Is the Science Journal unfairly attacking the Journal of the School of Public Health – Watt?

author:

Just two days after the School of Public Health officially released the magazine, Science Magazine criticized it in its news program. One of the scientists I recommend was written to me by a member of our college and the fact that science is concerned about our new journals shows that we are on the right path.

indeed. Science has achieved its own goals by so clearly explaining the problems of traditional media and traditional scientific journals. First, about the journal is a speech chosen by President Donald Trump, directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, “They are known for opposing lockdowns, children’s vaccination, children’s vaccination, children’s vaccination, children’s vaccination, children’s vaccination, other public health measures, and other public health measures. [wrongly spelled as Martin] Makary also opposed vaccine demands. ”

Why does science mention that Trump chose Jay and Marty? This is irrelevant to any scientific judgment of these people. What are the problems with their location during the pandemic? there is nothing.

Sweden has no lockdown, but has one of the lowest deaths in the world. To vaccinate children to prevent Covid-19 to 6 months old, we do not recommend doing so in Europe because it is likely to be harmful in the United States. Many people, including me, have opposed the vaccine requirement and have never been required in Denmark to get vaccinated with Covid-19. These authorizations are morally and scientifically irrefutable and can generally increase vaccine hesitation.

The derogatory nature of science continues: “The journal has published eight articles on topics including Covid-19 vaccine trials and mask authorization, avoiding several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.”

“Laboring” paywalls? This is a negative statement, although it is positive to not have a paywall like science. And mask authorization? Given the benefits of Masking's fragility (and probably non-existent) at the population level, there is no need to ask the entire population to dress up as a bank robber.

Since only members of the School of Public Health can submit articles, science is concerned that the journal will “sow doubts about scientific consensus on issues such as vaccine efficacy and safety.”

Scientific consensus is rare, and even if it exists, later research is often proven to be wrong. Science is the opposite of consensus. The status quo should be challenged, and the free scientific debate – many traditional journals have been suppressed – has pushed the science forward. There are many good reasons why some top scientists have abandoned publishing in advanced scientific journals, including censorship, as well as financial and other conflicts of interest between anonymous peer reviewers, editors and journal owners.

I have achieved many scientific results throughout my life, contrary to the so-called scientific consensus, and when my opponents do not have a valid rebuttal, they call me controversial. I realize that this derogatory term always means that my results threaten financial or other conflicts of interest, especially guild interests. When my statistician and I demonstrated in 1999 that mammogram screening may do more harm than good, I have confirmed many times since then, one journalist wrote that nothing hurts as much as the truth about health care.

By citing Trump, science is not enough to make us suspicious of the new journal: “Jaff is a nonprofit subsidiary of the truly clear foundation, which is itself a donor-funded nonprofit organization, according to the support of the leading funders of the New York Times. Kulldorff and Kulldorff’s key members and many other members of the 21-member editorial board attracted their views and research.

Well, I'm one of these 21 people and I know many others. We are just conservative. We try to keep an open mind and are not easily fooled by fraudsters. In 2023, I explained that the origins of Covid-19 are the biggest cover in medical history. On January 31, 2025, I tweeted: “The CIA said Saturday that a lab leak is more likely to cause infections compared to infected animals that spread the virus, which makes common animals very slow on the CIA. I know for five years, I've written a lot and written a lot of books about it.”

Scientific lament that Jay, Martin and Sunetra Gupta are also members of the editorial board who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration against the Lockdown. But again, they are correct, science, and most other journals are wrong.

The most cited medical scientist and another board member Jay and John Ioannidis caused a fire in 2020 for a study that claimed SARS-COV-2 infections far exceeded current imaginations, and therefore the danger is far less dangerous than hypothetical, science says. “This is totally misleading. Jay explains how they worked from Stanford for inappropriate attacks and censorship. In other studies, their initial results were only 0.2% infection rates.

They first published their results in April 2020. If the results were accepted at the time, rather than being completely condemned in the media, Draconian lockdown could be avoided, as they suggest that the virus spreads very quickly.

Science and Common-19 Pandemic

Because science is very critical of our shared research and perspectives, we should study science’s own role even if we are right. It claims that the Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective for serious diseases, and this is even incorrect when science makes claims because we know that respiratory viruses can mutate rapidly.

I wrote in my book China Virus that useful idiots in Beijing include science, which is too friendly to Peter Daszak.

In February 2020, the scientific report said scientists “strongly condemn” rumors and conspiracy theories about the origins of the pandemic. If you don't argue, the sound will be increased. This sentence does not belong to a scientific journal, but is in a tabloid, nor is it a conspiracy theory that the virus escaped from the lab and may have been made there. In the same post, Dasak said, “We are in the middle of an era of social media misleading,” but forgot to say that he was its main driver.

In 2020, researchers sent a modeling study to science that it was earlier than the estimates of people with a usually estimated infection rate of 60-80%. Science acknowledged that the paper was rejected for political reasons: “Given the impact on public health, the claim surrounding the herd immunity threshold is appropriate, as this would be interpreted as justification for the relaxation of interventions, putting people at risk.” Science is worried that opponents of lockdown will use the paper to undermine policies. The lead author said she might leave the field because every paper she wrote on this issue was rejected, claiming it was useless or new.

In November 2021, Science published nearly 5,000 articles about Daszak, which did not tell new content. A reporter spent seven hours with Daszak, shining on him. Daszak's photo appears on the front page of science with the title of the article: Prophet in Purgatory: Peter Daszak is fighting accusing his work on pandemic prevention, which has helped inspire Covid-19.

When the death toll was about 6 million, science published this and portrayed Dasak as a hero who worked hard to prevent the pandemic when it was likely that he and “Ms. Bat” (Ms. Bat in Wuhan” created a hero he had covered up for two years.

Science does not care about conflicts of interest either. When NIH's David Morens praised Daszak, they did not tell the reader that he was a fundraiser, colleague and co-author of Daszak. Science mentioned that the Freedom of Information Act requires that the U.S. knows human rights and others discover inconvenient truths, but it uses Angela Rasmussen to see it as a “weaponized foia request.” In natural medicine, she calls it a global conspiracy in natural medicine when people discuss possible laboratory leaks. There is still no good evidence that the virus has natural origins, but many people tell us that it was produced in a laboratory in Wuhan.

Wait and see

In the scientific article, Kurdov said people have the right to worry about what will happen, adding that once it is established more certain, our journals should judge their diaries from now or longer for longer. I agree. I am very enthusiastic about diaries. It's not because I can't publish it in traditional journals. I am the only Danish who has over 100 publications in the Big Five (BMJ, Lancet, Jama, New England Journal of Medicine and the Yearbook of Internal Medicine).

Disclosure, Funding and Conflict of Interest

Nothing.

Affiliation:

Peter Cgøtzsche, Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Science Freedom in Copenhagen, DK

This article was originally published by RealClearScience and is provided through RealClearwire.

Related