Science completelydown the tubes when it comes to CV-19 studies

listening just now to Dave on x22 today on a face mask study showing no benefit led to a bigger dig on the complete breakdown of the scientific vetting process in the face of social pressure, as illustrated by what happened to this face mask study after it was banned by social media.

https://x22report.com/aiovg_videos/ep-2467b-soon-they-wont-be-able-to-walk-down-the-street-election-fraud-panic-intensifies/

Here's the study:

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

by Baruch Vainshelboim 11-22-2020

Twitter removed it for no damn good reason, then YT also took down the video. Author made the case that facemasks don't stop any type of virus.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

Science bowing to social media pressure - again!

But what's more interesting - and alarming - is that a top publisher of medical literature - ELSEVIER - went down the same road as the social media giants, no doubt due to heavy pressure to retract. Which is exactly what they did 2 mos later. Jan 2021.

Article was originally published in Medical Hypotheses, an Elsevier publication. E issued a RETRACTION, which is (or used to be) extremely rare due to the strict vetting process used by premier scientific publications like Nature, Science, and the Lancet. But that process is breaking down, as we already saw with the badly done Lancet study denouncing HCL as dangerous in June 2020.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/

CAP shows Elsevier's cowardly retraction.

Retraction:

The stmts it contains are really weak from a scientific pov. Here are a few:

- A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.

total lie, easily discredited

- The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.

got SAUCE?

- A subsequent internal investigation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher have determined that this article was externally peer reviewed but not with our customary standards of rigor prior to publication

complete BS - who selects the peer reviewers? it's the PUBLICATION. Their responsibility to choose the right people.

- The journal has re-designed its editorial and review workflow to ensure that this will not happen again in future.

translation: we're gonna be PC from now on and make sure that anybody who disagrees with the Party Line can't be part of the review process.

And look how it ends:

"The Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher would like to apologize to the readers of The Journal for difficulties this issue has caused."

''just get down on your knees and kiss the feet of the masters you're trying to appease by sacrificing science to the Gods of Political Coercion.