Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan and the Cats – Summary

Appendix to Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan and their cats – afterthought

🎧 Podcast “Peer Review Attacks” - impressie

Timeline with observations

Format: Identified problem / (Possible) explanation/solution

🕐 0:00:00 – 0:04:00 Opening and aftermath of the congressional hearing

Reported problem
Rose and McKernan describe the period after their hearing in the US Congress, where their paper on residual DNA and SV40 sequences in mRNA vaccines was entered into evidence. Since then, they have received large amounts of troll emails, investigations into their work by outsiders, and threats of retractions and retractions.

(Possible) explanation
Publications that deviate from the prevailing security narratives are immediately subject to organized reputation checks. Increased public visibility activates the informal network of interdependent institutions: universities, journals, regulators and funds with shared financiers and shared interests, if only because they quickly painted themselves into the same corner. The result is a form of self-preservation within an intertwined system in which pharmaceutical and regulatory interests can hardly be separated.

🕐 0:04:00 – 0:10:00 Institutional opposition and 'investigations'

Reported problem
After publication of their paper, the journal launched an internal investigation within eleven days, due to complaints from people claiming “scientific integrity”.
The authors note that the complaints themselves were sometimes formulated with AI tools and turned out to be incorrect (while journals actually try to capture AI contributions, when someone submits output from an AI as their own contribution). They were also contacted by the police over online threats.

(Possible) explanation
A network of pharmaceutical-related nonprofits is putting pressure on journals through complaint procedures. Substantive assessment makes way for social and political consideration. 'Research' is used instrumentally to buy time and undermine the authors' credibility without substantive refutation.

🕐 0:10:00 – 0:14:00 Interweaving of organizations (PubPeer – Retraction Watch)

Reported problem
De klachten werd door Retraction Watch en PubPeer publiek gemaakt met gelekte peer‑reviewers. (Ze noemen het in de podcast ook "Distraction Watch" en "Pub smear", het is een gezellige boel 😀 ) Die overtredingen van COPE‑regels (vertrouwelijkheid van reviewproces) bleven onbestraft. Financiering bleek gedeeld via de Arnold Foundation.

(Possible) explanation
The intended separation between scientific control and media monitoring does not actually exist: both are propelled by the same funds, with the importance of ensuring that the official chain of trust - magazine, fact-check site, mainstream journalism - remains intact, in order to prevent data controversy in the public space.

🕐 0:14:11 – 0:22:00 The myocarditis paper and previous cases

Reported problem
Rose's previously published analysis of myocarditis in young people was “retracted without cause” by the journal – formally an editorial choice. It was suggested that the authors themselves had retracted the article, which was not the case. (Do we all understand this correctly? How a scientific journal simply lies?)

(Possible) explanation
Journals use vague terminology to avoid legal responsibility and blur publication history. This keeps potential safety signals out of the literature without having to openly admit that there was pressure.

🕐 0:22:00 – 0:30:00 Automated image analysis and odd application of 'fraud detection'

Reported problem
Platforms such as PubPeer use AI (such as ImageTwin software, including by Elizabeth Bik) to reduce duplications and non-human content to find. However, these are applied through selective enforcement: critical papers are publicly condemned, similar errors in policy-supporting studies are ignored, at least that is the observation of Rose and McKernan. (Jessica probably saw the outlines of a new substack article emerging here)

(Possible) explanation
Use of AI detection without transparency about tolerance limits offers room for selective interpretation. In practice, this leads to asymmetric enforcement that follows political or financial preferences rather than methodological criteria.

🕐 0:30:00 – 0:36:00 Suppression of preprints and data archives

Reported problem
Work that questions the narrative around virus origins or vaccine safety is already filtered at preprint level. Cold Spring Harbor Lab is said to have “refused papers for non-technical reasons.”

(Possible) explanation
Central preprint servers maintain policy agreements with sponsors and journals. The argument “not suitable for the target group” acts as a gatekeeper for future careers and protection of institutional partnerships.

🕐 36:00 – 44:00 Digital publishing on Nostr and Bitcoin -> solution moved down, similar topics first

🕐 0:44:00 – 0:56:00 MERS research and gain-of-function signaling

Reported problem
A new researcher is said to have found remains of laboratory experiments with MERS viruses with unusually high mortality rates in public sequence databases. The preprint was delayed or removed before publication.

(Possible) explanation
Confirmation of unauthorized gain-of-function research would directly blame policy and international partnerships. Institutes prevent publication to minimize legal liability and financial damage.

🕐 0:56:00 – 1:07:00 Health effects and population impact

Reported problem
The speakers highlighted continued ambiguity regarding the integration of mRNA components, reduced fertility, and increased cancer signals in some populations such as Japan.

(Possible) explanation
Lack of open safety data and delayed review procedures prevent verification of connections. Because structural recognition would open up massive liability, the investigation remains frozen in unspoken silence.

🕐 1:07:00 – 1:20:00 Economic and research ethics patterns

Reported problem
The incentives behind publication are worked out within the podcast: authors pay thousands of dollars for publication and lose that money if retracted; editors and funds share financial interests.

(Possible) explanation
The publication model is economically linked to number of articles and impact factors. A socially critical paper does not generate advertising revenue or subsidy points. The market structure itself punishes deviating science financially.

🕐 1:20:00 – 1:35:00 Redesign of peer review

Reported problem
McKernan outlines an alternative: open review with economic bounties, blockchain tracking and direct compensation for replication research.

(Possible) explanation
Decentralization replaces trust with transparency. An open financial ecosystem would make the 'price' of scientific control visible and reduce conflicts of interest. New technology can make institutional gatekeepers technically redundant.

🕐 0:36:00 – 0:44:00 Digital publishing on Nostr and Bitcoin

Reported problem
Irrational and interest-driven interventions by the important journals.

(Possible) explanation
The authors discuss ways to circumvent closed and non-transparent publishing systems by using decentralized platforms such as Nostr and Bitcoin blockchains for authentication and persistent storage so that content cannot be deleted. Science could therefore once again become transparent and verifiable, without economic or ideological filtering.

(Note: After publication, the authors themselves should pay peer reviewers to promote their findings, but I don't think Jess and Kev realize that this will result in a similar network structure. They are still scientists, aren't they? Bonds, friends, money: micro-social laws of nature are not so easily set aside. Old Boys Network replaced by New Kids Network: from the rain to the drip?)

🕐 1:35:00 – 1:40:00 Final observation

Reported problem
The speakers conclude that the current system is no longer repairable; it must be rebuilt upon full public inspection of data and review. They reject the idea that “disinformation” is a definable concept as long as data is not public.

(Possible) explanation
Transparency becomes the only possible regulator here. Truth cannot be centrally certified, only distributedly traced. A solution that is undesirable for institutions, because they lose their mandate as soon as everyone can see for themselves what is true.

And what about the cats?

You'll have to watch the podcast for that.