S T O S S Books
S T O S S Books
Picture of DNA which is Salt and Dust in the Bible

Salt, Dust, Light, and Water in the Bible

Study of Salt, Dust, Water, & Light in Bible

S T O S S Books

The Study of Salt, Dust, Water, and Light in the Bible

S T O S S Books
Studying Salt, Dust, Water, and Light in the Bible
S T O S S Books

Studying Salt, Dust, Water, & Light in Scripture

S T O S S Books

Studying Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

S T O S S Books

Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

What is salt, dust, and stone in the Bible
In Scripture, DNA is both dust and salt
Go to content
The Church’s Relationship With Agenda / Junk Science

Biased (aka Junk/Agenda/Tobacco) Science:

The Church’s Relationship with Agenda Science

If New Scientific “Discoveries” Imply the Need for Doctrine Must Change — Apply Brakes!

The German episcopate’s primary basis for claiming we must re-examine Church Doctrine is because of new understandings based on scientific insights. Should we unquestioningly accept such insights? Hell (literally speaking) NO!! We live in a society fraught with people doing the bidding of Satan, the Father of lies. They worship Pegan gods, e.g., money, power (religious and other forms), sensual pleasures, etc. We live in the era of agenda (aka biased, imitation, and/or manipulated) science.
Examples of agenda-science include tobacco-science (both a label and an example), climate-science, abortion-science, LGBTQ-science, and Covid-science. Any science that requires censorship of opposing science is almost certainly a form of agenda-science. True science can never be an enemy to God, the true Scientist-in-chief.
According to Retraction Watch:
In 2002, journals retracted 119 papers from the scientific literature. What a difference two decades makes. On several occasions this year, publishers announced they were retracting several times that number, all at once. (For some of the stories among 2022’s retractions that captured the most attention, see our 10th annual roundup for The Scientist).
This year’s 4,600-plus retractions bring the total in the Retraction Watch Database to more than 37,000 at the time of this writing.[1]
In the current climate of scientific fakery, we can safely say: If the science contradicts the Magisterium of the Church, it is almost assuredly agenda/biased-science. True science can lead to a deeper understanding of Scripture, but never one contradictory to a doctrinal interpretation made by the Church.
According to Professor John Ioannidis, most or even the vast majority of all modern published research contains false findings.[2] Unfortunately, manipulated scientific studies lead to manipulated/false conclusions, which could radically affect our beliefs and actions. Prime examples cited by Ioannidis as the root of these errors are research bias and/or poorly designed study modeling.[3] False assumptions would fit into the latter category. This lack of reliability is also true of the so-called gold standard of research — peer-reviewed studies. The reliability problems with peer review are seen in the following cited sources.[4][5][6]
Another problem with research design is the a priori exclusion of any model dealing with, for example, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s creation. In the words of Dr. Robert Carter (PhD in Marine Biology):
I believe it is entirely unfair to exclude the creation model without ever considering what the implications of the model would be [in scientific terms, they failed to propose a null hypothesis.[7]
