Pinned Tweet
The SaneCite Campaign One report is out.
Initial check shows 472 meta-analyses, systematic reviews and guidelines counted a retracted study as data: 507 inclusions of 395 retracted papers.
sanecite.com
Emailing authors wasn't enough. Oxford's RetractoBot trial sent 246,749 deliverable emails telling authors they had cited a retracted paper. At one year: no significant change in citations vs controls.
So SaneCite reads the citing text: sanecite.com
Source: DeVito, Cunningham, Goldacre. RetractoBot randomized controlled trial. Peer Review Congress 2025 abstract. doi.org/10.48448/sxnj-0j24
Ask the Mid Acts cultists if they know anything about their own history. They say “there’s always been a remnant!” Except they can’t point to anyone in 2000 years who believed their nonsense. No one.
It literally started in the 1900’s and got popular in the last 20’years. It’s such joke.
The mid-Acts idea that the Body of Christ begins mid-Acts (Acts 9 or 13) with Paul’s distinct ministry, not at Pentecost, was developed in the 1920s–1930s by J.C. O’Hair in the U.S. He moved from an Acts 2 view after rejecting water baptism for today, briefly considered Acts 28, then settled on mid-Acts. Cornelius Stam and Charles Baker popularized it further as the Grace Movement / right division. It is a 20th-century development, separate from E.W. Bullinger’s earlier Acts 28 ultra-dispensationalism.
Today SaneCite publishes its Lists: the retracted papers that later work most often still cites as support, and the journals and authors that cite them.
Every entry shows the citing passage, and the reply of anyone named.
sanecite.com/lists
Emailing authors has been tried: RetractoBot, a randomized trial, sent 246,749 emails and found no effect on later citations. A public record, with the passage and a right of reply, is a different approach.
The census is open: protocol, code, every label and every passage.
github.com/MrSaneApps/saneci…
If we got an entry wrong, tell us and we will correct it in public.
How it was done: sanecite.com/campaign-one.ht…
Code, data and every call are open (MIT). Questions: [email protected]
Under torture, the martyr Lucian answered every question with the same four words. Chrysostom explains why that was the wisest answer he could give.
viapatrum.org/works/chrysost…
The church had written him off as a murderous robber chief. An old apostle got on a horse and rode into the mountains after him anyway.
viapatrum.org/works/clement-…
In my experience blatant false teachers REALLY hate A.I. because it calls them on their nonsense.
Replying to @MrSaneApps @WWURD_Official
MrSane’s position has stronger overall support. Biblically, Paul issues parallel warnings about unrepentant sin (including relational sins) blocking inheritance of the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:5) and calls believers to forgive as God has forgiven them (Eph 4:32, Col 3:13). Positional forgiveness in Col 2:13 coexists with ongoing accountability, just as Jesus taught. Logically, this preserves Scripture’s unity without requiring two distinct gospels or programs. Historically, mid-Acts “right division” is a 20th-century development; early church fathers applied the Gospels and Sermon on the Mount directly to Christians and saw continuity between Jesus and Paul.
Replying to @MrSaneApps @saylor
Yes, it has. Greek was a lingua franca for Mediterranean trade and learning ~300 BCE–500 CE. Latin then dominated European academia and scholarship for over a millennium. French rose for diplomacy and commerce from the 17th century. English became the global standard for commerce, science, and academia after the mid-20th century.
Initial check shows that of 55,688 citations to retracted biomedical papers made after retraction, 40.7% cited the paper as support.
Only 3.3% said it was retracted or unreliable.
sanecite.com
When a journal retracts a paper, it should stop counting. It doesn't.
Initial check shows 32,681 of 51,443 retracted papers were cited again after retraction, 263,666 citations in all.
Method: sanecite.com/campaign-one.ht…
Does it matter why a paper was retracted? Not much.
Initial check shows papers pulled for misconduct, fabrication or duplication were cited as support 41.2% of the time after retraction; honest error, 40.0%. Misconduct was flagged less: 1.9% vs 6.5%.
sanecite.com
Her father begged her to turn back. Perpetua's answer, about a little pitcher, is in the prison diary she kept before her martyrdom.
viapatrum.org/works/perpetua…




