Misconduct investigation at U.S. military university uncovers image duplication. retractionwatch.com/2025/07/23/mis…

Study finds "retractions due to data problems have increased significantly" since 2000. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Cochrane scandal. Refused to update our Cochrane review of mammography screening with more deaths and refused to allow us to call overdiagnosis overdiagnosis. Cochrane is dying. bit.ly/3GU2MFF. Secretary Kennedy, Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary MD, MPH, @cdcgov, World Health Organization (WHO), NIH

😐Population based universal screenings like this are a terrible idea. By way of example, the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted its own study about 10 years ago IIRC on whether every older adult in primary care should get annual cognitive screenings (like an MMSE or a

goodscience.substack.com/p/how-we-could… Such a great article on how 90% of all medical recommendations in certain fields are based on barely anything worth called evidence. Not enough to put a person into contact with any such procedure. By Stuart Buck

You: should I cite my paper? Maybe it's not related enough? Ok, screw it, I'll self-cite but only once. Other scientists: With AI, I can cite myself 1.3M times 😎

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01… Huge Impact of immortal Time Bias: Across 25 topics (182 studies), 44% studies were affected by ITB "In 23.8% (5/21), the overall summary results changed from stat. significant to non-stat. significant or vice versa after excluding studies with ITB"

The whole intransparency about inspection reports of any industry smells like a mafia to me. Soil, food, creams, buildings & dead Mice don't need any privacy.

Happy to see some more Hindenburg alumni have started their own research firm. Definitely worth a follow.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH Kevin McKernan BeyondBio / John Catanzaro Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® The sad thing is that many folks who have not had proper scientific training might not see the flaws in this study that experts immediately catch. The preprint will be downloaded and discussed and used as 'evidence', even though it is just a (flawed) blog post by now.

Big drug companies have cut UK investment this week. If you want to understand the realpolitik, this old article is suddenly re‑relevant. It also has better jokes than 90% of papers on pharmaceutical reimbursement policy. 📖 Read here: forbes.com/sites/matthewh…

Our recently published #RIAT reanalysis of #TADS found 11 unreported suicide-related adverse events in adolescents taking #fluoxetine. March et al. (2004) has misled doctors, patients, and regulators for more than 20 years. See Aboustate et al. (2025) journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09… 2/n

"The problem is that we don’t know whether those additional prescriptions are the right care for the right patient—and no one is tracking that." - Lown Institute pres. Vikas Saini quoted in POLITICO article "Industry payments shape doctor decisions." politi.co/3KaDNPw

“1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds." cen.acs.org/policy/publish… tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Meanwhile, Marc Young continues the YDIH cult's pattern of not sharing data or analyses. The simplest explanation for him not sharing the input deck, is that Allen West doesn't trust him with it. Claims without support is faith, not science. pubpeer.com/publications/A…

Don't forget all the data shared only with your buddy at the authorities. Who don't have the time to review it all. And blinded data collectors without cobflicts of interest is also an ideal..

The nonsense of bad/fake studies is the incentive to publish them: if I (am an applied material scientist &) want to keep my experience valuable, a good bet is to "help" others to publish fake but plausible papers for a small fee. Experience from practice will stay relevant.

ScienceGuardians I am dreaming of a day when research integrity will be dominating academia! What is wrong with that?