As a consequence of Scientism’s bias against Scripture (and anything of God for that matter), forming a valid null hypothesis (H0) was eliminated. Thus, the validity of H0 could not be accurately tested for statistical significance (i.e., p=<0.05) concerning the Scripture account of rational man’s creation. A statistically significant alternative hypothesis (H1) could have been formed and tested had the attempt been made. Thus, in matters involving theology, Scientism, and Marxist atheism (in all its forms) present a real possibility of UNtruth creeping into secular research.
A large percentage of those participating in issues related to LGBTQ are employing a tactic known as “Blackmail by Suicide.” It is used because it is highly effective against those whose spirit (the inner heart of the spiritual soul) is not inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Thus, their biological hearts are not sufficiently guided by objective spiritual and scientific Truth — the Truth of God revealed in the Migisterium of the Church. Adherents of Scientism tell us that people will be psychologically harmed if we don’t do this or that, even to the point of leading them to commit suicide. They tell us we must employ the treatments for which they advocate. The problem is — their treatment recommendation is based on false suppositions.
As was said earlier, Satan is the Father of all lies. When it comes to gender issues, Satan does lie — a lot. Is he lying via manipulation of scientific studies and the interpretations of said studies concerning transgenderism or SSA? Are there connections between how society treats Same-Sex Attracted (transgender and SSA) persons and resulting suicides, depression, etc.? If one weeds out the assumptions based on agenda/junk-science, the answer is NO!
The only connection between transgenderism and SSA is their various underlying psychological disorders and whether they comply with — or rebel against — Natural Law. Agenda/bias-Science is a tool designed to trick us into thinking that our behaviors and consequences have nothing to do with Natural Law. Relevant studies conducted without bias, poor design, and/or misinterpretation are, perhaps unintentionally, confirming that the opposite constitutes the truth. Natural Law has everything to do with it. LGBTQ persons are suffering because their behavior is inherently disordered.
God created Eve from Adam’s rib to make man and women Essentially and Substantially complimentary to one another. Human Same-Sex-Attraction destroys complementarity. As a result, the Church will never formulate the mode of Pastoral Care that Pope Francis and his fellow liberal followers errantly believe they can achieve. What will be accomplished by their errors? The destruction of souls while Satan whispers in their ears: NO! They will not die (cf. Gen 3:4).
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand accurately describes the terrible error you are committing when you employ the method of pastoral care the GSW suggests. She writes:
He who, through God’s grace, has adopted a supernatural stance will victoriously fight against these “illegitimate sufferings,” i.e., the sufferings which are consequences of our false and sinful attitudes. God does not give his grace for such self-inflicted sufferings [i.e., normalizing LGBTQ sexual acts — SML] — this is why they are unbearable — but in his goodness — he does come to the help of those who carry a real cross — a cross that he has chosen for them for their sanctification, and for which they can count on his grace.[8]

