At best, it is a threat to public confidence in science. At worst, if the fraud is not revealed, then public policy could be shaped by bogus data. This problem is universal. But there are distinct national patterns. In particular, fraud is endemic in non-Western countries—and among non-Western scientists who immigrate here.

The most infamous scientific fraudster of recent years did come from the West: the Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel At the time of writing, he has had to retract 58 scientific articles in which he made up or manipulated his data. Significantly, many of these were politically useful from a Leftist perspective, such as the claim that a dirty, untidy environment made people more racist or that people who eat meat are more selfish than vegetarians. [RETRACTED ARTICLE. Coping with chaos: how disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination, By D. Stapel & S. Lindenberg, Science, 2011]

Clearly, any sensible scholar is going to be very cautious about citing anything ever written by Diederik Stapel, even if it has not been retracted. Indeed, lay readers should be careful to ask for the author of any Leftism-helpful social psychology finding, when told about it by acquaintances, lest its author turn out to be Diederik Stapel.

But—breaking news—microbiologist Elizabeth Bik went just public alleging astonishingly massive scientific fraud, between 2004 and 2019, among academics at Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu in India. This may lead to the retraction of up to 200 papers by microbiologists at the university.[ Research fraud in over 200 Annamalai University papers, alleges US scholar, by Megha Kaveri,The News Minute, November 15, 2019]

And this is much more typical. Scientists from some countries are systematically more inclined to make up data or corrupt the peer-review process, than are scientists from others.

In the peer-review process, an academic journal sends a study out to other academics for scholarly evaluation. Many scientists research extremely narrow fields, meaning there are very few people in the world who are qualified to judge the merits of their studies. Consequently, when scientists submit an article to a journal, they are often asked to nominate potential peer-reviewers, and also to provide their email addresses.

A conscientious editor would check who these nominees were and make an informed choice as to whether they were suitable reviewers. But apparently many editors, even of prestigious journals, do not practice due diligence.

Corrupt researchers realize this. Accordingly, they invent a couple of fictitious researchers and provide emails to which they—the study’s authors—have access. Sometimes they give real researchers’ names, but create a new email, bogus addresses for them. They are then able to peer-review their own papers and recommend that they be accepted. Journal editors have gradually got wise to this ruse and are able to see that the that IP address of the author and reviewer are the same, leading to the corrupt scientist being caught out.

There are clear national differences in this practice. The world leader: China. Between 2012 and 2016, 276 studies by Chinese academics were retracted for fake peer review. In a distant second place was Taiwan, with 73, followed by Iran, with 65, South Korea, 33, Pakistan, 19, and India, 16. [The Economy of Fraud in Academic Publishing in China, by Mini Gu, WENR, April 3, 2019].

In terms of fake peer review per head of population, these figures suggest that the most corrupt country, by far, is Taiwan (population 23 million) then Iran, then South Korea.

In other words, you should be generally cautious about trusting the accuracy of scientific papers authored by scholars from these countries.

Author Mini Gu notes some systemic factors behind this corruption. In much of Northeast Asia, as well as in the developing world, many scientists are, in effect, “on commission.” If they land an article in a high-impact academic journal, then they get paid much more than if it is published in a less prestigious journal. Without publishing these articles their salaries are extremely low. Not only are they paid “by result,” but they also paid “per article,” naturally pushing them towards quantity over quality.

Even Western academics must publish a certain number of articles every few years for their contracts to be renewed. But the pressure here is extreme. We can understand how corruption will result. It ranges from self-plagiarism—presenting, essentially, the same paper as though it were two different ones—to the much more serious issue of simply making data up.

A useful leader board on the latter is maintained by the website Retraction Watch . It lists the 32 scientists who have had to retract the most papers for scientific fraud of various kinds. Being slightly woke itself, Retraction Watch gloats that “We note that all but one of the top 32 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud.” But, needless to say, it doesn’t say anything about the national origins of its top 32 most prolific retractors.

