juin 20, 2024 - 4:00pm
Deux études publiées cette semaine apportent un éclairage sur un problème qui continue de frustrer de nombreux scientifiques, en particulier ceux qui critiquent les politiques gouvernementales liées au Covid-19 : les biais idéologiques des principales revues médicales.
Les études ont été coordonnées par le professeur John Ioannidis de l’Université Stanford, qui a longtemps étudié les biais de publication dans la recherche médicale, y compris le tristement célèbre article de 2005 intitulé Pourquoi la plupart des découvertes de recherche publiées sont fausses.
La première comparait les publications dans le BMJ de scientifiques qui prônaient le Zéro Covid, tels que les membres de Independent Sage, à d’autres groupes scientifiques, y compris les membres du groupe officiel du gouvernement Sage et les signataires de la Déclaration de Great Barrington (GBD). Il a été constaté que les partisans du Zéro Covid au Royaume-Uni avaient publié 272 articles connexes, contre seulement 21 pour les membres de Sage et seulement six pour les signataires de la GBD. Cette divergence importante était principalement due au nombre écrasant d’articles d’opinion et d’analyse, qui sont généralement soumis à des normes de supervision éditoriale différentes.
Le deuxième article (auquel j’ai contribué) a analysé l’appartenance de plus de 350 scientifiques impliqués dans un important article « consensuel » dans Nature. L’article, publié en 2022, a été couvert par plus de 150 médias d’information et continue d’être largement téléchargé et cité. Pourtant, 35 % de l’équipe d’étude principale (14/40) et près de 20 % des membres du panel total (63/367) étaient des figures majeures du mouvement Zéro Covid, y compris environ un tiers des membres totaux de Independent Sage et du World Health Network. L’article de Nature « propose une vision mondiale pour une prise de décision éclairée » sur la manière de mettre fin à la pandémie grâce à une approche combinant vaccins et l’ensemble des autres politiques et interventions que nous avons observées au cours des années Covid.
Ces deux articles contribuent à étayer ce que de nombreux scientifiques ont vécu pendant la pandémie : le contrôle des revues principales, favorisant les positions officielles du gouvernement et rejetant les articles qui les critiquaient. Prenons, par exemple, l’influence de Richard Horton, rédacteur en chef de la revue médicale la plus célèbre au monde, The Lancet, qui était un partisan — ou du moins sympathisant — du Zéro Covid. En octobre 2020, la revue a publié un article d’opinion intitulé « Consensus scientifique ». Le « Mémorandum John Snow » critiquait l’étude GBD [NDT : Global Burden of Disease, etude sur la charge mondiale de morbidité], promouvait des interventions maximalistes et citait en particulier les exemples du Vietnam et de la Nouvelle-Zélande, qui ont tous deux suivi un programme Zéro Covid.
Les scientifiques qui soutenaient la GBD savaient et savent toujours : il est plus facile de faire passer un chameau par le chas d’une aiguille que de faire publier un article dans The Lancet. Mais que font ces biais implicites à la politique publique et à la nature de la science ? Entre autres choses, pendant la pandémie, ils ont créé une réalité et une vérité fausses selon lesquelles nous pourrions éliminer le virus. Cette arrogance a été responsable de certaines des pires décisions politiques de notre époque, causant des dommages étendus dans le monde réel.
Pourtant, ces principaux journaux continuent de promouvoir une compréhension biaisée de la réponse à la pandémie. Il suffit de regarder les trois séries récentes dans le BMJ qui ont promu la « responsabilité » et les « leçons » de la réponse à la pandémie au Royaume-Uni, aux États-Unis et au Canada. Sur 25 articles, aucun ne met l’accent sur les préjudices des interventions gouvernementales et la perception dominante est que les politiciens auraient dû faire plus pour protéger les gens du virus.
Le problème réside ici : nos principaux journaux médicaux, tout comme nos médias grand public, sont devenus de plus en plus idéologiques sur tout, de la Covid à la médecine de genre en passant par le changement climatique. Peut-être que cela n’est pas surprenant : les revues médicales ont tendance à promouvoir une santé publique plus dirigée par le gouvernement. Mais elles sont également de plus en plus influencées par les guerres culturelles, comme le montre également leur promotion de la diversité, de l’équité et de l’inclusion (DEI). Ce qui en souffre, cependant, est fondamental pour l’échange libre d’idées : une diversité de points de vue.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGosh, isn’t this the same group that other studies have discovered to be far more left wing or radical left-wing than the other sex/gender? Could there possibly be a connection between left wing ideology and mental health? I thought this connection was well known by now! Search for dark triad character traits and left-wing activism/authoritarianism in Google Scholar!
Just another front in the Left’s war on western culture: “Of course you’re miserable, girls, (gays, transexuals, poor, African Americans, Indigenous people, etc.) you’re being victimized by (basically adult white males) and despairing alienation SHOULD by your mindset.