Principia Scientific International

As we shall see, the conclusions reached by the authors of peer-reviewed scientific studies are trustworthy in only around 30% to 50% of the studies reviewed. How do we remedy this pathetic statistic? The protocols used by Principia Scientific International (PSI) are one potential solution. PSI is legally registered as a company incorporated for charitable purposes in the UK. It is a ‘Community Interest Company’ [similar to a 501(c)(3) in the U.S.] overseen and regulated by the UK Government’s Companies House. According to their website, they promote truth in science by:
[Serving] the public interest in providing educational resources freely in the fields of scientific inquiry. Principia Scientific International CIC is about transparency and truth; the only publishing international science association shunning political advocacy and defending the traditional scientific method.
PSI’s review process, i.e., ‘PROM’ (short for: ‘peer-review in open media’) works by PSI inviting and engaging independent third party input in the peer-review process. [In other words, scientists who have no vested interest in how the study turns out, are the one who freely perform the peer-review — SML].
Below is an article demonstrating the necessity of scientific organizations such as PSI. One Biomedical Scientist wrote:
Biomedical research papers are being published in which the abstract, the discussion section, and even the title contradict the content within the paper.
This is unlikely to be happening because the authors don’t understand their own data. It’s more likely that the authors are being pressured by their financial backers and the editorial staff of journals to reach conclusions that advance the prevailing narrative.
It’s a well thought out deception that uses seemingly intellectual analysis to lead the undiscerning reader into believing the wrong conclusion. Skewing statistics is easy to accomplish simply by using the wrong statistical test, using a weak test when a stronger one should apply, or just about any other trick to misrepresent the data.
Medical journals have become financially dependent on their advertisers, which are almost exclusively the big pharmaceutical companies. With enough money, they can buy a scientific study that says what they want it to say.
Sometimes these studies are “ghost” written by people working for industry with credentialed unscrupulous scientists and doctors names misattributed as authors when in fact they did none of the writing.
The pharmaceutical industry uses its profits to control biomedical science at every level, from researchers to journal editors, to government regulatory agencies, and to the media who are supposed to interpret science for the public.[9]
In the U.S. alone, Big Pharma contributed to the 2020 campaigns of: 1) around 2,400 state lawmakers; 2) 72 members of the U.S Senate, and; 3) 302 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In aggregate, 66% of the U.S. Congress received contributions from Big Pharma.[10]
According to Patricia Harrity:
Pressure is being placed on independent researchers by the journal editors and peer reviewers, many of whom have ties to Big Pharma. Valid studies, honestly reported, can be rejected for publication if they convey a message that threatens corporate profits. Many scientific authors know how difficult it is to get a paper through peer review at most “reputable” medical journals when the results are not in line with the official narrative.
Many biomedical scientists have become shills for the pharmaceutical companies. Rigging clinical trials the old-fashioned way is expensive, time-consuming, uncertain, and recent legislation makes it more difficult. Sometimes the truth emerges even if a study is designed to hide it. Even a study that is designed to fail might succeed when the inconvenient truths are stubborn enough. It’s easier to report the actual results and then tack on an abstract and a discussion section that convey the right message, regardless of the data in the main body of the article. This can then be used in the “citation bluff” fraud, that depends on people not carefully reading supposed supportive evidence, to perpetuate the false narrative.
Often the cited evidence in support of a particular narrative doesn’t really support the narrative being advanced. In fact, the supposed supportive evidence can sometimes even completely contradict the narrative being pushed.
This is something to bear in mind the next time you get into an argument with someone demanding to see peer-reviewed evidence and rejecting any evidence that has not been peer-reviewed regardless of its merits.
Journals and the peer review process have been corrupted by powerful vested interests.[11]