  1. Yoshitaka Fujii (total retractions: 183) See also: Final report of investigating committee, our reporting, additional coverage
  2. Joachim Boldt (97) See also: Editors-in-chief statement, our coverage
  3. Yoshihiro Sato (87) See also: our coverage
  4. Jun Iwamoto (69) See also: our coverage
  5. Diederik Stapel (58) See also: our coverage
  6. Yuhji Saitoh (53) See also: our coverage
  7. Adrian Maxim (48) See also: our coverage
  8. Chen-Yuan (Peter) Chen (43) See also: SAGE, our coverage
  9. Fazlul Sarkar (41) See also: our coverage
  10. Hua Zhong (41) See also: journal notice
  11. Shigeaki Kato (40) See also: our coverage
  12. James Hunton (37) See also: our coverage
  13. Hyung-In Moon (35) See also: our coverage
  14. Naoki Mori (32) See also: our coverage
  15. Jan Hendrik Schön (32) See also: our coverage
  16. Soon-Gi Shin (30) See also: our coverage
  17. Tao Liu (29) See also: our coverage
  18. Bharat Aggarwal (28) See also: our coverage
  19. Cheng-Wu Chen (28) See also: our coverage
  20. A Salar Elahi (27) See also: our coverage
  21. Ali Nazari (27) See also: our coverage
  22. Richard L E Barnett (26) See also: our coverage
  23. Antonio Orlandi (26) See also: our coverage
  24. Shahaboddin Shamshirband (26) See also: our coverage
  25. Prashant K Sharma (26) See also: our coverage
  26. Rashmi Madhuri (24) See also: our coverage
  27. Scott Reuben (24) See also: our coverage
  28. Thomas M Rosica (23) See also: our coverage
  29. Alfredo Fusco (22) See also: our coverage
  30. M Ghoranneviss (22) See also: our coverage
  31. Anil K Jaiswal (22) See also: our coverage
  32. Gilson Khang (22) See also: our coverage

However, the results parallel, quite well, retractions for corrupting the peer-review process. Thus six of these scientists are Japanese, 4 are Indian, 3 are Iranian, 3 are South Korean, 3 are from the USA, 2 are Taiwanese, 2 are Chinese. Interestingly, some of these Third World scientists have corrupted other countries, most notably the USA. Indian Bharat Aggarwal was based at the University of Texas. Fazlul Sarkar, originally from Iran, was at Wayne State University in Detroit.[Researcher Fazlul Sarkar Has 12 More Papers Retracted, by Sukanya Charuchandra, The Scientist Magazine, September 17, 2018]

Note that one of the people on the list was Taiwanese education minister Wei-ling Chiang! He was forced to resign in 2014 when his role in a peer-review corruption ring was unearthed. [Peer Review Scandal Takes Down Taiwanese Minister, by Yu-Tzu Chiu, IEEE Spectrum, July 16, 2014]

The corruption of science in countries like India, Iran and China is unsurprising. They either have low average IQs and/or are poor and these factors tend to predict corruption. (This tendency is discussed by Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen in their 2012 book Intelligence, pages 152-157).

Quite why scientific corruption should be so prevalent in high IQ and wealthy Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea is less clear. One suggestion: they are strongly shame-oriented—saving face is all important—rather than guilt-oriented, like the West, where individual conscience will sometimes stop people from doing things even when they can get away with them. Shame cultures arguably lead people to be dishonest in order to achieve much prized social status, in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise be [Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan, by Pablo Pellegrini, Science and Engineering Ethics, 2018].

Put simply, some countries are more prone to scientific corruption—and so are people from those countries. I reported a while ago on how trust in universities may be gradually undermined by Political Correctness and the driving of genius scientists from universities due to increasing female dominance of academe.

Perhaps the habit of importing scientists from non-Western countries will be further nail in the coffin of universities.

Lance Welton [email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Culture/Society, Science • Tags: Asians, Chinese, Fraud, Immigration 
Hide 33 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. There are some ‘disciplines’ where fraud is far less of a problem than the control of the discipline by hidebound ‘correct line’ types who infiltrate review mechanisms and thereby exclude alternative views, be they never so well-researched. Sociology, psychocharlatanry, various flavours of grievance studies, climate ‘science’ and the like spring to mind.

