Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

Thu Aug 24 14:52:37 CDT 2023

Hi John, an 800 word (all right, 791) extended quotation disputing the
origins of COVID hardly qualifies as "not wanting to go down the COVID
hole", but I will let it pass...

I must confess the acronym CODA as related to biogeography is unfamiliar to
me, however a brief google search led me here: "Biotic assembly in
evolutionary biogeography: a case for integrative pluralism" by Juan J.
Morrone. published in 2020 in "Frontiers of Biogeography", which claims to
"... discuss the differences between the dispersal-vicariance model and the
center of origin-dispersal-vicariance (CODA) and vicariance models". My
guess is that if you have a problem with claimed fraud in "CODA practice",
you should take it up in a forum or publication route relevant to that
topic. Sorry.

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TyZTNbgqHVr2higvgKPSwQY8ijaJjJC5bxVLTklBsNQ%3D&reserved=0

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 05:31, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would add that the examples given concern instances where the fraud
> involved a minority but what happens when the fraud is committed by the
> majority (as in CODA practice)?
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:26 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah  - not wanting to go down the COVID hole, or any other subject. Just
>> happened to be example issues. Cheers, John
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John, you wrote:
>>> >  If a climate paper was published in Nature or Science, which are not
>>> climate journals, is this because the authors wished to avoid peer review?
>>>
>>> No, I think it is fair to say that these are special cases, that sit
>>> somewhere above more discipline-specific journals, for articles deemed to
>>> have high importance; and accordingly, would seek out the best (?) experts
>>> in relevant fields for review of any particular article. That would be the
>>> hope, anyway :)
>>>
>>> Not going to go down the rabbit hole of origins of Covid at this time,
>>> however I note that the Rupert Murdoch-owned "Australian" was strongly
>>> promoting views by a Sky News Journalist (who wrote a book on the same
>>> subject last year) that everything is a cover-up and the virus escaped from
>>> the Wuhan Lab. I fact checked her first 4 statements and they were all
>>> incorrect, after which I lost faith in her analysis. For now I think the
>>> best summary is probably at
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOrigin_of_COVID-19&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zI920Dy%2FK6uXW5U56MkKfQ7nmfcFwirwFJRXToE6k2I%3D&reserved=0, which Taxacom readers
>>> are welcome to consult for more detail, or even amend if they disagree with
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Regards - Tony
>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TyZTNbgqHVr2higvgKPSwQY8ijaJjJC5bxVLTklBsNQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:43, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's an interesting quote about not publishing in a climate journal
>>>> for a climate paper:  "This is a common avenue taken by 'climate skeptics'
>>>> in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field." But just
>>>> because a climate paper is not published in a climate journal does not mean
>>>> that it can avoid 'peer' review. It depends on the journal and the intent
>>>> of the editor to ensure that proper peer review takes place. If a climate
>>>> paper was published in Nature or Science, which are not climate journals,
>>>> is this because the authors wished to avoid peer review?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:40 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for that clarification Tony. As for Nature "might have a higher
>>>>> degree of scrutiny" - who knows. Saw this as yet unresolved issue below,
>>>>> this time involving Nature. I don't keep regular track of such questions,
>>>>> although perhaps I should, and write something on fraud in CODA
>>>>> biogeography - but then who would publish such?
>>>>>
>>>>> A growing number of people, including prominent scientists, are
>>>>> calling for a full retraction of a high-profile study published in the
>>>>> journal Nature in March 2020 that explored the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
>>>>> The paper, whose authors included immunology and microbiology
>>>>> professor Kristian G. Andersen, declared that evidence clearly showed that
>>>>> SARS-CoV-2 did not originate from a laboratory.
>>>>> “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory
>>>>> construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the authors wrote in
>>>>> February.
>>>>> Yet a trove of recently published documents reveal that Andersen and
>>>>> his co-authors believed that the lab leak scenario was not just possible,