The Existence of Agenda-Science in Matters of Doctrine

The American Journal of Psychiatry has been forced to announce a significant correction to one of its published articles. This correction is one example of intellectual, biological, and psychological damage done through agenda-science:
The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,”[12] have retracted its primary conclusion. … The Bränström study reanalysis demonstrated that neither “gender-affirming hormone treatment” nor “gender-affirming surgery” reduced the need of transgender-identifying people for mental health services. Fad medicine [emphasis SML] is bad medicine, and gender-anxious people deserve better.[13] … [Andre Van Mol et al.], concluded our letter by comparing [The Bränström] study to the one we consider perhaps the best of its kind, also from Sweden, the 2011 Dhejne study.[14] The Dhejne team made extensive use of numerous, specified Swedish registries and examined data from 324 patients in Sweden over thirty years who underwent sex reassignment. They used population controls matched by birth year, birth sex, and reassigned sex. When followed out beyond ten years, the sex-reassigned group had nineteen times the rate of completed suicides and nearly three times the rate of all-cause mortality and inpatient psychiatric care, compared to the general population.[15]
Is this “bad” study a mere anomaly? By no means. Let’s look at the crisis of irreproducibility in science:
It has been an open secret for some time that there is a crisis of irreproducibility of scientific studies in medicine and other fields. No less a figure than the [former] Director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote that, “the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled. This has compromised the ability of today’s researchers to reproduce others’ findings.” For example, the National Association of Scholars reports, “In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 ‘landmark’ studies in hematology and oncology, but could only replicate 6 (11%).”[16] In 2015 an article was published in Science in which there was an attempt to replicate 100 studies from three well-known psychology journals [emphasis SML] in 2008.[17] In the original studies, nearly all had produced statistically significant results, whereas in the study replications, only a little over a third produced similar significant results.[18]
Traditionally, when the results of a study were sent to a scientific journal for publication, it would have to pass a scientific peer review. This review involved a team of scientists performing the same study using the same protocols as the original study. The object was to verify whether the reviewers could obtain the same results as the original researchers. If they did, the submission was accepted and published. For several reasons, that practice is no longer followed. Instead, the journals now ask a small number of scientists (some with conflicts of interest with the study author) to examine the protocols used visually. If they looked acceptable, they would approve the submission. There is no attempt to replicate the study results.
Consequently, there are numerous reasons why studies are published, yet they lack actual/true statistical significance (p=<0.05). Whatever the cause of the discrepancy, it contributes to the irreproducibility crisis. The high percentage of occurrences of these discrepancies is why Dr. Francis Collins said above, “The checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled.” The loss of scientific fidelity encompasses all those labeled as peer-reviewed.
It’s worse than one might think. One of the world’s largest open-access peer-reviewed journal publishers has investigated articles classified as peer-reviewed and published as such. The publisher is Willey & Sons, the parent company of Hindawi journals. As a result of their investigation, five-hundred-eleven articles published since August of 2022 are being retracted from sixteen different journals. Three of those sixteen journals are: Advances in Agriculture, the Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology (Hmm! Isn’t Covid 19 an infectious disease?), and the Journal of Nanotechnology.[19] Further retractions are expected as the investigation proceeds.
This avalanche of fraud stems in part from coordinated peer-review rings. No doubt, pride, agenda-driven bias, and greed play a significant role in this effort. Furthermore, the fraud is increasing in frequency and intensity. According to a report in Retraction Watch:
Other publishers have announced large batches of retractions recently. IOP Publishing [Parent company is Institute of Physics] earlier this month said it planned to retract nearly 500 articles likely from paper mills, and PLOS in August announced it would retract over 100 papers from its flagship journal over manipulated peer review.[20]
For the Church to be theologically responsible, science should never be used to justify altering Doctrine (Dogma, on the other hand, is unchangeable) without first searching for the study in the Retraction Watch Database.