    It’s interesting that 10 of the 11 most-cited retracted papers on RetractionWatch are from the medical field – and that many of them are still cited hundreds of times.

    I view this exposure of scientific fraud as an unambiguously good thing, so long as it eventually becomes widespread knowledge among the top cognitive decile (below that doesn’t matter). It will undermine the notion of a cadre of unimpeachable authority figures, which is a good thing: nobody should have their work accepted without criticism based solely on their name or position.

    People need to view anything that’s published as being a potentially valid source of information, not as some modern version of Holy Writ. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that such-and-such a study said “blah blah blah“, only to go and read it and find that N=15 but the p-values are clearly calculated as if important central limit theorems hold.

  2. Oh… and also: dodgy fake-review circle-jerks are only one form of academic corruption.

    There is abundant published stuff that has passed actual factual, ‘proper’ review, that has methodological flaws that are obvious, and which show clear signs of bad research practice (e.g., p-hacking).

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  3. Svevlad says:

    Good. Academia needs to drop dead already. Every single paper should be treated as garbage, true or not. Easterners get papers published by bribing, Westerners by being brainwashed cucks.

    Sadly all vestiges of such culture must be immediately destroyed – as any argument we get against them will be magically treated as “illegitimate” – we all know that in the 21st century, might makes right.

    As it should.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  4. Those “nice” Asians like Hwang Woo-suk the “Pride of Korea” who was celebrated as the next Ian Wilmut.

  5. That is not descriptive of the entire fraudulent environment. It’s broader than using faux reviewers.

    “Publishing his results in the journal PLoS One, he found that an average of 1.97% of scientists admitted to having “fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once – a serious form of misconduct by any standard – and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.””


    Furthermore, a more accurate picture of the environment would have to calculate some manner of percentages of those in research. Just by way of example based on analysis alone not actual data.

    Suppose there are 10,000 researchers submitting scientific papers for publishing. That would represent 2.6% of submissions as fraudulent in this manner.

    The idea is to get an image of national ethos for cheating. I think that would need inclusion of how many are engaged in the behavior in which the cheating occurs.

    The other observation would include how many researchers had to had research withdrawn spanning time and more than one published submission.


    Submitted as reference — as I am not a huge fan of wikipedia

  6. Global Citizen [AKA "Old Pale Male"] says:

    The smart fraction of humanity needs bullshit detection as a primary skill along with restraint on denouncing true claims hastily. Type 1 & 2 errors, right. Or is it 2 & 1, oh well.

    As I’ve gotten older, I have become distressed by most conversations, as the speaker’s goal is only to obfuscate and win at all costs, regardless of fact, method, or reason. Studies back me up! Just google it.

    In the public sphere, science/studies seem meaningless, as they are 47.665389126% likely to be laughably overprecise flummawidgets.

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  7. Yeah, scientific fraud. Like all those IQ studies.

    Buried lede: SCIENTISTS Are Prone to Scientific Fraud.

  8. @Kratoklastes

    Old-school professor of mine used to refer to Iranians as “colleagues from the eastern extensions of the Mediterranean orogene” 😀
    Chinese and Jews I found smart enough, but there is something about Islamic countries (that extends to Christians from thence).
    On climate, everything published after say Harland 1990 should be taken with a piece of salt the size of a Tesla, but go and explain that to a Greta zombie sometime.

    – Erosion of trust in(SIDE) the scientific community is a serious problem (and I do not mean the half or so that can be dismissed offhand) … nobody has time to double-check EVERYthing.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  9. There is another, perhaps harder to combat or detect type of scientific fraud, namely the refusal to discuss, ideas or even data, which challenge orthodoxy. I have seen it at work in protein structure studies and I read that it also applies to researching the “odd” behaviour of gyroscopes and to UFO studies, both being more or less taboo subjects (career suicide) for “serious” academics. There are probably many other taboo fields that I have not heard about.

