The journal Cureus on Monday retracted the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries.
The paper, published last month, detailed the vaccines' potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind adverse events, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.
"I am suspicious that Kersjes and Springer Nature were pressured by the powerful Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex of coordinated public health organizations, vaccine manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to censor our paper to keep critical vaccine safety information from getting to the medical community."We rejected the retraction, fully appealed and will report this unethical action to all relevant authorities as we move on to publish elsewhere.
The letter from Kersjes specified concerns with claims the authors made about all-cause mortality data, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System data, the number of deaths from vaccination versus lives saved, possible vaccine contamination, their assertion that the vaccines did not undergo proper safety and efficacy testing, the "incorrect" statement that spike proteins linger in the body and can cause adverse effects and that the vaccines are gene therapy products.
In a recent op-ed published in JAMA, Stanford epidemiologist Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis argued that peer review and scientific publication are at a "crossroads" and called for research on the topic for an upcoming conference.
Even preprint servers - which post scientific papers while they go through peer review and have no peer review process themselves - are being used to censor scholarly papers critical of the CDC and policy errors made by the Biden administration, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH. Prasad found that 38% of his lab's submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed - even though those same articles eventually were published in journals and extensively downloaded.
Some top publishers like Taylor & Francis, and top journals like Science Magazine, have published articles about COVID-19 origins, for example, that "violated their own ethical policies and flouted their own norms for peer review" - by obscuring the names of major contributors such as Wuhan collaborator and University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric, Ph.D., or greenlighting papers with "basically no peer-review.
No comments:
Post a Comment