Lancet busts myths about Nazi medicine; reveals German medical establishment convinced itself it was following the science



The Lancet, the world's highest-impact academic journal, has released an expansive and damning report concerning the "history of Nazi medicine and its central role in the so-called Final Solution."

In addition to highlighting various ethical lessons for health professionals today, the report published Wednesday by the Lancet Commission on Medicine, Nazism, and the Holocaust busts various myths, including the notion that there were only a handful of extreme Nazi doctors and scientists. Rather, over half of German doctors were Nazis, and many were complicit in the inhumanities for which the Third Reich is infamous.

What's more: The German medical establishment apparently convinced itself that in committing inhumane and murderous research, it was following the science — science thought settled and championed by so-called experts and activists, not just in Germany but throughout the Western world.

In the early 20th century, Nazis inflicted nightmarish experiments and acts of violence on Jews, gypsies, political prisoners, prisoners of war, the disabled, the mentally ill, and others and ultimately went on to systematically slaughter millions. The report makes clear that health professionals played a critical role in "formulating, supporting, and implementing inhumane and often genocidal policies."

"The political objective of improving the biological quality of a given population motivated research programmes, and science provided legitimisation for social policy, medical interventions, and public health interventions," said the report. "Biology and medicine provided concepts that were used to interpret contemporary social and political problems and to develop policies in response."

Not only were "science, medicine, and public health ... used to justify and implement persecutory policies and eventually state-sanctioned mass murder and genocide," but health practitioners willingly took part throughout all stages of the bloodletting.

For instance, German doctors reportedly helped prepare legislation for forced sterilization, which was performed on between 310,000 and 350,000 victims deemed "genetically inferior." Another 230,000 people with mental disabilities deemed unworthy of living were exterminated under programs that have recently been resurrected in modified forms in countries such as Canada. Health professionals offered their "killing expertise" to the death camps, where millions were massacred. Doctors routinely performed forced experiments on dead and living victims.

It was not SS special units or soldiers who conducted the child murder program, Aktion T4, the T4 special campaign against Jews, Aktion Brandt, and other such medical slaughter campaigns, but rather willing doctors and nurses.

"Few health professionals openly refused to collaborate in any of these activities, those who did not collaborate were rarely sanctioned," said the report.

Another pervasive myth the commission flagged was that Nazi medicine was pseudoscience and regarded as such by civilized nations; that it was somehow divorced from internationally accepted standards, norms, and practices.

"The Nazi regime in Germany and its alliance with medicine did not arise in a vacuum: German medical scientists were part of international networks exploring and promoting eugenics and developing medical rationales for racist beliefs and practices in many nations. These international networks lent an air of legitimacy to German scientists, who pushed the tenets of medical racism and eugenics to their extremes and contributed to the scientific legitimisation of the virulently antisemitic and racist policies of the Nazi regime," said the report.

Racist eugenics was especially popular throughout the Anglosphere. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger; the founder of Canada's health care system, Tommy Douglas; and one of the founding fathers of British socialism, George Bernard Shaw, were among the many Western intellectuals gung-ho for eugenics.

Not only were some of the initiatives unleashed in Germany widely supported abroad, they were also practiced abroad. Forced sterilization was, for instance, legalized in Indiana in 1907, then spread to other American states. The U.S. Supreme Court declared sterilization laws constitutional in Buck v. Bell, ultimately paving the way for the sterilization of at least 64,000 handicapped Americans.

In effect, the Nazis took monstrous ideas pervasive throughout the international medical establishment, coupled them with their particular statist agenda, and took them to extremes, effectively exposing those ideas for what they were and those who held them elsewhere for what they were really asking for.

The commission recognized that significant dangers remain inherent in modern medicine, including the willingness to dehumanize patients and temptations to "abandon basic values for ideological and opportunistic reasons."

Glossing over recent controversies, the commission noted, "Contemporary health professionals might rarely or never face similarly challenging situations, but given wars, political radicalisation, pandemics and natural disasters globally, many will encounter circumstances that challenge their consciences and ethical principles. Many health professionals will also feel pressure — from the state, an employer, a superior, or others — to compromise the safety and wellbeing of their patients."

While critical of parallels drawn between Nazi- and pandemic-era medical establishments, the commission nevertheless concluded, "Courage, resistance, and resilience are necessary to prevent and counteract potential abuses of trust, power, and authority in health care. ... Health professional practice and the pursuit of scientific knowledge should occur within a framework that prioritises individuals' human rights."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Report: Nearly 25% of medical science papers and 34% of neuroscience papers are bogus



For years, the public has been instructed to "follow the science." That might prove especially difficult if the science is bunkum.

German researchers have determined that at least one-quarter of the scientific papers circulated in recent years were likely plagiarized or altogether bogus.

The driving force behind this worsening trend is so-called paper mills, which "use AI-supported, automated production techniques at scale and sell fake publications to students, scientists, and physicians under pressure to advance their careers."

While fake publications are not a new phenomenon — with some activists even disseminating their own to indict the academy in recent years — it was previously unknown how bad the situation was in the world of biomedicine.

Bernhard Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, who also serves as editor in chief of the journal "Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience," endeavored to find out using "a simple method to red-flag them and estimate their number."