    In pharmaceuticals and medicine, there is also the suppression of discoveries by advertising pressure from drug companies on journals, as for example the ten-year fight that Dr Barry Marshal NP had to get his life-saving discovery of the role of helicobacter pylorii in causing stomach ulcers, into mainstream knowledge.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  10. Come to think about it, there is also the suppression of “inconvenient” discoveries, such as the discovery by tobacco companies that smoking caused cancer, (in the 1940s) by the cosmeticians that talcum powder contained Asbestos and could cause a particularly unpleasant form of cancer, by e.g. Monsanto that their products were carcinogenic and the realisation (a long time ago) by the oil cartels that their products were likely to cause global warning.

  11. “Scientists from some countries are systematically more inclined to make up data or corrupt the peer-review process, than are scientists from others.”

    When those scientists are producing your generic drugs, sold in America.

    The two men strolled into the hall to order tea from white-uniformed waiters. As they returned, Kumar said, “We are in big trouble,” and motioned for Thakur to be quiet. Back in his office, Kumar handed him a letter from the World Health Organization. It summarized the results of an inspection that WHO had done at Vimta Laboratories, an Indian company that Ranbaxy hired to administer clinical tests of its AIDS medicine. The inspection had focused on antiretroviral (ARV) drugs that Ranbaxy was selling to the South African government to save the lives of its AIDS-ravaged population.

    As Thakur read, his jaw dropped. The WHO had uncovered what seemed to the two men to be astonishing fraud. The Vimta tests appeared to be fabricated. Test results from separate patients, which normally would have differed from one another, were identical, as if xeroxed.

    Thakur listened intently. Kumar had not even gotten to the really bad news. On the plane back to India, his traveling companion, another Ranbaxy executive, confided that the problem was not limited to Vimta or to those ARV drugs.

    “What do you mean?” asked Thakur, barely able to grasp what Kumar was saying.

    The problem, said Kumar, went deeper. He directed Thakur to put aside his other responsibilities and go through the company’s portfolio — ultimately, every drug, every market, every production line — and uncover the truth about Ranbaxy’s testing practices and where the company’s liabilities lay.

    Thakur left Kumar’s office stunned. He returned home that evening to find his 3-year-old son playing on the front lawn. The previous year in India, the boy had developed a serious ear infection. A pediatrician prescribed Ranbaxy’s version of amoxiclav, a powerful antibiotic. For three scary days, his son’s 102° fever persisted, despite the medicine. Finally, the pediatrician changed the prescription to the brand-name antibiotic made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Within a day, his fever disappeared. Thakur hadn’t thought about it much before. Now he took the boy in his arms and resolved not to give his family any more Ranbaxy drugs until he knew the truth.

    What Thakur unearthed over the next months would form some of the most devastating allegations ever made about the conduct of a drug company. His information would lead Ranbaxy into a multiyear regulatory battle with the FDA, and into the crosshairs of a Justice Department investigation that, almost nine years later, has finally come to a resolution.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  12. El Dato says:

    Well, good luck living in dank caves after you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

  13. El Dato says:

    > When those scientists are producing your generic drugs, sold in America.

    These are not scientists but businesspeople with low ethics. How much science do you need to produce homeopathic pills? Just add sugar.

    They don’t write papers either.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  14. Muggles says:

    Did Elizabeth Holmes of Theramos fame (infamy) make the list? She was American, though her chief accomplice was a dot Indian. Not sure about his citizenship. They had papers proving it, didn’t they?

    Holmes was famous for sucking up to wealthy male backers from Silicon Valley and raking in billions for her “instant analysis” blood analyzer. Billions. Didn’t work though, which she knew and lied about.

    Saw an op ed from WaPo (I think) wherein the writer said we should “rethink” poor Lizzie here because basically she meant well. A great idea. Don’t shoot the “innovator” because she’s a woman and had “good intentions” though scammed folks out of hundreds of millions.

