Ian Goddard is an independent investigative journalist who likes to dig deeply into original source material and to follow leads to their logical conclusion. Even though he is not a medical doctor, he has done research of suitable quality to get it published on the National Institutes of Health PubMed site. He produces both written and video documents of his findings.
He recently published his findings of an investigation of the extraordinary claims made by Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman about the health effects caused in the United States by radioactive materials released from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant meltdowns.
The original posting of the above video on YouTube attracted the following comment that is worth repeating here.
Excellent! This “study” must be retracted even taking into account the low quality of the journal. Just for information: the third author, Chris Busby, in the original version of the paper misused my institution (Jacobs University Bremen) as his affiliation. After I have complained, that has been corrected meanwhile by the journal (without a corrigendum!). Busby also misused my institution as his affiliation in Research Gate. While this was corrected, too, he then misused the University of Ulster as his affiliation in Research Gate. According to the Director of the institute with which he was allegedly affiliated, he has no authority to link himself with the University of Ulster. All in all, this shows an outstanding understanding of ethical standards.
Alexander Lerchl, Dean for Life Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
Goddard has done an excellent job of both performing and documenting his research showing that Mangano and Sherman are torturing data and committing something very close to actual fraud.
In fact, perhaps I should not be so timid. My conclusion, based on Goddard’s work and that of several others — including this excellent post titled 3 strikes and you’re out! Sherman & Mangano does it again… — is that Mangano and Sherman have demonstrated in their Fukushima health effects studies that they engage in outright lies.
Even when their work is strongly challenged, they rarely, if ever, make a public withdrawal or issue any corrections.
Because such behavioral patterns are rarely isolated, their entire body of work deserves the same kind of careful analysis and debunking. Not surprisingly, that effort is already underway. Here are just a few of the examples that can be found in the blogosphere and even in more mainstream media outlets.
- Media Advisory: Be Sure to Fact Check Joseph Mangano, Janette Sherman and Robert Alvarez
- What Can We Do About Junk Science?
- Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution
It is not an ad hominem logical fallacy to dismiss work published by people who play fast and loose with the truth by showing that they have a documented history of such activity. It is not necessary to go to the trouble of documenting each instance of falsification.