This actually happens all the time. When your job as a “scientist” is to reaffirm narratives, all that really matters is that your abstract provides easy quotes for the “science” journos to disseminate to the public. No one is going to sift through your actual data to see if it matches your claims.
So similar manipulations like what Pfizer did with the Coof jab?
Except instead of halting any further trials with pregnant women, the HPV study just blatantly claimed the opposite of what the data demonstrated?
This actually happens all the time. When your job as a “scientist” is to reaffirm narratives, all that really matters is that your abstract provides easy quotes for the “science” journos to disseminate to the public. No one is going to sift through your actual data to see if it matches your claims.
Apparently even the peer reviewers don’t get access to the data to check it.
They check for ideological purity only. (make sure it doesn’t adversely impact the reviewer’s career etc)