How to Access Research Articles for Free

How to Access Research Articles for Free
4.73 (94.59%) 74 votes

The “Robin Hood of Science” continues to provide 60+ million scientific papers to anyone in the world for free at https://sci-hub.tw/

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

The first issues of the first scientific journals were published back in 1665, in which it was noted things like, hey it looks like there’s a spot on Jupiter, thanks to new telescopes invented by a certain Mr. Newton, whose friend Halley described a comet. The same journal that reported that oranges and lemons could cure scurvy, and something in willow tree bark could bring down a fever, published a letter by some guy over in the colonies about playing with kites during lightning storms, and an account of a remarkable eight-year-old musician by the name of Amadeus, and within this last century, some sketchings of the structure of some molecule called DNA. A journal still in publication to this day, 350 years later, available now online and in print for the low, low subscription price of only $6,666 a year.

As you can imagine, the high price of journals leaves “doctors…in developing countries…missing out on relevant information about health.” “At that time,” back in the 1990s, “there was optimism that, by 2004,” at least, the problem of access to life-saving information would be solved. But 2004 came and went. So, they set their sights for 2015. Surely, by then, we could “achieve health information for all,” as “lack of access…remain[ed] a major barrier.” “Realistically only scientists at really big, well-funded universities in the developed world [may] have full access to published research.” And, as prices rise even more, even that may no longer be true. You know there’s a problem when even Harvard, as in 30-billion-dollar-endowment Harvard, claims that “Costs [for research journals] are now prohibitive.”

Meanwhile, the journal publishers are raking in billions, charging institutions up to $35,000 a year per journal, and charging individuals online per article. So, you have “a family member…diagnosed” with some disease, and you go online. You can read all sorts of internet dreck, but if you want to see the actual science, it can get expensive. And, you likely paid for the research. Tax dollars pour in to fund the research, and then you can’t get access to the research you paid for.

It’s like if a nice little city park was built, but then some private firm came in and started to charge admission. “That’s roughly how it works with scientific research.” And this conversion of “public research dollars into private publishing profits” has long been a source of discontent. The publishers don’t end up paying anything for the research. They get it for free; they don’t pay the researchers anything. “So, we pay for it, and then we [have to] pay for it again if we want to read it.’ So, it can end up with science as a profit system, rather than science as knowledge.

Enter Alexandra Elbakyan, nicknamed by some “the Robin Hood of Science.” It’s the story “of how one researcher…made nearly every scientific paper ever published available for free to [everyone], anywhere in the world.”

Named by perhaps the most prestigious scientific journal in the world as one of the top “people who mattered” the most in science in 2016, Alexandra started out as just a frustrated grad student in Kazakhstan, unable to access the scholarly papers she needed for her research. Once she figured out how to circumvent all the paywalls, she started a website—now at sci-hub.tw—to remove all barriers in the way of science by giving away the world’s scientific, medical, and nutrition literature for free.

“What she did is nothing short of awesome,” said [one researcher]. “Lack of access to the scientific literature is a massive injustice, and she fixed it with one fell swoop.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Philosophical Transactions via Wikipedia. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

The first issues of the first scientific journals were published back in 1665, in which it was noted things like, hey it looks like there’s a spot on Jupiter, thanks to new telescopes invented by a certain Mr. Newton, whose friend Halley described a comet. The same journal that reported that oranges and lemons could cure scurvy, and something in willow tree bark could bring down a fever, published a letter by some guy over in the colonies about playing with kites during lightning storms, and an account of a remarkable eight-year-old musician by the name of Amadeus, and within this last century, some sketchings of the structure of some molecule called DNA. A journal still in publication to this day, 350 years later, available now online and in print for the low, low subscription price of only $6,666 a year.

As you can imagine, the high price of journals leaves “doctors…in developing countries…missing out on relevant information about health.” “At that time,” back in the 1990s, “there was optimism that, by 2004,” at least, the problem of access to life-saving information would be solved. But 2004 came and went. So, they set their sights for 2015. Surely, by then, we could “achieve health information for all,” as “lack of access…remain[ed] a major barrier.” “Realistically only scientists at really big, well-funded universities in the developed world [may] have full access to published research.” And, as prices rise even more, even that may no longer be true. You know there’s a problem when even Harvard, as in 30-billion-dollar-endowment Harvard, claims that “Costs [for research journals] are now prohibitive.”

Meanwhile, the journal publishers are raking in billions, charging institutions up to $35,000 a year per journal, and charging individuals online per article. So, you have “a family member…diagnosed” with some disease, and you go online. You can read all sorts of internet dreck, but if you want to see the actual science, it can get expensive. And, you likely paid for the research. Tax dollars pour in to fund the research, and then you can’t get access to the research you paid for.

It’s like if a nice little city park was built, but then some private firm came in and started to charge admission. “That’s roughly how it works with scientific research.” And this conversion of “public research dollars into private publishing profits” has long been a source of discontent. The publishers don’t end up paying anything for the research. They get it for free; they don’t pay the researchers anything. “So, we pay for it, and then we [have to] pay for it again if we want to read it.’ So, it can end up with science as a profit system, rather than science as knowledge.

