logo
The scientific community is still censoring Covid heretics

The scientific community is still censoring Covid heretics

Yahoo22-05-2025
Last year a prestigious scientific journal invited me and a colleague, Professor Anton van der Merwe of Oxford University, to prepare a scholarly paper summarising the evidence that Covid began with a laboratory accident in Wuhan.
We did so, writing a 5,000-word paper with 91 references. The journal summarily rejected it.
We revised it and tried another journal: same result. And again: ditto.
None of the reasons given by the peer reviewers made much sense – some were simply false. 'It is unfair to speculate on where the virus has arisen unless there is solid evidence – currently, there is none,' wrote one editor.
Yet paper after paper rejecting a lab leak or exploring the flimsy evidence for a seafood-market origin of the virus has sailed through peer review and into prestigious journals. It was clear that their objection to our paper was political: peer reviewers just did not want to see the hypothesis in print because that would admit there was a debate.
Peer review, supposedly the gold standard of scientific respectability, is increasingly a fraud. On the one hand it takes the form of 'pal review' in which scientists usher their chums' papers into print with barely a glance, let alone a request to see the underlying data.
That way all sorts of fakes and mistakes get published unchecked. About a third of all biomedical papers later prove impossible to replicate. It took a student at Stanford to point out that published papers on Alzheimer's from the president of his university, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, had fraudulent errors, misleading the whole field: Tessier-Lavigne resigned. So peer approval is no guarantee of truth.
On the other hand, peer review takes the form of gatekeeping, in which scientists make sure that others' papers never see the light of day. 'Kevin and I will keep them out somehow,' wrote Phil Jones in an email that later leaked, referring to climate-sceptic papers, 'even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!'
Yet 10 years after that 'climategate' episode, exactly the same peer-review tricks to enforce orthodox dogma were employed in Covid. So peer rejection is no guarantee of untruth.
Part of the problem is anonymity. Peer reviewers get to keep their identities secret, but the authors of papers don't. That is a recipe for vindictive behaviour.
By keeping heretics out of the literature, the dogmatists can then claim that there is no dissent and a 'consensus' has formed.
That this is a circular argument usually passes gullible journalists by. And they waive the need for peer review when the conclusion of a paper suits their politics. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to boast that it only considered peer-reviewed papers – until it was caught citing sources from activist press releases.
Grant applications too are filtered by biased peer reviewers. Heretics who challenge dogmas, on the causes of stomach ulcers, Alzheimer's or climate change, have all been denied funding by the high priests of consensus. With narrowing sources of scientific funding, how is the next Darwin, Einstein or Crick ever going to challenge conventional wisdom? Science, said the physicist Richard Feynman, is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Peer review is a fairly recent invention. Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 was never peer reviewed.
The system should be replaced by a much simpler procedure: post-publication review. Scientists can publish papers online and let lots of readers pick them apart. That's what we have done with ours.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive-Trump administration to expand price support for US rare earths projects, sources say
Exclusive-Trump administration to expand price support for US rare earths projects, sources say

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive-Trump administration to expand price support for US rare earths projects, sources say