>>>>> but likely.
>>>>> “[The] main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of
>>>>> this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing
>>>>> this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that
>>>>> scenario,” Andersen said to his colleagues, according to a report from
>>>>> Public, which published a series of Slack messages between the authors.
>>>>> Anderson was not the only author who privately expressed doubts that
>>>>> the virus had natural origins. Public cataloged dozens of statements from
>>>>> Andersen and his co-authors—Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C.
>>>>> Holmes, and Robert F. Garry—between the dates January 31 and February 28,
>>>>> 2020 suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have been engineered.
>>>>> ” …the fact that we are discussing this shows how plausible it is,”
>>>>> Garry said of the lab-leak hypothesis.
>>>>> “We unfortunately can’t refute the lab leak hypothesis,” Andersen said
>>>>> on Feb. 20, several days after the authors published their pre-print.
>>>>> To complicate matters further, new reporting from The Intercept
>>>>> reveals that Anderson had an $8.9 million grant with NIH pending final
>>>>> approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci when the Proximal Origin paper was
>>>>> submitted.
>>>>> ‘Fraud and Scientific Misconduct’?
>>>>> The findings have led several prominent figures to accuse the authors
>>>>> of outright deception.
>>>>> Richard H. Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and
>>>>> Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, called the paper “scientific
>>>>> fraud.”
>>>>> “The 2020 ‘Proximal Origin’ paper falsely claimed science showed
>>>>> COVID-19 did not have a lab origin,” tweeted Ebright. “Newly released
>>>>> messages from the authors show they did not believe the conclusions of the
>>>>> paper and show the paper is the product of scientific fraud and scientific
>>>>> misconduct.”
>>>>> Ebright and Silver are among those pushing a petition urging Nature to
>>>>> retract the article in light of these findings.
>>>>> Among those to sign the petition was Neil Harrison, a professor of
>>>>> anesthesiology and molecular pharmacology at Columbia University.
>>>>> “Virologists and their allies have produced a number of papers that
>>>>> purport to show that the virus was of natural origin and that the pandemic
>>>>> began at the Huanan seafood market,” Harrison told The Telegraph. “In fact
>>>>> there is no evidence for either of these conclusions, and the email and
>>>>> Slack messages among the authors show that they knew at the time that this
>>>>> was the case.”
>>>>> Only ‘Expressing Opinions’?
>>>>> Dr. Joao Monteiro, chief editor of Nature, has rebuffed calls for a
>>>>> retraction, The Telegraph notes, saying the authors were merely “expressing
>>>>> opinions.”
>>>>> This claim is dubious at best. From the beginning, the Proximal Origin
>>>>> study was presented as authoritative and scientific. Jeremy Farrar, a
>>>>> British medical researcher and now the chief scientist at the World Health
>>>>> Organization (WHO), told USA Today that Proximal Origin was the “most
>>>>> important research on the genomic epidemiology of the origins of this virus
>>>>> to date.”
>>>>> Dr. Anthony Fauci, speaking from the White House podium in April 2020,
>>>>> cited the study as evidence that the mutations of the virus were “totally
>>>>> consistent with a jump from a species of an animal to a human.” Fact-check
>>>>> organizations were soon citing the study as proof that COVID-19 “could not
>>>>> have been manipulated.”
>>>>> Far from being presented as a handful of scientists “expressing
>>>>> opinions,” the Proximal Origin study was treated as gospel, a dogma that
>>>>> could not even be questioned. This allowed social media companies (working
>>>>> hand-in-hand with government agencies) to censor people who publicly stated
>>>>> what Andersen and his colleagues were saying privately—that it seemed
>>>>> plausible that SARS-CoV-2 came from the laboratory in Wuhan that
>>>>> experimented on coronaviruses and had a checkered safety record.
>>>>> Indeed, even as media and government officials used the Proximal
>>>>> Origin study to smear people as conspiracy theorists for speculating that
>>>>> COVID-19 might have emerged from the Wuhan lab, a Defense Intelligence
>>>>> Agency study commissioned by the government questioned the study’s
>>>>> scientific rigor.
>>>>> “The arguments that Andersen et al. use to support a natural-origin
>>>>> scenario for SARS CoV-2 are based not on scientific analysis, but on
>>>>> unwarranted assumptions,” the now-declassified paper concluded. “In fact,
>>>>> the features of SARS-CoV-2 noted by Andersen et al. are consistent with
>>>>> another scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory…”