Enter Alexandra Elbakyan, nicknamed by some “the Robin Hood of Science.” It’s the story “of how one researcher…made nearly every scientific paper ever published available for free to [everyone], anywhere in the world.”

Named by perhaps the most prestigious scientific journal in the world as one of the top “people who mattered” the most in science in 2016, Alexandra started out as just a frustrated grad student in Kazakhstan, unable to access the scholarly papers she needed for her research. Once she figured out how to circumvent all the paywalls, she started a website—now at sci-hub.tw—to remove all barriers in the way of science by giving away the world’s scientific, medical, and nutrition literature for free.

“What she did is nothing short of awesome,” said [one researcher]. “Lack of access to the scientific literature is a massive injustice, and she fixed it with one fell swoop.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Philosophical Transactions via Wikipedia. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

Sci-hub.io was shut down since I recorded this, but the site can currently be reached at https://sci-hub.tw/ and five other domains. Should that one get yanked too (you can always see the updated active link list on the Sci-Hub Wikipedia page). Links provided for educational purposes only—literally!

But wait, isn’t it illegal to download “pirated” papers? I explore the controversy in the thrilling conclusion of this two-part video series in Sci-Hub Opens Up a World of Knowledge, up next.

My research into Sci-Hub came from a whole webinar I did on research techniques, which was captured into an online Continuing Medical Education course through the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. Check it out at How to be an Evidence-based Lifestyle Medicine Practitioner. I’m hoping to have a whole series of courses coming soon—stay tuned!

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

102 responses to “How to Access Research Articles for Free

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. Who will pay the immense cost of peer review and publishing if content is freely available? How would peer-reviewed science publishing continue if scholarly publishers closed their doors because researchers and their institutions were unwilling to pay? Will today’s scholarly publications be supplanted by “predatory journals” (look it up if you are not familiar with this concept), essentially fake journals with meaningless “peer review”? How would that serve the public interest?

      Those who value peer-reviewed research should understand that we cannot afford to turn over peer review and dissemination of research to the lowest bidder.

      1. Oh so we have to be millionaires to read what the science has to say? What about doctors in the poorest countries, I guess they’re pretty much screwed because they’d definitely be on the “lowest bidders” list. I’m confused at your concern anyway though, it seemed to me that Dr. Greger explained that our taxes already pay for these things and the publishers don’t have to spend a dime. Maybe I’m missing something.

      2. The problem with scientific journals today is that they are fee-based publication system. Publishing a single article may cost from $1000 to +$5000.

        It is so expensive that science publication is reserved only to organisation, institutions and scientific laboratories with lots of funds, mainly from government agencies or the industry.

        It has for consequence a shift in the content of the scientific litterature towards technical science, based on expensive materials, and fewer articles on fundamental science that just requires correct thinking, and not big computers or big data.

        Independent scientists who may produce some really good science and without any fund or organisation to cover their work are then automatically filtered by that modern publication system, because they do not have the money to even publish a single paper.

        This induces less and less fundamental science, and more and more technical, applied science that is published and thus a narrowing of the research towards governmental and industrial directions, which is never good for the advancement of science.

      3. I believe peer-review is the most important aspect of research. Without peer-review, how can I, as a consumer of this research, have any idea as to the validity of the research (and its data and data collection) I read? In the absence of peer-review journals, where/when/how will peer-review occur? I ask this question to have it answered; not just to voice my confusion.

        1. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is critical and does not necessarily cost anything for the researcher. Here is a link to a preeminent medical journal’s instructions for authors. As far as I can see, submission is free just like most other major journals.

          http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/lancet-information-for-authors.pdf

          Unbiased research results published in peer-reviewed journals is the safest data to be considered as compelling evidence. There is a very high risk for bias in anything else.

          As far is publication being limited to industry, when I was poor resident, I obtained publication of my research without cost just like many other students do. Many of my colleagues currently publish their research based on data from their patients. These docs are solo practitioners in small private offices and are not part of any industry group or large well funded organization.

          Dr. Ben

        2. Neil,

          I agree with AB30 (answer above) that there is more to consider when your looking at research. That’s not to say that peer review should not have a significant place in our system of evaluation. It’s the nature of the process that has flaws that need to be considered and fixed. I’m not certain especially considering the number of retracted publications that we are or can and will be able to screen for total accountability, be that the data or the methods behind the collection, let alone the conclusions.

          Consider a number of the tobacco or egg studies and the list goes on. The diet field is rampant with poorly executed studies appearing in journals that have been peer-reviewed, so perhaps we need to consider it’s but one of many checks and balances, in published literature, that should take place.

          It’s been amazing to me as a recent entrant into the grant and publishing system of higher education the stakes and costs. Diving deeper into the publication issues one needs to consider the amount of politics of being accepted into the peer reviewed literature, the use of individuals to “open the doors to consideration” based on their stature or relationship in the area and a litany of other non-scientific related aspects that influence the acceptance or rejection for papers to be reviewed.

          Let’s not lose sight of the increasing number of journals and the explosion of publications. And if you think creative writing and branding are not a piece of the acceptance pathway, you would be mistaken. The classes now offered on how to submit and get noticed, whom to include or exclude, who to contact or a warm introduction, I believe, is becoming a more prevalent determinant of getting accepted by the peer reviewed literature.