The Church’s Naïve Reliance on Junk Science

Included in the above title would be the use of agenda/bias science relating to Climate change emergencies (so-called science-based predictions about climate change have been notoriously — and laughably — WRONG. Sorry, Al Gore, that includes your utterly false predictions, too).
Unfortunately, the Church has also relied on junk-science for its actions relative to Covid 19 and so-called safe Vaccines. For examples, see a small example of the agenda-science being employed here, here, here, and here. On Retraction Watch, 372 articles published from 2021 to 2022 were retracted. An additional eighteen articles were listed as Concerning. That is in ordinate amount of retractions for a narrow area of science.
Whether or not they realize it, the followers of Satan are falling for the tactics of the Father of all Lies. The Church seems willing and eager to do so. Evil will do anything to trick us into believing that evil is good; good is evil. The members of the German Synodal Way are following Satan’s lies and using false science to justify their heterodox assertions.
The Church should never change doctrine without first ascertaining that the scientific study consulted to arrive at theological conclusions is peer-reviewed (including being reproducible), does not appear in the Retraction Watch Database, and is thoroughly vetted by accredited scientific experts. Theology is too essential to allow junk science to affect the Deposit of Faith negatively.
Perhaps nowhere in medicine and psychology is this irreproducibility problem worse than in studies of people who claim to have a mismatch between their sex and their internal sense of being male or female.[21]
All German Synodal Way participants and the Church at large would be wise and prudent to listen to Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki from Poland and follow his suggestions. The stakes are very high — eternal, in fact. He expressed concern about “the path” the German episcopate and the ZdK were taking. In a letter addressed to the President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing, Gądecki writes:
One of the temptations in the Church today is to constantly compare Jesus’ teaching with the current developments in psychology and the social sciences. If something in the Gospel does not agree with the current state of knowledge in these sciences, the disciples, wanting to save the Master from being compromised in the eyes of his contemporaries, try to “update” the Gospel. The temptation to “modernize” concerns in a particular way the sphere of sexual identity. It is forgotten, however, that the state of scientific knowledge changes frequently and sometimes dramatically, e.g., due to paradigm shifts. Changeability is inherent in the very nature of science [e.g., the science of epigenetic plasticity, also covered below AND in Scripture — SML], which has only a fragment of all possible knowledge. Discovering errors and analyzing them is the driving force of progress in science.
However, some scientific errors have had dramatic consequences. Just think of scientific theories such as racism and eugenics. Based on the most recent scientific advances, the U.S. Congress passed the National Origin Act in 1924, imposing restrictive migration quotas on people from Southern and Central Europe and banning almost entirely Asian immigration. The main reason was the belief that peoples such as Italians and Poles, for example, were racially inferior. On the other hand, based on knowledge of eugenics, an estimated 70,000 women belonging to ethnic minorities were forcibly sterilized in the United States in the 20th century.[22] In this case and in others, we speak of so-called “scientific errors.” Alongside these, however, there are also “ideological fallacies.” These underlie, for example, the change in attitudes toward sexuality that is now being observed [23].[24]
As was touched upon previously, Scientism is the belief that all truth about the material world comes through scientific research and discovery — and only through science. Adherents of Scientism believe religion has no part in determining the truth.[25] Most adherents are atheists or agnostics. If there is a conflict between scientific theory and Scripture, they believe Scripture is de facto wrong. That belief is gravely dangerous for our spiritual souls. This heresy is why some scientists say nonsensical things such as: We have located the location in the brain of our consciousness/self-awareness. This heresy is why atheists will never realize the scientific truth about our humanity, about why the Son of God took on our humanity.
The intellect of adherents of Scientism has become self-imprisoned within a box labeled, “Big Bang and its By-Products Only: God NOT Allowed.” This self-imposed intellectual imprisonment does not allow them to consider God’s intervention into, and supremacy over, all that exists. True science is never an enemy of God. However, in today’s anti-God climate, scientists with biases and agendas are frequently enemies of God. Sometimes, extreme enemies of God, e.g., the scientists who developed artificial birth control (ABC) methods.
Regensburg Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer is wise in evaluating the science bandied about in the Synodal Way. According to Anli Serfontein:
Regensburg Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer repeatedly disagreed with other bishops in the plenary session. On the diocese’s website, he published a statement, part of which he repeated in the assembly, saying he “would like to see a scientific examination of the prerequisites and secret agendas of all the (sexual abuse) studies repeatedly cited here [emphasis SML].”
And the suspicion arises that the real problem of the past decades has been that clergy have adapted too much to the spirit of the times and have maintained too little their clear profile, fed by the church’s teaching of the belief of a God-given sexuality in marriage between man and woman. The reforms of the Synodal Path, however, are obviously also to a great extent adaptations to the spirit of the times and a dilution of our profile.[26]
It should be the duty of those guiding the Synodal Path to adopt Bishop Voderholzer’s suggestion as an actual prerequisite to producing any pastoral or doctrinal initiatives. Prudence would dictate no less! It should be mandatory for any study used to support a change in doctrine to be peer-reviewed by an organization, such as Principia Scientific International, which engages in open peer review. For example, PSI’s review process, PROM (short for: ‘peer-review in open media’), works by PSI inviting and engaging independent third parties’ input into the peer-review process.
In today’s shoddy, biased, and irreproducible science, it is theologically negligent for the Church to fail to submit scientific studies to a rigorous independent peer review. The peer-review process used to be called the gold standard. Unfortunately, the current state of the peer-review process could more appropriately be called the rust standard.

