Watching the tactics of Big Abortion (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

Texas judge who banned abortion pills officially gets exposed for using junk science

Last year, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled against distribution of the abortion pill. Now, a medical journal he cited has retracted studies he used.

www.msnbc.com

These people are an absolute comedic riot. "exposed for using junk science"

Or, in other words:

1) scientific institution publishes peer-reviewed article, totally accepted for accuracy
2) judge uses that information to make a politically unpopular decision, with which the scientific institution heartily disagrees
3) original study now "retracted" to make the judge appear wrong retroactively.

They really must think we're stupid not to see what's going on there.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

They really must think we're stupid not to see what's going on there.

Like the folks who foisted COVID-19 vaccinations and isolation on us?

Having long ago authored a peer-reviewed article, I can tell you that there are cases where the peer review was a pile of nastiness. My dissertation research was rejected for publication because two of the reviewers were actually competitors and we were stepping on their research which was behind ours by a considerable time-lag - so we came out first. (The "we" in this case was me and my graduate advisor/sponsor.) We appealed to the journal's editor and got one of the negative reviews thrown out, then got a new and independent reviewer who wasn't researching the same things we were. He approved publication and the 2:1 against became a 2:1 in favor. So we finally got published.

The criticism in this case that led to the appeal was bias of the reviewer, just as we faced. And when the reviewer is biased, the accuracy of peer review goes out the window.

 

[Steve R.]

What I find particularly egregious, is that the Democrats claim that the Supreme Court has denied women of their "right" to an abortion. That is a lie. All the Supreme Court decision did was move the legislative authority for abortion laws to the states. Yet, the Democrats who claim to be protecting democracy, avoid acknowledging that that would be the democratic solution.

Coincidentally, the Democrats are using a similar dishonest narrative concerning border security. The Democrats put together, what they claimed, was a bipartisan bill to "secure the border". This Senate bill is in the process of dying, as it would not secure the border. Now the Democrats are asserting that it is the Republicans who are refusing to fix the illegal immigration crises. Ironically, until recently, Democrats never claimed that there was a crisis with Mayorkas lying before the public and the Senate that the border was secure.

 

[moke123]

It seems the authors didn't follow the rules.

Sage confirmed that all but one of the article’s authors had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself. As a result of Sage’s inquiry into the authors’ conflicts of interest, Sage became aware that a peer reviewer who evaluated the article for initial publication also was affiliated with Charlotte Lozier Institute at the time of the review. In accordance with the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) standards, Sage and the Journal Editor determined the peer review for initial publication was unreliable. This reviewer also peer reviewed two other articles by the same lead author, published in the journal in 2022 and 2019, which also are the subject of this notice.

 

[Isaac]

Like the folks who foisted COVID-19 vaccinations and isolation on us?

Having long ago authored a peer-reviewed article, I can tell you that there are cases where the peer review was a pile of nastiness. My dissertation research was rejected for publication because two of the reviewers were actually competitors and we were stepping on their research which was behind ours by a considerable time-lag - so we came out first. (The "we" in this case was me and my graduate advisor/sponsor.) We appealed to the journal's editor and got one of the negative reviews thrown out, then got a new and independent reviewer who wasn't researching the same things we were. He approved publication and the 2:1 against became a 2:1 in favor. So we finally got published.

The criticism in this case that led to the appeal was bias of the reviewer, just as we faced. And when the reviewer is biased, the accuracy of peer review goes out the window.

Yeah it's kind of like suddenly pulling it back after the fact but only after someone used it to support a cause you didn't like is beyond disingenuous it's just stupidly obvious to anyone