          If you expand this to include what level of peer-review, we go down a number of ally ways. Not all peer review is up to the same standards, hence our achedemic stratification of the “top tier” vs 2nd journals and then of course we have the predatory journals. And the issues of payment and costs, number of individuals within the publishing organization that have been assigned to peer review can certainly impact the rejection or acceptance of well-done scientific work.

          How do we cope with the increasing number of papers and findings within the scientific community ? There is no inexpensive way to hire scientific specialist within a field. Counter this with the need to publish or perish on the campus or the industry based branding and exposure that journal publication brings and you have a difficult and often times conflicting set of situations.

          Dr. Greger’s paper today, How Much Proof continues to question the methodology and belief in what observational method we choose and this certainly applies to peer review. Our individual belief systems are a complicated inherently biased screen, not unlike those reviewing the papers submitted.

          As to the big picture … what’s a consumer to do, how about reading much more than a headline, using as much common sense as possible, finding trustworthy people who actively are open to multiple and conflicting inputs and accepting that even if a paper is not peer-reviewed it may indeed have significant value.

          I appreciate that this set of thoughts is only touching the surface of the issues and encourage us to dialogue and find a way to improve the system for all researchers/consumers. A parting thought: Should the NIH or other governmental agency (higher education) teach consumer science or would it become the dogma of exclusion based on industry funding or other’s self-interests ?

          Dr. Alan Kadish Health Support volunteer for Dr. Greger http://www.CenterofHealth.com

  1. I have been using this baby for a couple of weeks now. This thing is practicaly writing my book. :-) Follow me on twitter @netgogate

      1. Julot, what are you talking about? Dr. Greger never said that heated nuts/seeds have toxic fat. That is an unjustified blanket statement. Actually Dr. Greger seems to be fine with roasted nuts as well as raw. Raw nuts have more antioxidants but some of the nutrients in roasted nuts/seeds can be more bioavailable. He also talks about how heat stable whole ground flax is for baking. I never got the impression that he preferred raw nut butters over roasted or vise versa. He seems, from what I’ve gathered, to be in favor of variety because you get the best of both worlds so to speak.

        1. Actually s, Dr Greger did say at one point that although he and his family previously enjoyed roasted walnuts o salafs etc, he now consumes them raw. Same with nut butters I believe. Someone may correct me if I am ,istaken in this. It was during a discussion on AGE’s (advanced glycation endproducts). I downloaded the reference pdf study long ago but i cant paste the title here. Just 30 gm, or 1 oz, of walnuts roasted comes in at 2366 AGE’s. thats high. Oils are ridiculously high . Coffee is almost nil. Hope that helps

            1. Thank you so much for the reference Ishay! I remember Thea bemoaning about the grilled tofu.. there are some great recipes out there for curried grilled tofu . On the other hand, eating a plant based diet puts us in good stead overall. One beef frankfurter is over 10,000 age’s , half of our advised daily limit. To see a list of common foods, the paper is entitled ” Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet” if you want to google.

          1. I know at least one of the reasons he consumes raw nuts (based on a live Q&A) is to get the benefits of phytic acid. Having read the link, has it ever actually been tested how plant foods high in fat, such as nuts and soy, react in the human body? So often plant foods, despite having the same compounds found in animal foods, do not pose the same threat and react differently in the body. I personally would suspect this to be the case. Until there’s an actual shown link between brain loss or other negative effects from consuming roasted tofu or nuts – its my understanding that regular consumption of soy (no one eats it raw) and nuts (at least half the population consumes cooked nuts and rarely if ever raw) is linked to better health in various ways – I don’t see a reason to personally worry about it. I also speculate that if there was a real concern even with the roasting of high fat plant foods, that we’d be in much worse shape than we are now.
            Dr. Greger does tend to err on the side of caution, he also red lighted avocados until new research showed that when ingested there was no issue contrary to what happened in the petri dish. I also don’t believe there’s reasonable evidence to say raw mushrooms are harmful. I understand why he sticks to what the best available (available being the operative word in some cases) evidence shows and goes by that, so I’m definitely not complaining. Just sharing my thoughts and personal takeaway.

              1. Also the 2366 AGE’s found in roasted walnuts still pale in comparison to that found in animal foods. The lowest on his top 15 in the above video was chicken mcnuggets which ranked 7760, the highest was roasted barbecue chicken thigh skin which was 16670. Sorry for multiple posts, just thinking out loud, wish there were an edit button so I could just compile my comments into one.

                Seriously, where are we on an edit button here?

          1. Ok again, what are you talking about? So you’re saying that an all raw food diet is the only safe or healthy diet? Literally your premise is blown right out of the water with the simply scientific facts that beans/legumes are the most powerfully associated food with longevity. Dr. Greger explains this several times. Not that long ago I was listening to his podcast on the health benefits of soy and he explained it there, I think it’s also in his book and in there’s probably a video here specific to beans/legumes where does as well.
            He also talks about how raw food diets are specifically not the optimal diet and why. Cooked vegetables can be healthier in some ways as there is greater bioavailability of many nutrients, tomatoes are a great example of this. In one study, the vitamin A levels of those on an all raw food plant based diet compared to those on an omnivorous diet were either lower or no greater (there’s a video on that somewhere here). Cooked beans have benefits that sprouted beans do not (also in another video here). Women on an all raw food diet have been known to go into early stages of menopause because so much more energy expenditure goes into digesting raw food or at least I believe that was why (again, that too is in a video here somewhere).

