Dolos list

List of predatory, parasitic, or pseudoscientific publishers and journals

Because Science does not need lack of rigor and seriousness, we do not need them ...

The Dolos list is here for you, researchers, journalists, or readers of the general public. It has an informative character and is at your disposal if you still doubt a journal or publisher who is not listed.

The predatory publishing sector is harmful to the researchers that it scams, to the journalists that it deludes, and to the general public that it misinforms. It is dangerous for public health, sometimes promoting dubious practices and toxic products that it will present as innocuous or curative. Science and people would suffer greatly from its expansion.

Glyphosate, the product that kills plants as much as it kills Science

Version française disponible ici

 

I am a physicist, so I will not be able to have a new perspective on the toxicity of glyphosate. It's not my job. However, my scientific conscience compels me to write to you about the dangerousness of glyphosate for Science. Indeed, the recent controversy provoked by the Envoyé Spécial television report revealed a problem which is, in my opinion, the worst that Science has been able to meet since the middle of the last century: Its fraudulent use by lobbies.

What was the situation before this report?

In fact, no matter what Monsanto says, it's been a long time since the scientific community no longer believes in its literature.

More recently, in 2016, the Center for Public Integrity described the Critical Reviews in Toxicology by the sweet qualifier "brokers of junk science". Indeed, in their article, they accuse the "scientific" journal of having allowed Monsanto to publish what suited them, regardless of the concepts of ethics and scientific rigor, the peer review process, or the public health. These "scientific" publications were intended to influence health authorities and legislators in their decisions.

 

Then, the journal was removed from the Taylor & Francis index, its publisher, while continuing to serve the interests of multinationals, without facing the potential criticism of the scientific community. Because, for a publisher like T&F, it is difficult to assume that this publisher sells its ethics willingly to the one who pays the best. And then, can we blame them? It's true that scientific rigor does not feed, it's not profitable. While the fraud ... But hey, you start to know me, I'm not someone particularly tolerant towards this kind of practices. So I published a file highlighting the links between companies like Total and BP and this publisher, as well as the risks for scientific communication and public health, after adding Taylor & Francis to my list of predatory publishers, the Dolos list.

 

This has definitively closed the situation of this pseudoscientific journal, which has allowed several years lobbies to disseminate false information: The Critical Reviews in Toxicology is not a serious journal.

 

Then, Elise Lucet has released a new report, which you will find here:

 

https://www.france.tv/actualites-et-societe/magazines-d-actu/860147-glyphosate-comment-s-en-sortir.html

And this report was very necessary, as these pseudoscientific publications can have an impact on public health, especially when public health authorities do not hesitate to plagiarize Monsanto's documentation to make their conclusions. Do you find this amazing? Wait to read more ...

And after the report?

 

Envoyé Spécial was then accused of spreading false information. Indeed, after highlighting the various scientific frauds of Monsanto and the potential toxicity of glyphosate, the issue was the target of sharp criticism, particularly in terms of scientific rigor. A small example:

 

https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/01/20/335099-envoye-special-traitement-malhonnete-glyphosate

 

Are you surprised that a research institute condemns this report? I was, too, until I realized that the IREF was not really a research institute, but rather a political organization (and again, I say that because I have to give them a qualifier) ​​regularly publishing false scientific information. When you start talking about an article from a fake research institute to criticize the lack of scientific rigor of a report, it starts to get curious. And when it's so curious, it usually ends on the Dolos list. The IREF is now on the Dolos list.

 

Envoyé Spécial TV report was nevertheless based on the World Health Organization conclusions, the opinion of specialists, and revelations relating to "Monsanto papers". Envoyé Spécial also published a response to the criticism that targeted its report. But what has happened so that the response of the internet is so important? The answer is even crazier than the rest:

 

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/01/31/glyphosate-comment-monsanto-mene-sa-guerre-mediatique_5417218_3244.html

 

What the newspaper Le Monde reveals here is an operation, called "Let nothing go" led by Monsanto to discredit any argument contrary to his interests. This ranges from massive Internet criticism to defamation campaigns about people hurting their interests. Does it remind you of something? Absolutely ! Monsanto's practices are the same as those of predatory publishers and pseudoscientific journals who have tried to discredit anyone who has been able stand between them and their prey.

And in conclusion?

 

If glyphosate had not been dangerous, Monsanto would not have had to dismiss the researchers they had tried to hire and who were finally too honest to agree to defend glyphosate.

 

If glyphosate had not been dangerous, the World Health Organization would not have decided to classify it as a probable carcinogen.

 

If glyphosate had not been dangerous, Monsanto would not have had to use fraudulent methods to prove it.

 

If the gyphosate had not been dangerous, Monsanto would not have provided pseudoscientific articles to oppose high quality scientific studies.

 

If glyphosate had not been dangerous, Monsanto would not have had to use dishonorable practices, such as public attacks, to support it.

 

If glyphosate had not been dangerous, AAAS would never have considered rewarding Dr. Channa Jayasumana, author of a study exposing the damage caused by glyphosate to the health of Sri Lankans, for their scientific responsibility in his fight against glyphosate. Their retraction goes well in the direction of the current controversy and is not surprising, considering what the lobbies have already been able to do to use the scientific institutions for financial purposes. Especially since the excuse "people have told me that ..." has never been an argument worthy of an institution as prestigious as the AAAS ... Provide accurate advice from our colleagues worried, references, and an admissible argument. For now, this change is incomprehensible.

 

Finally, if the glyphosate had not been dangerous, Dewayne Johnson would not have developed cancer due to his glyphosate exposures, would not have been the first to have Monsanto convicted in court for this, and would not be dying.

 

So, highly esteemed company Monsanto, when you get caught up in endangering people, insulting reason, and fraudulently using Science (because that's what you do to fulfill your financial goals), behave yourself so descent and assume your mistakes. But there is little to be hoped for from a company that made poisoning and death its business... Honestly, you were more honest when you provided the US army with Agent Orange. At least you recognized the toxicity of your products and the dangerousness of your existence.

 

Important note: The day after the publication of this article in its French version, I learned the recent publication of a paper in an Elsevier journal:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887#fig0010

 

Conclusion: Glyphosate is a carcinogen. The debate is closed.

Best regards,
 

Professor Alexandre GEORGES.

 

 

Article published in February 2019.