“Wow. Just wow. What the f**k?!?!”
That was the opening line of my e-mail reply to Ivan Oransky, MD, and co-founder of Retraction Watch, when I’d picked myself up off the floor after reading the paper he sent me earlier this week. Ivan wanted my reaction to…deep breath…”Development of a safe antiparasitic against scuticociliates (Miamiensis avidus) in olive flounders: new approach to reduce the toxicity of mebendazole by material remediation technology using full-overlapped gravitational field energy”, Parasitology Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-018-6010-8 (2019).
That paper has now been retracted for reasons that will become very clear, very soon.
The more puzzling question is how the hell it got accepted in the first place.
Scroll down to page 5 of the paper (linked above) and find the section headed “Production of material remediated MBZ using full-overlapped gravitational field energy“. Actually, I’ll save you the bother. The section is reproduced in all its glory below. Are you sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin…
…wait, there’s more…
And in case that didn’t make sense, there’s a helpful figure to explain everything:
I haven’t read anything quite as superbly crackpot as this since Jordan Peterson’s “Maps Of Meaning”.
As Ivan discusses over at the Retraction Watch blog, this, um, seminal example of truly innovative scientific reasoning was submitted on March 18. The editors and reviewers then took four months to consider the paper. And subsequently accepted it for publication.
Peer review. The gold standard on which all of science stands or falls.