            For that matter, the longest lived people in the world are not raw foodist, so where is your logic in this? And why does Dr. Greger so strongly recommend foods like sweet potatoes and other cooked foods? Why specifically then would he recommend we cook mushrooms?

            I’m sorry but that is just absolutely ridiculous.

            Nothing in the video you linked showed anything about cooked plant foods being harmful. People with the issue were told to reduce their meat intake and cook it a certain way when they had it and increase things like pasta (cooked I assume) and boiled vegetables and legumes with unprocessed cheese.
            Also in the video, it’s mentioned that the one thing that was associated with lowered AGE’s was a vegetarian diet, not an all raw food diet.
            I would also like to see what would happen if someone ate the same amount of AGE’s in a meal but from all plant foods as opposed to the chicken… And obviously not deep fried potatoes which would have a negative effect for a multitude of reasons. Now I’m not trying to convince anyone of my theory, it’s simply my personal suspicion.

            1. I didnt say it, i was talking about high temperature cooked food, not water/steamed, i’m not eating 100% raw food although my diet is based on raw ripe fruits since years ago and i like to feel great eating like that for weeks-months sometimes~

              However to defend raw food diet(or mainly) if it is not based on a large amount of fresh ripe fruits, it will most likely always fail anyways because firstly we are a frugivorous specy so fruits are the perfect food obviously for humans digestive system and physiology, logical, i just ate a medium cantaloupe for the first part of my breakfast this morning, which gave me around 1000% of Vit.A, RDA and many others nutrients, including a significant amount of omega 3, B vitamins, vitamin C and sodium.

              About AGE’s, anyways it is a toxin so the less the better just like acrylamides and tons of others toxins formed from cooking foods, you may also check something called digestive leukocytosis and the Pottenger’s cats studies to understand more things about why the human species and its pets are by far the unhealthiest ones and are the only one who are eating a significant amount of cooked foods~

              1. Theoretically at least, cooking food gave us an evolutionary advantage. While I agree raw food is amazing for us and should make up a large part of our diet, I do disagree about cooked foods due to reasons above. High temperature is relative so I would be more specific in degrees just for some clarification unless you’re saying anything above steaming is too high of temperature. Sorry for the misunderstanding in regards to thinking you were saying anything cooked was harmful.
                In no way do I believe that cooking food is the cause for humans collectively being the unhealthiest species on earth, when many of the longest lived consume cooked foods as a staple. I also don’t think this is necessarily the case for companion animals, I don’t know how they did the study but most of the “pet food” (I hate the term pet) out there is pretty bad, sometimes horrible. Lifespan of companion animals differs greatly depending on care so that seems difficult to measure as well.

                As far as the vitamin A in fruit though, what about lacking fat to sufficiently absorb it and other fat soluble nutrients? Interestingly, I know that in the case for watermelon at least, the lycopene neither needs to be cooked nor eaten with fat to be well absorbed unlike tomatoes. So again, there’s extraordinary amounts of vitamins in raw foods, but not all of them are bioavailable or as bioavailable without some assistance.

                Coincidentally, I had cantaloupe today too! lol

                1. The Pottenger’s cat studies used whole real carnivorous food, thats why it is interesting, it was just cooked against raw followed on several generations, there are a lot of infos about it on the web, very interesting~

                  And btw about raw food being harder to digest, thats just the case for foods that arent perfectly adapted to our frugivorous anatomy, most likely anything that arent ripe fresh fruits which are the easiest and fastest to digest foods by far, low protein/fat and containing simple carbs and almost no complex carbs(starch) when ripe, containing mainly solubles soft fibers(low fiber content but in perfect ratio).

                  1. I understand fruit is the most easily digested food, my comments on using more energy to digest the foods were based off of one of Dr. Greger’s videos where he notes that women on all raw diets were shown to go into early menopause – I can’t remember the title of the video.

                    My first thought on the cat study was wondering if they supplemented the cats on the cooked food with taurine which is destroyed through cooking and why it’s added back to cat food, that would have been essential for their health and survival. But after briefly browsing it, it doesn’t appear to be a very thorough study to base a conclusion off of. It seemed a little sloppy and lacked health history and was done before they understood the role of taurine, plus it’s never been replicated. These poor cats were undoubtedly deficient in taurine. I’m sure an optimal diet and lifestyle of cats are that of their ancestors but unfortunately we messed that up for them, but I hope breeding becomes a thing of the past soon. And shame on Pottenger for having cats (or any animal) as test subjects in the first place… I understand they were “his” “lab cats.”

                    1. Yes early menopause and others hormonal problems and more mainly because a lack of calories/carbs and eventually a lack of essential fats, the main challenge of this kind of diets by far and the first cause of failing~

    1. Toasting whole foods triggers the Maillard reaction in the food, which generates acrylamide, which is a suspected carcinogen.