By Ernest Scheyder and Jarrett Renshaw (Reuters) -Top White House officials told a group of rare earths firms last week that they are pursuing a pandemic-era approach to boost U.S. critical minerals production and curb China's market dominance by guaranteeing a minimum price for their products, five sources familiar with the plan told Reuters. The previously unreported July 24 meeting was led by Peter Navarro, President Donald Trump's trade advisor, and David Copley, a National Security Council official tasked with supply chain strategy. It included ten rare earths companies plus tech giants Apple, Microsoft and Corning, which all rely on consistent supply of critical minerals to make electronics, the sources said. Navarro and Copley told the meeting that a floor price for rare earths extended to MP Materials earlier this month as part of a multibillion-dollar investment by the Pentagon was "not a one-off" and that similar deals were also in the works, the sources said. U.S. critical minerals firms, which complain that China's market dominance makes investing in mining projects risky, have long sought a federally backed price guarantee. Rare earths, a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion, and other critical minerals are used widely across the electronics sector, including the manufacture of cell phones and weapons. The officials detailed Trump's desire to quickly boost U.S. rare earths output - through mining, processing, recycling and magnet production - in a manner that would evoke the speed of 2020's Operation Warp Speed, which developed the COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year. Navarro confirmed the meeting to Reuters. He said the administration aims to "move in 'Trump Time,' which is to say as fast as possible while maintaining efficiency" to remedy perceived vulnerabilities in the U.S. critical minerals industry. Navarro did not comment on whether he mentioned the price floor at the meeting. "Our goal is to build out our supply chains from mines to end use products across the entire critical mineral spectrum, and the companies assembled at the meeting have the potential to play important roles in this effort," Navarro said. China - the world's largest producer of rare earths for more than 30 years - halted exports in March as part of a trade spat with Washington that showed some signs of easing late last month, even as the broader tensions remain. Beyond the price floor, Navarro and Copley advised attendees to avail themselves of existing government financial support, including billions of dollars worth of incentives in Trump's tax and spending bill approved on July 4, the sources said. Copley did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Apple signed a supply deal with MP after the Pentagon's investment this month. At the Washington meeting, Navarro and Copley said Trump would like to see more tech companies invest in the rare earths sector, either through seed investing or by making buyouts, all of the sources said. Apple and Corning did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Microsoft declined to comment. EXPORT BAN REQUEST While the attendees asked Navarro to support a ban on exports of equipment containing rare earth magnets to spur domestic recycling, Navarro told them he would push for that only after the U.S. rare earths industry is more developed so as not to prematurely give China leverage in the ongoing trade spat, according to the sources. When asked about a potential ban, Navarro told Reuters: "All policy options are on the table. As President Trump loves to say, 'Let's see what happens.'" Attendees included Phoenix Tailings, which is building a rare earths processing facility in New Hampshire, Momentum Technologies, which developed a modular battery and magnet recycling system, Vulcan Elements, which has built a pilot facility for rare earth magnets, and rare earths recyclers REEcycle and Cyclic Materials. "These guys are serious about fixing the problem," said Vulcan CEO John Maslin. "They want companies to partner." Redwood Materials and Cirba Solutions, two of North America's largest battery recyclers, also attended. TechMet, which invests in mining projects across the globe and in which the U.S. government holds a minority stake, also attended the meeting, as did Noveon, a Texas-based rare earths magnet company. Phoenix, Momentum, Cirba, TechMet, Noveon, Cyclic, ReElement and REEcycle, all of which are privately held, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Redwood declined to comment. The administration officials plan to meet again with the companies in roughly four to six weeks, a truncated timeline aimed at underscoring the administration's desire to quickly support a U.S. minerals industry, the sources said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Potatoes from tomatoes? Popular starchy vegetable derived from ancient interbreeding, researchers say
Potatoes from tomatoes? Popular starchy vegetable derived from ancient interbreeding, researchers say

CBS News

time6 hours ago

  • CBS News

Potatoes from tomatoes? Popular starchy vegetable derived from ancient interbreeding, researchers say

Meet the potato's unexpected ancestor: the tomato. That's right, a fruit. Potatoes and tomatoes don't look alike, smell alike or taste alike, but in a study published Thursday in the journal Cell, scientists said that the potato evolved from a tomato ancestor around 9 million years ago. "We've finally solved the mystery of where potatoes came from," corresponding author Sanwen Huang of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China, said in a news release. The origin of the modern potato has puzzled scientists for years. In terms of appearance, potatoes resemble a species from Chile called Etuberosum, with one crucial difference: Etuberosum don't produce the starch-rich tubers. That's where the tomato comes in. While tomatoes don't have tubers, the ancient tomato did provide a crucial gene that, when mixed with the genetics of Etuberosum, told the modern potato to form tubers, according to the researchers. The SP6A gene from the tomato parent tells the potato plant to make tubers, while the IT1 gene from Etuberosum assists in controlling the growth of the underground stems that form tubers. Both pieces were needed to create the potato that's known and loved today. "Our findings show how a hybridization event between species can spark the evolution of new traits, allowing even more species to emerge," corresponding author Sanwen Huang of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China said in a news release. The research team analyzed 450 genomes from cultivated potatoes and 56 of the wild potato species during the study. "Wild potatoes are very difficult to sample, so this dataset represents the most comprehensive collection of wild potato genomic data ever analyzed," said the paper's first author Zhiyang Zhang of the Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Outside of the ancestry, there's also a linguistic similarity, according to Merriam-Webster "The word 'tomato' started out as 'tomate' and came from the Nahuatl word 'tomatl.' Since the potato had been introduced to the English some decades earlier, the word evolved to mimic the form of 'potato' — hence the spelling 'tomato,'" the dictionary notes.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store