    This is the new morality. Crooks from certain demographics who are well meaning (and cute for that kind of work) should be given a pass. No gulag for them. You, though, don’t try that at home…

  15. @foolisholdman

    As a rule, this line of argument is the mark of the pseudo and the con artist 😛

    But sure … like DNA, religion and ideology scientific knowledge actively resists change (“schools”, we call it); without which, neither would be worth jack.
    (Rabindranath Tagore gives a charming anecdote about a bridge and the mast of his sail boat to that effect – it takes awhile, he recounts, to realize all is as it should be 😀 )
    The textbook example was Leopold v. Buch (who ended the Neptunist-Plutonist dispute). It took him three trips to Italy to see how basalt is made before he dared contradict his mentor and publish (“Is One Allowed to Trust One´s Own Eyes?”). In defense of the great Abraham Gottlob Werner, I have seen the outcrop in question, in Saxony – a basalt flow follows an ancient river valley; it really looks like a watery residue.

    Moral: Such inconsistencies as there are (precious few anyway) are better left to the experts; otherwise, in the standard model we trust 😉

  16. Zcloud says:

    USA should be top of the list. However, the multinational corporations pay enough scientists and journalists not to get caught.

  17. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    What about the greatest embarrassment of a theory which forms the basis for western spiritualism?

    The pagan polytheist mangods-worshipping fraud called Christianity. How many tweaks have been attempted so far?

    You pagans can’t obviously retract it, neither can you explain it logically because that is an impossibility… so you pagans plough on pathetically into godlessness, and then soon enough, into the Fire.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  18. @El Dato

    “These are not scientists but businesspeople with low ethics.”

    Even in India, you’ll generally have scientists running the labs, and the heads often have science degrees. There’s nothing to stop a scientist having low ethics.

    I wouldn’t want to buy drugs from or shares in a pharmaceutical company where the COO was an arts grad. And I’d prefer not to buy them from an Indian company.

    “They don’t write papers either.”

    Scientists don’t have to produce research, those people are researchers. And how many papers do defence scientists, who are definitely researchers, produce? The keys to relatively secure computer communication, RSA and public-key cryptography, were first discovered at GCHQ (by Ellis, Cocks and Williamson), but they kept quiet until long after they’d been independently discovered in the US.

  19. @anonymous

    Blblblbl …. WOT 🙁 ???

    – It is true only Christianity could have created Western civilisation.
    Islam is too anti-intellectual, Judaism too psychopathic and the Eastern iterations too navel-gazing. But without the indogermanic substrate, preexisting father-in-heaven belief and neolithic framework (universal and work ethic) Christians would have ended up as swineherds for the Druze or something.
    So the Calvinist belief in success as ontological proof of Divine Grace is deluded also.

    Wasn´t this about scientific integrity? Fire is at least pure 😛

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  20. anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:

    Peer review can only work if the researchers are rock solid in their ethics. Sometimes it can be a mutual admiration club. It doesn’t help that grants can be hard to come by, thereby incentivizing fraud. I have a family member who’s an elite researcher and his only experiences with serious ethical lapses were with two women researchers. I disagree with the sentiment that men are the ones prone to commit fraud. I think that women might actually be more likely to commit fraud but they are given free passes. By men. I know that my family member did. From the stories I’ve heard, there is a disturbing tendency to tolerate a certain level of indiscretion regarding ethical lapses, etc… Most likely in a spirit of overly permissive generosity or to not embarrass the institution. You can imagine the corrosive effect in general.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  21. Bill H says: • Website

    I have quit reading “scientific” articles altogether, no matter who publishes them. They all turn out to be filled with qualifiers like, “it is believed, this may mean, it true then, this might mean, it is hoped that” and on an on.

    They all boil down to, “Hey we saw something, and we’re not sure that we saw it and we don’t really know what it was, but it might be HUGE.”

    Then there’s the medical “study” in which 98 college students “self reported” on what they did and what happened for a whole seven weeks.

    Science and medical research in this country has turned into garbage. That it doesn’t get retracted is the worst part. Nobody in this country is smart enough to know what utter crap it actually is.