          1. I don’t care so much about possible toxins from the heating itself. It’s just I’m guessing there is nutrient loss during the roasting/baking process, as is the case for cacao vs cocoa. Dutch processed has much less phytochemicals vs other low temp mechanisms. Also the natural fats in the nuts, are they perhabs damaged from the roasting? I’ve been searching for unroasted butters but can’t find any, I guess nut butters are always roasted then when you buy it.

            1. Netogate, I don’t believe the fats are damaged when whole nuts are cooked going by the fact that flax, which contains the highly unstable fat ALA when extracted, actually doesn’t degrade when baking with it at temperatures at 350 degrees fahrenheit. He has a video somewhere talking about that. Also I do believe he addresses the fat concern in nuts or at least talks about the benefits of roasting nuts (greater bioavailability of some nutrients) and does not mention fat degradation. Apparently he advises against toasting now due to reasons linked above. I personally doubt there’d be an issue as explained in a comment above, but I’m not trying to advise anyone based on my own thinking.

              As far as nutrients, some become more bioavailable with cooking and others decrease.

              Artisiana is a bit exensive, but their nut and seed butters are raw. Great company, expensive due to high quality. I’m not sure what you would need to make your own nut butters, but that would be cool to be able to do.

              1. Come to think of it, I get their raw tahini (amazing stuff!) and it’s actually the same price as the other stuff at Whole Foods. Things are usually much cheaper on vitacost.com so you could check that out too… I know they at least sell some of the Artisiana products.

              2. S – Blendtec has an attachment jar, that is much smaller than either of their other blender jars, called the Twister Jar. It is designed to make nut butters. I had one in the cabinet for quite some time that I finally got out and started using in the past two weeks. I needed to have Pecan butter for a recipe and didn’t want to have to search for it, so I thought of that jar, got out some raw pecans and made it. It was so simple: basically put 1 1/2 cups of pecans in it, and blend on high for 90 seconds while twisting the arms of the Twister Jar lid counterclockwise. It couldn’t have been more simple. Since then I have also made cashew butter. That little jar is amazing!

                1. That’s awesome, thanks for the tip Dogmo! It would be a lot more affordable that way. I love almond butter but it’s so expensive so I rarely ever have it.

  2. Maybe this will be addressed in the next video, but copyright laws in the US are scary! I would recommend using the Tor Browser for greater privacy when visiting sci-hub.

      1. Thank you Joshua.

        Some of us newbies are oldies.

        Went to high school before Mac or Microsoft.

        Yes, there was a computer, which you had to type perfect letters and characters. Was it IBM or Texas Instruments or something?

        Can’t remember what you could even do with it.

    1. Firefox browser offers ‘Private Browsing with Tracking Protection’ as an optional page. Don’t know if this would offer sufficient protection, but it may help.

  3. Regarding how to use it, that’s not a search box on the sci-hub website. You have to find a paper you want, for example from searching on JSTOR, and then when you get to the page that gives you the options on how to pay to access the article (for example, this article “John Foulds and the String Quartet”) you copy the url and paste it into what looks like a search box on sci-hub, press “open” and voilà!

  4. I went to the sight and it asks to put in a URL so I put my website not knowing why they would want that and it took me to my website. But how do I access all the studies that it claims to have?
    John

  5. The website (the extension eg: .hk, .is, .tw,) for sci-hub is constantly changing. At any one time some extensions will be shut down due to the Elsevier successful copyright infringement lawsuit. Some extensions will not have a current security certificate. Check sci-hub twitter account for the most recent working urls.

    be careful how you access sci-hub. Consider using an anonymous/onion browser such Tor. or a virtual private network such as Opera.

    If any pdf you download asks for your administrative password. STOP! you may be unwittingly downloading malware.

    Just follow some basic internet hygiene rules.

  6. In this neo-liberal world, there is simply nothing beyond the pale when it comes to making a profit. In fifty years or less, the post office, public schools, IRS, fire and police departments and the National Parks system will be among the formerly free, public and democratic institutions that will then be run for private profit. I don’t read tea leaves, I’m just paying attention.

    In the spirit of Alexandra Elbakyan, please remember Aaron Swartz. It seems that Kazakhstan is friendlier to the free dissemination of information than is the United States. She’s still alive; Aaron died at 26.

    1. Steve–
      Thanks for the reminder about Aaron Swartz, a miscarriage of justice, if ever there were one. Back in 2007-2008, Wall Street corporate scandals on Wall Street ruined private assets of more than $1 trillion– pension and retirement funds held by individuals and organizations– a not one bank or fund manager was even indicted. But let one individual become trapped in the spotlight, there is no mercy.

      To some extent, like the story of Robin Hood, itself, Elbakyan– the indefatigable graduate student– has been made into a figure larger than life. Media editors know that approach sells issues, even if not exactly true.

      Since extraordinary rendition is a distinct hazard for anybody willing to take a bow for such exploits, and their handiwork creates severe problems with trade agreements, it is more than likely the real hackers/crackers of publisher paywalls were happy to help Elbakyan privately, but let her take the focus.