According to the newly released study conducted by Sabel and other German researchers, which has itself yet to undergo peer review, there were an estimated 300,000 red-flagged, fake publications among the 1.3 million biomedical publications listed in the SCImago portal. Sabel estimated around 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were bogus.

"It is just too hard to believe," Sabel told the journal Science, suggesting that it is as if "somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic."
To ascertain whether a publication was legitimate or not, Sabel sent questionnaires to various authors.
"Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: 'author’s private email', 'international co-author' and 'hospital affiliation,'" he said.

After fine-tuning his approach such that he was able to flag 90% of bogus papers in a test sample, Sabel found that the RFP rate skyrocketed from 16% in 2010 to 28% in 2020.

When broken down on a national basis, the worst offenders were Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, and India — with China being the worst of all, accounting for 55.8% of all potentially fraudulent papers. The U.S., by way of comparison, accounted for 7.3% of potential fake publications globally.

Sabel underscored that the "scale and proliferation of fake publications in biomedicine can damage trust in science, endanger public health, and impact economic spending and security."

The study noted, for instance, that "712 problematic papers were cited >17,000 times and estimated that abut one quarter of them may misinform future development of human therapies."

Just as academics' are desperate to keep up with universities' publication expectations, paper mills are keen to keep up with academics' demand for bogus papers.

"Assuming an average $10,000 price tag for a fake publication, the estimated annual revenue of paper mills is up to $3-4 billion," reported Sabel.

"Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff," Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies bogus publishing practices told Science.

It is presently unclear how the ubiquity of generative AI technologies like ChatGPT and Bard will affect this growing industry, although the study suggests that the "emergence of Chat-GPT and more sophisticated large language models might amplify the production of fake papers at less cost."

In addition to Sabel's technique, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, which represents 120 publishers, is working on tools to similarly separate the wheat from the chaff.

Joris van Rossum, the product director of the corresponding initiative called Integrity Hub, called it "a bit of an arms race."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NBC News plays the hits: Time to double-mask kids — again — to stop COVID



In January 2021, double-masking was all the rage.

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci was going on TV and telling people that double-masking "just makes common sense" as a more effective way to fight COVID-19.
  • New York City's top adviser to the mayor on public health, Dr. Jay Varma, was urging Gothamites to double-mask in order to fight whatever new variant might have been rearing its head at the time.
  • Virginia Tech professor and reported expert in virus transmission Linsey Marr was pushing double-masking for the public, touting to the AARP what a good idea a second mask is.
  • Harvard professor Joseph Allen told folks not just to double up on masks when indoors but also advised that people wear two- or three-layer masks while outside jogging alone with no one around.
  • The sudden push to get people to wear two masks prompted CNBC to actually ask, if two masks are good, why not three? The cable outlet's report claimed that going from one mask to two increases efficacy from 55% to 70%. And then they claimed tripling masks increases efficacy to 90%.

After a surge in calls to double- or triple-mask, Michael Osterholm, who served on President Joe Biden's COVID-19 Advisory Board during the presidential transition, explained to NBC News that double-masking could enhance infection.

But never mind what Osterholm said.

And never mind recent reports, including a science piece in the Atlantic from just a couple weeks ago, calling the CDC's case for wearing masks in school "flawed."

What's old is new again.

NBC News is once again harping on the idea of doubling up on masks.

NBC reporter Vicky Nguyen went on NBC's "Today" Tuesday and told viewers that she sent her little ones out the door with two masks, a surgical mask and a cloth mask, which she called the "second-best" option after K-95s.

What\u2019s old is new again: NBC trots out call to double-mask kids.pic.twitter.com/Sdx2VzggGv
— Chris Field (@Chris Field) 1641325639

As Nguyen, an investigative and consumer correspondent, offered her opinion, the show's hosts nodded in approval and lauded her "good advice."

But how good was the advice? If the aforementioned Atlantic report is to be believed, not that great:

Scientists generally agree that, according to the research literature, wearing masks can help protect people from the coronavirus, but the precise extent of that protection, particularly in schools, remains unknown—and it might be very small. What data do exist have been interpreted into guidance in many different ways. The World Health Organization, for example, does not recommend masks for children under age 6. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends against the use of masks for any children in primary school.

Seen in this context, the CDC has taken an especially aggressive stance, recommending that all kids 2 and older should be masked in school. The agency has argued for this policy amid an atmosphere of persistent backlash and skepticism, but on September 26, its director, Rochelle Walensky, marched out a stunning new statistic: Speaking as a guest on CBS’s Face the Nation, she cited a study published two days earlier, which looked at data from about 1,000 public schools in Arizona. The ones that didn’t have mask mandates, she said, were 3.5 times as likely to experience COVID outbreaks as the ones that did.

This estimated effect of mask requirements—far bigger than others in the research literature—would become a crucial talking point in the weeks to come. On September 28, during a White House briefing, Walensky brought up the 3.5 multiplier again; then she tweeted it that afternoon. In mid-October, with the school year in full swing, Walensky brought up the same statistic one more time.

But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading.

The Atlantic report went on to criticize the call for masking kids in schools and to detail exactly the flaws in such demands.

Americans have been repeatedly lectured to "follow the science." Are the folks at NBC News listening?