  22. @nokangaroos

    Christianity is a belief system. It needed biological beings to create it. Christianity started with the Caucasians in the Middle East and flowered in Europe. Greek philosophy was critical in developing Christianity. The ancient Greeks had an average IQ of 120. Biology is first, beliefs second.

    The Jews of the Old Testament and when Jesus lived only had an average IQ of 90. The ancient Romans (average IQ of 120) wrote about their low intelligence. It was only through persecution that the “smart Jew” emerged in the 19th century. There are not many Jews so the number of “smart Jews” is small. Present day Jews depend on Caucasian/European Christianity for their knowledge. The Old Testament and modern-day Judaism could not create a great civilization.

    Islam is worthless. The state of present day Islamic countries is the proof.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  23. Lance Welton, who are you? Have you been cured of your yellow fever?

    See my comment no. 12.

  24. @attilathehen

    120 would be the equivalent of a university cohort unsickened by any delusions of equality – as a population average it is unrealistic.

    But the here particular kind of fraud seems to me to consist of several components:

    – Lack of guilt (read: non-Western)
    – Culture of nepotism (dto)
    – Protected status (dto)

    While all this goes, to varying degrees, for all the DemonRat constituency (feminists, Affirmative Action Americans, the lot) is not the biggest surprise it is not the Jews that stick out like a sore schlong … but the Chinese? Think about it 😀

  25. There are different forms of fraud. I give you: The Pharmaceutical Industry.

  26. @Lance
    There are many possibilities. Maybe Chinese scientists are just more diligent in detecting fraud. Maybe Chinese just publish more papers. Maybe non Chinese scientists are better at covering up for each other like the whole fraud of Global Warming.

    Providing statistics without context just shows you are Propagandist.

    • Agree: Haruto Rat
  27. Global Citizen [AKA "Globalist Citizey"] says:

    Are foreign scientists and engineers and students more likely to cheat?

    Hell yes. The harm is irreparable.

  28. eah says:

    Thus six of these scientists are Japanese, 4 are Indian, 3 are Iranian, 3 are South Korean, 3 are from the USA, 2 are Taiwanese, 2 are Chinese.

    What is the ethnicity of the ones from the US? — about the ethnicity of the other nationals there can be little doubt.

  29. What’s with Taiwan? One-sixtieth the population of China, but over a quarter as many frauds detected.

    Are they fifteen times as corrupt as their compatriots? Do they have many more students and researchers per capita? Are there more “good guys” on the job, catching all this fraud?

    How many of the Taiwanese frauds come from the mainland?

    Or is it something in a culture that can’t tell the difference between the kitchen and the loo?

  30. Rebel0007 says:

    This article was very disapointing for its lack of scientific method in analysis for the conclusion of its hypothesis. This article claims to support scientific truth, yet the standards used to determine scientific fraud are fraudulent by their very nature, only taking retracted peer reviewed studies into account as a measurement for scientific fraud.

    Consider that the tobacco industry, alcohol industry, pharmacetical industry, agricultural industry, education industry, cell phone industry, Wi-Fi industry, medical community, the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry,construction industry have all not only been guilty of outright scientific fraud in America, but the majority of these scientific fraudsters, many now still practicing in those industries are still highly respected despite solid evidence that their claims which have been recognized as accpted scientific facts are nothing more than total fabrications.

    There is literally trillions of dollars at stake each year to GDP, so, nobody dares to point out that they are nothing but con artists.

    Think Monsanto, Perdue Pharma, and the quack based Dr. Faustian Psychiatric industry.

    The entire climate change CO2 argument is also total fraud. CO2 causes global cooling. CO2 in its solid form is dry ice. Volcanic winters have occured from CO2. The fraudsters claim that it is from Sulfuric ash, but sulfur is exothermic. The kids are afraid that they will die from CO2, the truth is that they may die from nuclear waste. We are probably in a magnetic reversal, which is overdue. Don’t expect NASA to tell anyone though, because people would rather let people believe that if carbon trading isn’t immediately official policy, the entire world will no longer support life. The fossil fuel industry and every manufacturer stands to reap enormous profits, getting huge pay offs simply for no longer being terrorists both internationally and environmentally.