      Working from their background, these friendly, technically-adept raiders and plunderers of corporate data could don the white hats of do-gooders, and have a go at the paywalls with all their skills, but without drawing fire. Although they are an elite subset of computer raiders, their first concern is anonymity with the effects they have engineered.

  7. I realize this would not cover research done in other countries, but can there be a law that says any research done in the U.S. must be available to the public for free?

    This might be a deterrent to getting published by some of the more prestigious journals, but that might open up some robber baron tycoons (Gates et al?’-) or even crowd sourcing to fund new prestigious journals… or even a wiki journals.

  8. Wow, how fabulous that they have captured history in those early journals.

    Never knew the journals would be taking that much advantage of the hospitals and patients.

    They are getting the information for free and hiking the prices up that much.

    And the money isn’t flowing back into the research.

    If the money was flowing back into research, then, I could see it, but them getting that much without having to pay for the information is just greed.

    1. Nope, they don’t have to pay for the information because your taxes already did… So sickening. I adore Dr. Greger for exposing these things.

  9. Make sure the Sci-Hub front page you access looks like the one in the video, i.e., make sure you are really at Sci-Hub. There are some sites that seem to be masquerading as the real site, for whatever reason, whether profit or something more devious. If you google “sci hub” you will get hits for sites like “scihub.org”, whose tag line is “We Are the Guide in the World of Science, Leading the Information Highway”. It even says “Welcome to Science Hub”. Although there may be search engines at these sites, you will not be able to access the documents you are looking for.

  10. I thought I heard sci-hub.io but I can’t find anything but blocked sites and lawsuits. Am I missing something? Also, is there a move to tell our representatives about this crazy system.

    1. Good question about contacting representatives! As for the site, he gives a different link under the video, I think it’s an updated link.

  11. I don’t think anyone is up for giving instructions out for this, if it’s legally risky. You need to think and try things to get in, at own risk. It’s like some articles on experimental supplements where everything but the dose is mentioned. That is intentional in some cases.

  12. Sci Hub is great but I have not been able to access it for some time. Sci-Hub.io doesn’t work when I enter it into Firefox, chrome, etc. Does anyone have suggestions?

    1. Under the video he says that the site has been taken down since this video was put up but gives another link where you can reach it. Not sure if that solves your problem.

  13. I know Dr. G says all kinds off oats are good.

    But what about those very fine oats, I think they call it instant oats in your country.

    I would like to know because some of these silly things become staple foods when you eat a WFPBD and then it is not so silly anymore.

    The next best thing would be oat flakes, these are a bit thicker and should cook longer or soak.
    I’m not doing the real oat groits because I already know that the flakes are approved for sure and are more convenient.

    So what do you think; are instant oats okay or switch to the flakes?

    1. The less processed a foodstuff the better. So the flakes would be better.
      Does it make a appreciable difference..I think not.

      My oats only take about five minutes max to cook so I don’t really see a need for the instant stuff. Am I undercooking them…tastes fine to me.
      But I do have some that I intend to use at some time or other they were in the market and the others were not.
      I would not use the ones with other things thrown in which usually are the instant ones. Usually the thrown in items are a big part sugar.

  14. PEOPLE….
    Dr Greger and all the regulars on this site can of course be trusted.

    Be advised however any for free mention on a you tube video is going to attract certain interest.
    That interest may not be to your benefit.
    People regularly set up sites and direct links to obtain information and/or hijack things.

    I would not advise any to randomly go to different sites that may involve browsers or this or that from unknown individuals.If you know the people certainly do. But keep in mind identities may be duplicated. IP addresses as is mentioned here can be cloaked and changed.
    Professional sites are subject to hacking attempts successfully all the time. Do you seriously think with your MacAfee or Norton programs you are safe…think again I advise.
    I used to go to the recording of things picked up on any random day browsing the internet. And even when not clicking on links and this and that, I would find many nefarious attempts at intrusion. A very common one is a thing which records every keystroke which has direct application to passwords.

    So be advised.

  15. Who will pay the immense cost of peer review and publishing if content is freely available? How would peer-reviewed science publishing continue if scholarly publishers closed their doors because researchers and their institutions were unwilling to pay? Will today’s scholarly publications be supplanted by “predatory journals” (look it up if you are not familiar with this concept), essentially fake journals with meaningless “peer review”? How would that serve the public interest?

    Those who value peer-reviewed research should understand that we cannot afford to turn over peer review and dissemination of research to the lowest bidder.

    1. The NIH WHO and other groups serve this purpose in related fashion right now.

      Should not a peer review publication be beyond the bias of funding source?
      If I may have a outstanding contract to have my educational system buy so many accesses to a publisher per year does that not influence at all the ability of my educational institution’s ability to have its things published…I’d say it would certainly.

      Preferably this should be totally independent of funding source publication. But it is not. Taking money for a thing implies bias always.
      That a thing is bad and badly working does not imply any change to that thing would imply not working at all.