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:22 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took a look at the paper which is online and open access. I must
>>>>>> say when I saw it at the time of original publication I thought its main
>>>>>> conclusions very odd and at variance with almost all other research on the
>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to be clear per your thread title - the paper does not appear in
>>>>>> "Nature" (which I imagine might have a higher degree of scrutiny), but in
>>>>>> "The European Physical Journal Plus" which is a different outlet, albeit
>>>>>> from the same publisher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best - Tony
>>>>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TyZTNbgqHVr2higvgKPSwQY8ijaJjJC5bxVLTklBsNQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:59, John Grehan via Taxacom <
>>>>>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recently when I noted about ZooNova as a publication option, a
>>>>>>> Taxacom
>>>>>>> colleague implied (oof list) that the journal was dubious because he
>>>>>>> considered one (or more) papers to be dubious (in that person's
>>>>>>> judgement).
>>>>>>> Here is a classic case of a 'Top' journal retracting a paper,
>>>>>>> showing that
>>>>>>> the supposed 'prestige' of a journal has nothing necessarily to do
>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>> content. In this case it was picked up on because the paper in
>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>> appears to have run afoul of a sufficient number of prominent or
>>>>>>> influential researchers. In biogeography this does not happen, as the
>>>>>>> prominent (powerful and influential) players all play to the fraud
>>>>>>> (that
>>>>>>> being the misrepresentation of what CODA methods can or cannot do or
>>>>>>> support). Power is everything in science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Top science publisher Springer Nature said it has withdrawn a study
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> presented misleading conclusions on climate change impacts after an
>>>>>>> investigation prompted by an AFP inquiry.
>>>>>>> AFP reported in September 2022 on concerns over the peer-reviewed
>>>>>>> study by
>>>>>>> four Italian scientists that appeared earlier that year in the
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature.
>>>>>>> The study had drawn positive attention from climate-sceptic media.
>>>>>>> The paper, titled "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in
>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>> of global warming", purported to review data on possible changes in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts
>>>>>>> and other
>>>>>>> extreme weather events.
>>>>>>> Several climate scientists contacted by AFP said the study
>>>>>>> manipulated
>>>>>>> data, cherry picked facts and ignored others that would contradict
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> assertions, prompting the publisher to launch an internal review.
>>>>>>> "The Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had
>>>>>>> confidence in
>>>>>>> the results and conclusions of the article," Springer Nature told
>>>>>>> AFP in an
>>>>>>> email late Wednesday.
>>>>>>> The journal's editors published an online note stating that the
>>>>>>> paper was
>>>>>>> retracted due to concerns over "the selection of the data, the
>>>>>>> analysis and
>>>>>>> the resulting conclusions".
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ntIWdOXbwAr4p%2F7iXg9Q6G%2FUnTeaEF4ubDVzZNc56NU%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web
>>>>>>> site'
>>>>>>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>>>>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>>>>>>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>>>>>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>>>>>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>>>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4Uf03buQH5UG8fSqH%2FtaSFWMBUhvovg3yusKcBSaBXw%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
>>>>>>> for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ntIWdOXbwAr4p%2F7iXg9Q6G%2FUnTeaEF4ubDVzZNc56NU%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web
>>>>> site' link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ntIWdOXbwAr4p%2F7iXg9Q6G%2FUnTeaEF4ubDVzZNc56NU%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
>>>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035897967498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ntIWdOXbwAr4p%2F7iXg9Q6G%2FUnTeaEF4ubDVzZNc56NU%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>>
>
>
> --
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C78ffd0a74ebe4f00d61308dba4dbb1c8%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285035898123597%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EFWcM3rBJ4HBQcidWX0cVhINOv%2BfydupQFuy2vAvwnA%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>