Appealing to Bio-chemical (not Spiritual) Compassion

Earlier, we discussed the tactic known as Blackmail by Suicide. In this section, we can begin to see the falsehood of the tactics employed by those who cooperate with Satan's lies. The agents of Satan pushing aside all true spiritual compassion. Instead, they use appeals designed to trigger our emotional feelings, leading to release of reward hormones by our biological heart. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the followers of Satan appeal to apparent good because the SSA act is completely devoid of any real good. Employing a tactic that has been used before by those who have fallen for the Evil one’s lies, we see emotional arguments revolving around suicides and mental depression coming to the surface. These problems are falsely linked to the mental pressures experienced due to societal discrimination upon those suffering from SSA.
According to Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover,
[I]t is widely recognized and accepted, even within homosexual advocacy circles, that homosexuals do have a greater incidence of mental illness, particularly depression and suicide, than do heterosexuals. Activists quickly explain that this connection implies neither a necessary psychological nor a necessary biological link between homosexuality and depression. They argue, rather, that suicidal depression is the unsurprising effect on otherwise healthy individuals of living a closeted existence in an abusive and hostile society.
Similar arguments have been made before. It has long been obvious, for instance, that parental divorce is associated with both severe distress and behavioral problems among children. But in the 1970s the divorce industry argued that it was the social stigma attached to divorce that caused children’s distress, not divorce itself. If divorce were normalized, they claimed, the children could walk away unscathed. Indeed, children would be helped by divorce, for they would not suffer the trauma of being reared and cared for by less-than-totally-personally-fulfilled parents.
Until recently, no scientific studies were available to prove what has been painfully obvious to everyone, but science has finally caught up with experience and common sense. Numerous studies now confirm that divorce inflicts lifelong damage on children, far greater than that caused by parental unhappiness. Even divorce experts are beginning to withdraw their earlier claims [27].[28]
According to Satinover, there are no studies that support the notion that societal stress is the primary cause of depression and suicide among those with SSA[Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?” p 22-23.]. There are, however, studies that link childhood trauma with said depression and mental problems, both of which are linked to rates of suicide. “Many studies reveal a sadly disproportionate rate of sexual abuse during the childhoods of homosexual men, at the very least suggesting that both homosexual unhappiness and homosexuality itself derive from common causes and that unhappiness is, therefore, an inherent accompaniment of homosexuality.”[29] Let’s cite two such studies:
From May 1989 through April 1990, 1001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men. Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex. Black and Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report such sexual contact. Using developmentally based criteria to define sexual abuse, 93 percent of participants reporting sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner were classified as sexually abused. Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment [30].[31]
The same is true for pedophiles:
The association between perpetration of sexual abuse and the offender’s own victimization as a child has been well documented in the literature. Various researchers have examined this relationship by assessing the exclusiveness of the sexual abuser’s behavior, the gender of his victims and the gender of his own childhood abuser. . . . Subjects were 135 pedophiles. . . who admitted to their offenses. A total of 42 percent of pedophiles . . . reported being sexually victimized in their own childhoods. . . . [and] appear to choose their age specific victims in accordance with the age of their own experience of sexual victimization. Although the cause of child molestation remains undetermined these results support social learning and modeling theories [32].[33]
Satinover concludes,
Studies, like the one cited immediately above, do suggest that both the high levels of emotional distress and homosexuality itself have at least one common root in painful childhood experiences, as do other deviations from the sexual norm such as pedophilia. It makes as much sense to claim that the high levels of psychological abnormality and personal distress found among pedophiles are due solely to the [widespread] social disapproval of pedophilia.[34]


I hope we all realize by now that it should be in Canon Law (or some other more appropriate Church Dicastery) that any and all decisions regarding the development of doctrine or pastoral modalities in which secular scientific studies are relied upon, must pass a rigorous examination of the integrity of all study data and conclusions. Satan has largely triumphed in those fields of science that relate to God’s Truth. We need to be aware of that fact. The Church, especially, needs to be aware of that fact. As was mentioned above, in 2022 alone, 4,600+ plus study retractions were added to the Retraction Watch Database.[35] Since the year 2000, the number of retractions has skyrocketed from 119 per year to almost 5,000 per year in 2022. This status quo is simply unacceptable. To make matters worse, despite being retracted from the scientific literature, these junk/biased studies are still being cited — in significant numbers by those wanting to push Satans agenda and lies. Prudence is the approach we all must exercise.