      1. From ScientificAmerican…“However, in addition to this perception, there may be an additional reason for why the NIH-sponsored studies were assigned substantially higher scores. As most researchers know, budget constraints at the NIH have resulted in very low funding rates for grant proposals. In many grant review panels of the NIH, only the top 10% of grant proposals are funded. For a study to qualify for NIH grant funding, it has to go through a very thorough and arduous review process. In some ways, therefore, NIH funding can also be seen as a “badge of excellence”. It is quite possible that the physicians who reviewed the hypothetical abstracts may have been reassured by the indication of NIH funding, because it implied that the study must have passed a bar of scientific excellence to even achieve the NIH funding in the first place.”

        A review of the potential of bias in relation to funding source by study result.

  16. Are egg whites as bad as whole eggs?
    Are there any fish that are okay to eat?
    Is whey protein as bad as eating meat or fish?

    1. Well depends on what you mean by bad. A person starving, any of those are good.
      But aside that, egg whites do not contain hardly any fat nor any cholesterol, being mainly protein.
      Fish even wild fish are subject to contaminates. Not at the hazardous to health level in most cases but contaminated by things we do not want to eat regardless.
      In theory the higher up the food chain you go with fish the worse the contaminate problem is. So shark would be worst, minnows real small fish who eat algae or bugs would be far better, trout for instance. Farmed fish is notorious for contaminates. But it is also a bit source specific. Great lake fish for instance are often very contaminated due to pollution and pregnant women are encouraged to eat very little or none at all. Here in New Mexico you may think fish from the pecos river would be safe and clean. But the hatchery on the pecos is located just south of a old silver mine which was a superfund site. They used the tailings to keep the dust down on the roads and it went into the water with rains….so you never know. If you are not local you think this is a fresh mountain fed stream.
      But so contaminated it still is you are prohibited from even walking on the old silver mine property.

      Whey protein does generally not contain fat. But it may contain contaminates. I would check to see if it has a third party assessment for contaminate free on the label. Protein powders of all sorts recently are testing positive for contaminates. Milk contains what they call IGF-1 factor. Would that translate to whey as it comes from milk..I would guess so. Body builders take Human growth hormone so may not think much bad about IGF-1, as it is a growth hormone. But is does cause cancers to grow inordinately if one has or is prone to that.
      A bodybuilder may actually favor that as they favor taking HGH. But it is not healthy. The only real source of plant IGF-1 is soy protein in large amounts. Others pea rice whatever don’t really have much at all.

      Hope that helps.

      So hope that helps assuming you are focusing on fats and contaminates.

      1. So in short….my read is…
        NO
        NO and probably yes.

        Unless you are really into growing big muscles fast like a bodybuilder I think the potential advantage of whey protein is really minimal compared to potential risk. Animal derived protein is generally not a good thing to eat. Despite the claims of better assimiliation which is pretty much HS…..any good well grown third party assessed for contaiminates plant protein would fit the bill. Organic and try to make sure the plants are not sourced from China, they have problems with maintaining things in a production fashion. ONe of the large companies the nonorganic pea protein is from China.

        Keep in mind that bodybuilder who just died of a heart attack was like 23 or something they also found a pretty significant cancerous growth in him as well….so unless a real top notch going to be pro….it does not make sense to risk that. Soy you have to eat gross amounts to equate to IGF-1 in milk. Something like 15 servings a day. A typical protein drink would probably equate to one serving.

          1. Sure Dallas McCaver, my mistake… he was 26 when he died several months ago.
            Another one Rich Piana who was in his forties died around the same time due to what I read as a stroke though the autopsy was incomplete.

            Here is a link to a story on the autopsy report…. https://www.evolutionary.org/dallas-mccarver-autopsy/
            That one mentions the cancer which almost all the other stories do not mention.

            1. His actual cause of death was a grossly enlarged heart. It was roughly three times the size of a normal persons. Heart size varies but he was only 6 ft 1 I think. It could with normal variance be perhaps being bigger and athletic, maybe a third larger, but three times never. He was not 600 pounds but a young fit but big muscled bodybuilder. More like 300.

              And the cancer was located by his thyroid which means basically it would have been significant with time.
              Rich Piana’s heart was for comparison roughly twice the size of a normal person. Rich was significantly heavier however.
              They found neucrotic tissue in his brain matter. He had fallen and hit his head suffering what appeared to be syncopy in his kitchen.
              Kept him alive on life support. But they did not complete all the toxicology reports for some reason.
              But dead tissue a extensive amount in his brain sounds like he had a stroke which caused the syncopy. His head had not fractured or anything like that and no large recreational drug amounts were found to cause death. His cause of death remains undetermined.

              Dallas was on everything testerone HGH steroids of the most potent source.
              Rich was using steroids for probably 20 plus years. He was suffering from what they now call bigaeroxic…..he could not stop thinking he had to be bigger. It was also how he made his millions basically from you tube and then a supplement company he started.
              Dallas was trying to make it big in the sport in the Olympia.

              Any pretense that pro bodybuilding is healthy went out the door about 1975 or so.

              1. Sure Joe glad to help.
                Another one CT Fletcher just had a heart transplant three days ago I think it is.
                Became vegan about six months ago to try to save what he had left but it was to late.

