Scientific journals – once the gold standard for published research – have recently taken a credibility hit as it’s become clear the lengths to which editors will obscure relevant facts or not publish them.

Two academics have now blown the whistle on the corruption of medical journals.

Raphael Lataster, an infectious disease specialist, and Peter Parry, a professor of medicine, convinced the medical journal Cureus to publish their paper, warning that many journals “are now shaped by non-scientific concerns, often financial, and this has led to censorship.” They identify research that’s been skewed by entities such as pharmaceutical companies and the World Health Organization.

They conclude:

Academic publishing is easier when sticking to approved narratives, but this retards progress…..We need to improve. One way to improve is to properly address financial and other conflicts of interest. Another way is to entertain contrarian ideas, to indulge those occupied with ‘taboo science’, while still adhering to time-tested scientific principles and methods.

Last year, Scientific American urged readers to “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment.”

Two months earlier, Nature, the prestigious British science journal, extolled Harris for backing single-payer health insurance and climate change activism, enthusing that her candidacy has “stirred optimism among scientists.”

A Pew Research Center survey has found the erosion of public confidence in science and medical scientists has continued even after the COVID pandemic became a memory.

When these journals start putting science ahead of political correctness, we will start “trusting the science” again.