"This dark part of DNA called as a dark DNA in an extra dimension"
"DNAs are contracted at least four times around various axis's and waves of earth couldn't read their information. "
"Thus, the earth is the biggest system of telecommunication which connects DNAs, dark DNAs and molecules of water"
But what kills me is that it has diagrams: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31850126/#&gid=article-figur...
I love this one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31850126/#&gid=article-figur...
So apparently a Circle + H20 = DNA + Dark DNA + H20 + A wave!
I must have missed that particular algebraic relation in my physics classes.
This paper is actually an excellent method for revealing glaring flaws in the scientific publishing system: The other "co-authors" have many perfectly legitimate looking papers on the site. Clearly someone included their name as a joke, without their authorisation.
Similarly, there's no way to tell who actually submitted the paper, because it has a list of names only, no "primary" author.
Most importantly, this clearly bogus paper is on a government medical paper publishing site. Who's curating these? Why is such utter gibberish allowed on the site? Why hasn't it been cleaned up after nearly a year? Where's the "report abuse" button? Where's the "comments" section with people ridiculing this monstrosity?
Nowhere to be found.
That's because the scientific publishing process still pretends that computers don't exist, that papers are printed on dead trees, and feedback is via "letters to the editor" in some vaguely related quarterly publication.
We all go to sites like Reddit or YC News precisely because bullshit is often called out right away by at least one or two commenters.
Why is this "not a thing" on PubMed, or ArXiV, or any similar site?