                Chances he goes back to using steroids…my guess is about 50/50. Another older guy whose income depends on being big.
                And he was never one of the guys real honest about using them. Admitting to use but only in a limited fashion. Looking at him it is clear this is no limited use guy.

                Like Lou Ferrigino saying his health is perfect in a interview two months before hip replacement surgery this area the people in it are rarely honest. Piana was. Arnold is saying all his heart problems are genetic inherited defect…….comical really.
                Wonder if all his other surgeries at least 14 that I know of by a friend of his to include hip replacement are as well…inherited.

                  1. Nah you’re not slipping they keep this under the wraps. Stallone has had one as well.
                    More BS in this field than any other by my take.

                    Just read up on Pete Grynkowski from back in the day. A article had him regretting stopping steroids years ago, he was one of the first mass monsters..owned Golds gym.
                    Well I knew a friend of Pete’s back in the day…..Half his heart gone due to a MI. Can’t even walk up a flight of stairs. He kept using them and it would be by by Pete, Read up on his thinking about this Dallas… Ronnie Coleman looks great…. friend told me he can’t even walk across a room without getting winded.

                    Serge Neubret they say he was just old….nah preparing for a contest he was(some masters thing) and started cycling again..uncontrolled BP stroked out and in a coma for a year before they pulled the plug…but the story is he died natural causes….

                    So don’t beat yourself up on not knowing about this stuff. They actively surpress it.
                    Louie Simmons the powerlifter passes out if he deadlifts. Used to be one of the best in the world at his weight in that. Still advocates fro steroids on them for forty years. Ed Coan….is so messed up he can’t even bench at all. Virtually all of them have hip replacements. Lift heavy augmented squat deep…. spells hip replacement about always. Arnold was known for perfect form going deep and all.

                    1. ‘Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are used increasingly both in the United States and worldwide and HDS induced liver injury in the U.S. has increased proportionally. Current challenges in the diagnosis and management of HDS-induced liver injury were the focus of a 2-day research symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the National Institutes of Health. HDS-induced liver injury now accounts for 20% of cases of hepatotoxicity in the United States based on research data. The major implicated agents include anabolic steroids, green tea extract, and multi-ingredient nutritional supplements (MINS). Anabolic steroids marketed as bodybuilding supplements typically induce a prolonged cholestatic, but ultimately self-limiting liver injury that has a distinctive serum biochemical as well as histological phenotype. Green tea extract and many other products, in contrast, tend to cause an acute-hepatitis like injury. Currently, however, the majority of cases of HDS-associated liver injury are due to MINS, and the component responsible for the toxicity is usually unknown or can only be suspected. ‘
                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502701/

    2. Hello Mrrpar, thanks for your comment.

      Regarding eggs, the only concern about this food is not only the fat or cholesterol content; actually, there are other component that might be harmful for cardiovascular health. For example, the choline content in eggs, can lead can to an increased in plasma levels of the metabolite trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), the more TMAO in your blood, the more changes you have to suffer from heart disease. This is thanks to the action of gut bacteria which turn choline into TMA.

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/egg-industry-response-to-choline-and-tmao/

      Eggs are not the only one which choline content, other foods like milk, fish and poultry have it too.

      https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/879156

      If you’re thinking to take wey protein as a meat replacement or as you main source of this macronutrient, I’m sure you can find much better replacements, like beans, quinoa, soy products, all natural sources.

      More on fish: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/
      More on proteina: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/protein/

      Hope this helps!

  17. I can’t specifically remember what has been said about the white parts of eggs, but I know they’re not good either for specific reasons. Eggs in general are bad for us, I would just do a search on eggs here and watch all the videos he has on them, I’m sure your question is answered in there and then some.

    Our bodies aren’t actually designed to consume animal products and animal protein in general has a negative impact on us, so by that alone there isn’t any fish that’s okay to eat. Some contain more heavy metals and other contaminants than others though. Often, it’s my understanding, that the fish that contain the least heavy metals also have the lowest levels of DHA/EPA which is why many eat fish in the first place. I’d stick to algae for direct DHA/EPA, but I personally just rely on plants and include ground flax daily.

    Why protein is definitely bad for us as is all dairy. I’m not sure how they could measure which is worse or if one is worse than the other because dairy and animal flesh both have many detrimental impacts on human health. I don’t know which would be “healthier” if you were going to have one or the other, but if you want something that’s actually healthful and not harmful I’d just got with a plant alternative. While all plants contain protein, beans, lentils and soy are very good sources if you’re looking for high protein and have many other pretty incredible benefits at the same time.

  18. I checked it out. Not a single search string I entered got any finds. Even things as simple as medicine, dermatology, skin conditions, skin diseases. There are lots of journals that deal with these subjects and that nothing was found makes the site useless for my purpose – trying to find current information.

    1. Cathleen, the comments above explain that it is not a searchable database for materials on various topics. Many of us check the sources that Dr Greger lists under each video, or links to in articles. Our frustration has been that often we cant read the study because its behind a paywall. Often we can only glimpse the abstract. But now, we can copy/paste the title of the study to that site and voila!
      Pubmed as you know is searchable, as is google with a concise search string (probably faster.. its how i do it), then use the site to retreive specific studies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This