    Which side of the Rockefeller argument are you on? The Republican side that supports war and fossil fuel use, or the Democratic side which supports war and renewable energy use and global fascist policies enforcing such standards?

    I am on neither side! I oppose war, fossil fuels, and the Paris Agreement and support renewable energy without carbon credits or trading!

  31. Rebel0007 says:

    The entire method used for the hypothesis and conclusion of this article relied on scientific fraud. The only criteria used as a determining factor for measuring scientific fraud was retracted peer reviewed studies. That is an unscientific standard and method.

    The pharmaceutical industry, tobacco industry, cell phone industry, Wi-Fi industry, fossil fuel industry, environmental industry, nuclear industry, manufacturing industry, agricultural industry, alcohol industry, medical community, food industry, education industry all rely on scientific fraud.

    There are literally trillions of dollars worth of GDP each year at stake all resting on scientific fraud, supported by the U.S. patent office and regulatory agencies, as well as the U.S. congress and advertising industries and media relying on those advertisements.

    If it wasn’t for fraud, America would practically be broke currently, since so many businesses are selling extremely carcinogenic and hazardous products.

    Think Monsanto. Think Perdue Pharma. Think of the Paris Agreement. Think of the quack based Dr. Faustian psychiatric industry.

    Children are afraid that they may die if we do not immediately sign the Paris Agreement, but the reality is that we may die of nuclear waste. I suspect that we are in a magnetic reversal, but don’t expect NASA to disclose it because there is just too much money at stake, and too many reputations
    on the line.

    Which side of the Rockefeller fossil fuel trade are you on? The Republican side that relies on war, fascism, and fossil fuels, or the Democratic side that relies on war, fascism, and carbon trading, rewarding people simply for not being international and environmental terrirists?

    I am on neither side! I oppose fossil fuels and the Paris Agreement! CO2 causes global cooling. CO2 in its solid form is dry ice. CO2 has caused volcanic winters, but the fraudsters claim that they were caused from sulfuric ash, but sulfur is exothermic!

    Unfortunately, so many businesses are now relyingbon fraud as a business model that if all fraud were suddely stopped, America would be broke! The U.S. patent office awards patents based on scientific fraud, the regulating agencies look the other way, and so does congress!

    There are so many hazardous and cracinogenic products being sold, like sodium flouride, which causes flourosis! Calcium flouride had been shown to support bone and dental heath! What a shock that Clacium, not flouride is good for bones and teeth! It keeps the dentists in business though, because it causes cavities!

  32. Rebel0007 says:

    Another hazardous product in daily use by the food industry now is baking powder, which decided to substitute aluminum sulfate for cream of tarter. Kraft baking powder uses aluminum sulfate which is not supposed to be ingested, and some have suggested that aluminum may cause various dimentia related diseases.

    So, bakers beware!

    Here is a recipe for home made non toxic baking powder:
    1/2 teaspoon of cream of tarter
    1/4 teaspoon of corn starch
    1/4 teaspoon of baking soda

  33. lavoisier says: • Website

    It ranges from self-plagiarism—presenting, essentially, the same paper as though it were two different ones—to the much more serious issue of simply making data up.

    Another area of fraud that to my mind is unfortunately too common in the West is the ability of prominent researchers to pretend that an important idea or discovery is their own. This happens when the prominent researcher “conveniently” fails to cite the work of another less prominent scientist who was the real innovator, and thereby lays claim to a novel hypothesis that was really not their own.

    This fraud can happen because the reviewers at the prominent scientific journals leave it up to the author to decide the work that should be cited.

    This is a formula for another form of dishonesty where the prominent researchers get accolades for work and ideas that are really the work of another.

    Reviewers, just like patent examiners, should be required to do a thorough search of the scientific literature to insure that claims of scientific novelty are truly justified. More often than not they will find papers that had already discovered the “novel” findings.

    Far too common in the West today.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?