title truncated to fit https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...ail&utm_term=0_b27a691814-ad2ff535f6-51847612 I cannot help but think the operative words here are “fake news”. Journal articles deliberately designed to deceive and push a political agenda Yes this sort of data manipulation should have been caught prepublication and that is why we have peer review but not all papers are fully vetted in peer review and sometimes the game is to submit a paper to multiple journals until you find one with a slack enough standards to take it and publish, and occasionally that publication is done to increase the citations (bad papers can get a lot of citations). Citations increase the journals “impact score” but it does it at the expense of integrity Bottom line - if you learn nothing else learn how to do what academics call “critique” papers. You don’t have to do a full analysis but there are some simple tests you can apply to every science based report you read to help you determine if it real or rubbish .
Yes, this was one more assault on the FDA. Last April, the following letter was signed by over 500 doctors: The assault on science based medicine picked up momentum from the issues fabricated around COVID and vaccinations. It certainly is disgusting that fake science is used as a method of attacking our healthcare system. I don't know what the status of that judge's ruling is today.
"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology" appears to be a fairly obscure journal with an Impact Factor of only 1.6. It appears to be a refereed open access journal with a fairly steep publication fee. https://journals.sagepub.com/home/hme
As I said occasionally a “bad” paper is published to increase the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor I witnessed this bout a decade or two ago in relation to the Journal “Energy and Environment “ which started as a “sceptic” magazine with some truly hideously poor research but had a impact factor that although low was better than to be expected given the quality of the papers - the reason for this is that the papers were being cites, as bad examples admittedly, but they were being cited
