Meatheads at medRxiv, JACC

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist who found low-level fame as an early online provocateur. He started by trolling gender identity issues, moved on to criticize “political correctness,” shifted to climate change denialism, and more recently focused on pushing nutrition fads.

At some point, he adopted an all-meat or “carnivore” diet, which became known in some circles at the Peterson Diet. In early 2025, Peterson claimed massive benefits from going carnivore, including sleeping better, beating gum disease, growing stronger, and becoming less anxious. Shortly thereafter, he was hospitalized for sepsis. He has been under assisted care at home since June 2025. He’s 63.

A key paper about the purported benefits of the carnivore diet was published in April 2025, before Peterson’s health took a turn for the worse. Per the increasingly obvious and predictable grifter playbook, it was published pay-to-play in a second-tier Gold OA journal, JACC: Advances (~$3,000 APC). The paper was retracted less than a year later (March 2026). Rebecca Watson covered the retraction recently, adding to coverage from Retraction Watch.

• Her description of the paper?
  • “[T]he study was essentially just a sack of red flags.”

In the current HGH-fueled man/grift-o-sphere, meat has become a political weapon — from beef tallow and a meatlovers’ food tornado spinning out of RFK, Jr.’s, MAHA circus, there are now attacks on politicians for being “vegan” and insufficiently macho to handle their BBQ.

The now-retracted paper in JACC: Advances included authors with commercial interests in testing facilities, unqualified authors (the main instigator, David Feldman, is a software engineer really into keto diets), obvious grifters with credentials (“Powered by Shopify”), and more — you know, “a sack of red flags.”

But put $3,000 as the price of a rejection before an editor who knows they need to make budget, and suddenly that sack of red flags seems like a bargain. Especially because nobody cares about retractions anymore really since they’ve become meaningless noise.

But some can be made more meaningless than others by authors with commercial angles raised on OA and open science. These authors are not going to be stopped by some silly journal editors when they know other options exist — options those very journals blatantly promote despite a massive conflict of interest for the promoter-in-chief.

This chain of thought led me to wonder if there was a preprint of the paper on medRxiv. After all, Harlan Krumholz, the EIC of JACC, might be uptight about a bad paper in a JACC journal, but that’s his Dr. JACC persona. His Mr. Rxiv persona would be just fine with a similar paper from the same authors on medRxiv, right?

Of course.

I was expecting to find a preprint posted before the publication of the JACC: Advances paper, but instead I found a preprint posted on medRxiv just before the paper in JACC: Advances was retracted — an even juicier discovery, actually, showing clearly how preprint servers can be used as “get out of jail free” cards by grifters falling under scrutiny after initially fooling supposedly legitimate outlets.

• The tiresome, one-note wonders at openRxiv — the CZI LLC non-profit subsidiary which owns medRxiv and bioRxiv — posted a self-serving and silly essay about “trust signals” last Friday.
  • Folks, you are a big part of the problem. If you shut down your preprint servers tomorrow, trust signals would improve almost immediately across the board.

The preprint has a slightly different title but the same authors, the same disclosure text (which is incomplete), and the same general angle. It’s also 3x longer. It was posted on medRxiv in January 2026, about the time I would assume it was becoming clear the JACC: Advances paper was going to be retracted.

• Can’t get a permanent spot in one Krumholz-run epistemic system? Simply go to the no-cost option where he crows about “free speech” and rest assured it will stick there.
  • These grifters have learned to use and abuse our “open science” and OA infrastucture.

It was so predictable that I predicted it.

Did Krumholz suggest this as a consolation prize to ensure “free speech” for his bad authors? I doubt it. But he certainly maintains the option for people who submit works his journals reject and for people who get works retracted.

Preprint servers make retractions meaningless in a new way, allowing authors of retracted papers to post preprints either before or after official publication — or instead of — so they can fool the public via search and social.

And LLMs ingest it all, because they don’t know any better.

Two-faced editors like Krumholz — and there are others who have forgotten which way is up — are part of a larger capitulation of science to “incompetents, hacks, and grifters,” as one wise man wrote recently.

We are not holding down the fort, but downgrading our efforts in order to scoop up loose change dropped by canny oligarchs and savvy grifters pursuing anti-science whims and exploitative commercial schemes.

We’re such a bunch of meatheads.