Alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers

www.nytimes.com and www.npr.com
Misdeeds, Not Mistakes, Behind Most Scientific Retractions

When there's something really wrong with a published study, the journal can retract it, much like a carmaker recalling a flawed automobile.

But are the errors that lead to retractions honest mistakes or something more problematic?

A newly published analysis finds that more than two-thirds of biomedical papers retracted over the past four decades were the result of misconduct, not error. That's much higher than previous studies of retractions had found.

That comes as no surprise to those of us who have witnessed the corruption of science by the tens of billions of dollars with which Tony Fauci and his friends at the drug companies have bribed "researchers" in The HIV-AIDS Industry over the past 28 years.
--Terry Michael

HIV Vaccine Development — Improving on Natural Immunity - New England Journal of Medicine

Margaret I. Johnston, Ph.D., and Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
Although a number of methods of preventing infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have proven effective to varying degrees, it is generally agreed that a safe and effective vaccine against HIV infection would be a critical component of a highly effective prevention toolkit for controlling and ultimately ending the global AIDS pandemic. For nearly all important pathogens for which effective vaccines have been developed, such as smallpox, measles, and poliovirus, there exists a natural model of protection: the immune response to the pathogen ultimately clears the microbe from the body and confers durable protection against reinfection. Under these circumstances, the human immune system has already provided us with proof of the concept that it can generate a protective response. This fact has led to a fundamental tenet of vaccinology: the best way to develop an effective vaccine is to design a candidate that mimics infection and induces responses akin to natural immunit

Unfortunately, this lesson does not apply to HIV infection. We have known since the mid-1980s that the body's natural immune response to HIV infection is completely inadequate. A “natural” immune response that might adequately control HIV infection does not occur at all, occurs too rarely, is too weak, or is too slow to begin. Thus, a key goal for an effective HIV vaccine is to induce in the recipient a response that differs qualitatively, quantitatively, or both from that induced by natural infection — a response that has been referred to as “unnatural immunity.”