True Science? nature.com

 
In November 2021, Springer Nature retracted 44 nonsense papers from the Arabian Journal of Geosciences after a lapse in the peer review process.^[31][32]

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post 'UK Column News 31 May 2023':

UK Column's link on China's new CV19 outbreak led me to find some true science on the topic of susceptibility. 

FYI 49 genetic variants are the cause of underlying critical COVID-19 symptoms & death. 

Thus drugs can now target identification of the most vulnerable using genetics in critical illness and infectious disease. 

Three genes containing non-synonymous protein-coding changes associated with severe disease were also found to have significant effects from differential gene expression: SLC22A31 (ref. 2) (Fig. 1), SFTPD4 (Fig. 1) and TKY2 (ref. 1) (Extended Data Fig. 6). 

Further biological and clinical research will be required to dissect the genetic evidence at these loci. 

In the example of TYK2, there is now a therapeutic test of the genetic predictions. Our previous report of association between higher expression and critical illness led directly to the inclusion of a new drug, baricitinib, in a large clinical trial; the result demonstrated a clear therapeutic benefit." end excerpt 

link here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06034-3 

As your previous posts said Ashkenazi DNA is LESS susceptible ie cases are mild or asymptomatic. 

PS Mike Adams (former Scientologist is not science his Natural News is click bait - similarly the hysterical 'Freedom Rally' mentality in some previous Covid topics posted on this blog.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversies

When Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for research initially rejected by Nature and published only after Lauterbur appealed against the rejection, Nature acknowledged more of its own missteps in rejecting papers in an editorial titled, "Coping with Peer Rejection":

[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cherenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa's meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking's black-hole radiation.[46]

In June 1988, after nearly a year of guided scrutiny from its editors, Nature published a controversial and seemingly anomalous paper detailing Jacques Benveniste and his team's work studying human basophil degranulation in the presence of extremely dilute antibody serum.[47] The paper concluded that less than a single molecule of antibody could trigger an immune response in human basophils, defying the physical law of mass action. The paper excited substantial media attention in Paris, chiefly because their research sought funding from homeopathic medicine companies. Public inquiry prompted Nature to mandate an extensive and stringent experimental replication in Benveniste's lab, through which his team's results were refuted.[48]

Before publishing one of its most famous discoveries, Watson and Crick's 1953 paper on the structure of DNA, Nature did not send the paper out for peer review. John Maddox, Nature's editor, stated: "the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by Nature ... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field ... could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure".[49]

An earlier error occurred when Enrico Fermi submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak interaction theory of beta decay. Nature rejected the paper because it was considered too remote from reality.[50] Fermi's paper was published by Zeitschrift für Physik in 1934.[51]

The journal apologised for its initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in which it linked China and Wuhan with the outbreak, which may have led to racist attacks.[52][53]

Retractions[edit]

A paper was published with important figure anomalies from an author with a past of publishing figure anomalies.[54]

A 2013 fraudulent paper was also published in Nature.[55]

From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön was published in Nature. The papers, about semiconductors, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003, Nature retracted the papers. The Schön scandal was not limited to Nature; other prominent journals, such as Science and Physical Review, also retracted papers by Schön.[56]

In 2022, an editorial published in Nature entitled "How Nature contributed to science’s discriminatory legacy" mentioning the problematics of some of their articles: "But we have also published material that contributed to bias, exclusion and discrimination in research and society."[57]

Is Nature Scientific Reports a good/reputable journal?

ResearchGate

i...

No, it is not.