[1] Ivan Oransky, “Nearing 5,000 retractions: A review of 2022”, https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/27/nearing-5000-retractions-a-review-of-2022/, December 27, 2022 (accessed 10/01/2023).
[2] John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Note: John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research & Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.
[3]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
[4]. Richard L. Kravitz, Peter Franks, Mitchell D. Feldman, Martha Gerrity, Cindy Byrne, William M. Tierney, “Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?,” Plos One, Published: April 8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
[5]. Donna Laframboise, “Junk Science Week: You think 'peer review' proves anything about the reliability of science?,” Financial Post, https://financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-you-think-peer-review-proves-anything-about-the-reliability-of-science-think-again, June 19, 2017 (accessed 3/12/2019).
[6]. Smith, R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 12, S13 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742. (Accessed 3/19/2017).
[7]. Dr. Robert W. Carter, “Historical Adam Biologos - Creation.Com,” accessed August 3, 2018, https://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos.
[8]. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, “From Defeat to Victory: On the Question of Evil,” Ignatius Insight, 2007. This article originally appeared in the June 2002 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Vol. 102, p. 15.
[9]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/, April 16, 2022 (accessed 04/16/2022).
Source Cited by PSI: The Expose.
[10]. Lev Facher, “More than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020, new STAT analysis shows,” STAT, https://www.statnews.com/feature/prescription-politics/federal-full-data-set/, June 9, 2021 (accessed 04/16/2022).
[11]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/, April 16, 2022 (accessed 04/16/2022).
Source Cited by PSI: The Expose.
[12]. Richard Bränström, Ph.D., John E. Pachankis, Ph.D., “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080, Published Online:4 Oct 2019 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[13]. Andre Van Mol, Michael K. Laidlaw, Miriam Grossman, and Paul McHugh, “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[14]. Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, Anna L. V. Johansson, Niklas Långström, Mikael Landén, “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” Plos One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016885, February 22, 2011 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[15]. Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[16]. David Randall and Christopher Welser, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform,” National Association of Scholars, https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility-crisis-of-modern-science/full-report, April 09/2018 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[17]. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” Science: American Association for the Advancement of Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716, Aug. 28, 2015 Vol 349, Issue 6251.
[18] Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[19] Zachary Stieber, “Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers,” The Epoch Times, https://www.theepochtimes.com/major-scientific-publisher-retracting-over-500-papers_4768649.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=gp, October 1, 2022 (accessed 10/08/2022).
[20] Ellie Kincaid, “Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings,” Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/28/exclusive-hindawi-and-wiley-to-retract-over-500-papers-linked-to-peer-review-rings/, September 28, 2022 (accessed 10/8/2022).
[21]. Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[22] cf. G. Consolmagno, “Covid, fede e fallibilità della scienza,” La Civiltà Cattolica 4118, pp. 105-119.
[23]. J. A. Reisman, E. W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House Publication, Lafayette 1990; J. Colapinto, As Nature Made Him. The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Harper Perennial, New York-London-Toronto-Sydney 2006.
[24]. Exaudi Staff, “Polish episcopate Concerned About German ‘Synodal Path’,” Exaudi Catholic News, https://www.exaudi.org/german-synodal-path/, February 17, 2022 (accessed 03/23/2022).
[25]. Stacy A. Trasancos, Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science (Kindle Locations 588-589). Ave Maria Press. Kindle Edition.
[26]. Anli Serfontein, “German Synodal Assembly opens with calls for change, but some object,” Catholic News Service, https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/german-synodal-assembly-opens-calls-change-some-object, Feb 4, 2022 (accessed 03/23/2022).
[27] D. W. Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly 271, no. 4: 47-84, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/.
[28] Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?” ed. Christopher Wolfe, Homosexuality and American Public Life, (Dallas, Texas: Spence Pub. Co., 2000), p 20.
[29] Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?”, p. 20-22.
[30] Doll LS, Joy D, Bartholow BN, Harrison JS, Bolan G, Douglas JM, Saltzman LE, Moss PM, Delgado W. Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men. Child Abuse Negl. 1992 Nov-Dec;16(6):855-64. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(92)90087-8. PMID: 1486514.
[31] Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?”, p. 20-22.  
[32] Greenberg DM, Bradford JM, Curry S. A comparison of sexual victimization in the childhoods of pedophiles and hebephiles. J Forensic Sci. 1993 Mar;38(2):432-6. PMID: 8455000.
[33] Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?”, p. 20-22.
[34] Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?”, p. 20-22.
[35]. Incidentally, anyone can search the Retraction Watch Database. There are a number fields through which a study can be located.  Anyone serious about the Magisterium should learn how to access and use its data.The URL is http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?
All material on this site is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced without written permission
Translate this web page
All material protected by copyright
Back to content