“Adolescent conditions—depression and anxiety, psychological distress, and suicidal behaviors—are increasing in many countries worldwide, and that growth is occurring most markedly among girls, according to a new survey of research published by researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and the University of Iowa.
“The research review article, published August 8, 2023, co-authored by Katherine Keyes, PhD, professor of Epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School and Jonathan Platt, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at UI, summarizes studies published since 2010 from around the world. The paper is published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.”
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-evidence-rising-youth-mental-health-concerns#:~:text=Adolescent%20mental%20health%20conditions%E2%80%94depression,University%20Mailman%20School%20of%20Public
Right on cue, several district school boards in Ontario are suing social media companies for damaging the minds of the young, particularly young girls, and impeding their education. Columnist Jamie Sarkonek in the National Post this day takes the teachers and their boards to task for their failed experimental methods in pedagogy, the elimination of merit streaming and performance standards, and for turning the schools into venues to propagandize the young with their anti-traditional ideology and radical views on sex and race – amongst other professional failings, like neglecting to discipline bad behaviour.
Those are my words on Sarkonek column but I believe with him that these practices have done more to harm young people than smartphone usage. Not that those devices haven’t done their part. I have a high regard for Jonathan Haidt, and those devices are certainly bad habit forming, but how can young people not be confused by the norm-busting going on all around them?
Social media should be sued out of existence. If Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, and ever site like them disappeared tomorrow and weren’t replaced the world would be massively better off.
Inept article. Jonathan Haidt has just produced The.Anxious Mind with a 4 step plan clearly outlining what we need to do about it. Any major podcaster in the past 14 days has carried an interview with Prof Haidt. It’s not difficult, but it does require collective action given the social pressures to engage with SM.
I do sense that society is getting ready to take action on this topic. At last…. the evidence has been clear as a lightbulb since 2016 and Twenge’s work.
Nobody’s going to do anything meaningful because to make a difference you have to destroy several of the largest corporations in the world.
A great start would be to permanently shut down Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, and anyone who tries to mimic them. They are clearly a huge net negative for our society.
What’s the point of being a woman now? The goals that young women are told to aspire to are just worn out male pattern defaults for work and play.
Put them in full Islamic dress an keep them indoors and out of public discourse. They are not, and never will be competent in this world.
An arresting idea, but not one that chimes with my hopes for the future.
Somebody put some posters around a town saying “islam was right about women” (think in the US).
None of the women interviewed had the guts to disagree. But of course they would happily denounce western society and white men.
Which ironically does prove that those posters were right. Islam was right. Western women are proving that in front of our eyes.
“worn out male pattern defaults for work and play.”
Worse.
Men worked for the satisfaction of building a home and family, played because they enjoyed sports, gaming, etc.
Women today do the career but without the responsibility of being the breadwinner, which is am empty hollow shell of a life, just trudging to office
They also refuse things like having children or taking care of their homes, because it’s “unpaid labour’ and “slavery”, and wallow in resentment that the “patriarchy ” stops them from entering spaces such as sports that they don’t even care about.
You could start by correctly labeling incessant ‘judgment and comparison’ as sexual harassment and psychological abuse, which it is. Then stop allowing it.
Easier said than done to “stop allowing it”, as though it can be waived away with a magic wand. Moreover, in my experience, girls and young women are their own worst enemies when it comes to incessant judgement and comparison, mainly amongst themselves.
Spot on. Social media just seems to have sent it into overdrive. It was bad enough in those awful women’s magazines which focussed on things like celebrity cellulite. Now it’s out of control and women are paying the price.
Yes, you have a good point there. We women are frequently our own worst enemies. This phenomenon predates social media, but has been exacerbated by being online and exposed to so much toxicity. Some of it comes from males, but a significant portion is driven by other females.
Is it “sexual harassment” if it is carried out by other women, and without any sexual intent? And much of the problem seems to be women projecting overly positive self images (“living my best life”) while simultaneously making negative comparisons between their own real life and the fake projections of other women.
I agree it’s destructive, but to try and stop it, as you say, would be like launching a war against modern female culture. You might as well try to outlaw Botox, cosmetic surgery and the rest.
You might as well try to outlaw Botox, cosmetic surgery and the rest.
.
It would be great not to see those monstrously huge shapeless lips
If you compare you are either better or worse. Both miss the point that you have to find value in yourself. The one who has to stop allowing it is yourself. And responsible adults – parents – should show that by example. Basically young females need to be contained. Father’s work. But many fathers are weak nowadays.
Or absent.
Boundaries and limits are important for boys and girls when growing up! As is taking responsibility for your actions and behaviour. Unfortunately, many parents just want to be their children’s friends, and fear that setting limits will make them unpopular. Parenting is work, and having children isn’t a walk in the park.
When young men are expected to initiate contact with women and face the risk of rejection, humiliation, judgement and being insulted, does that also count as “sexual harassment and psychological abus’