The Retractionwatch.com website keeps track of which scientific studies are being withdrawn. You can subscribe to it. Their pay-off is: "Het volgen van intrekkingen als een venster op het wetenschappelijke proces" (Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process). Als het om corona gaat, doet Retractionwatch (RW) echter veel meer dan alleen 'volgen'. Zij acteren ook op studies die niet stroken met het corona-narratief. RW zag zo'n studie gepubliceerd in het peer reviewed blad Cureus en nam prompt contact op met de redactie. Dit resulteerde, ondanks de inzet van acht peer reviewers, tot het besluit om het artikel in te trekken.
At the time of writing, we are in the period in which the authors have the opportunity to defend themselves. (EDIT: on February 25, they filed a defense. The article below appears to be a brief representation of this. Read the Full letter here)
It's about https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/. The authors who have worked like a red rag to a bull are undoubtedly: Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch and Peter A. McCullough. I don't know the other names: M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfingerand Kris Denhaerynck.
It is one of the most read and downloaded articles ever on Cureus, along with a high SIQ (Scholarly Impact Quotient). Every download of the PDF helps to further increase the statistics. If you are medically active in any way, give a SIQ score (read it first!).
We look at the reasons for withdrawal and try to assess their value. We compare them with the guidelines that the Commission on Publication Ethics has set up.
Of what happened behind the scenes, we only know what RW wants to say about it (see below) but Cureus finally backed down. We'll see if we get that. Now the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE) states that a notice of withdrawal must include the reasons for withdrawal. So we're curious! What reasons are there in the letter the Cureus editors write to the authors:
"[Er is] een aanzienlijk aantal problemen met uw artikel, problemen die naar onze mening niet kunnen worden verholpen met een correctie. De zorgen omvatten, maar zijn niet beperkt tot:
- We find that the article is misrepresenting all-cause mortality data
- We find that the article appears to be misrepresenting VAERs data
- The article states that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine saved two lives and caused 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, and the Moderna vaccine saved 3.9 lives and caused 10.8 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, though there does not appear to be convincing evidence for this claim.
- Incorrect claim: Vaccines are gene therapy products.
- The article states that vaccines are contaminated with high levels of DNA. Upon review we found that the cited references are not sufficient to support these claims.
- The article states that SV40 promoter can cause cancer because SV40 virus can cause cancer in some organisms and inconclusively in humans. However, we find that this is misrepresenting the cited study (Li, S., MacLaughlin, F., Fewell, J. et al. Muscle-specific enhancement of gene expression by incorporation of SV40 enhancer in the expression plasmid. Gene Ther 8, 494–497 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301419
- The article states that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing, which the journal considers to be incorrect
- The article incorrectly states that spike proteins produced by COVID-19 vaccination linger in the body and cause adverse effects.
Eight points, where a single point suffices
We may assume that these are the most weighty objections, and there are journalists who enthusiastically run a yellow marker over all sorts of sour-sounding terms. Do they make sense? Let's also look at them with a more critical eye.
Some points are so aspecific that they cannot be contradicted, such as points 1 and 2.
Point 1: Total mortality (ACM) is mentioned repeatedly in the study and various analyses are referred to that deal with ACM. It is unclear where what goes wrong and why.
Punt 2: Idem dito wat betreft VAERS (de Amerikaanse meldingendatabase). Onduidelijk, niet gespecificeerd. (" verkeerd lijkt": is daar twijfel over?)
Point 3: The 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations is the calculation of a scenario under certain assumptions, which are clearly specified earlier. Those who do not find those assumptions plausible should explain that instead of pressuring the publisher.
Item 4: Whether mRNA vaccines are covered by 'gene therapy' is A point of controversy (Quoting from that cited study: "Het werkingsmechanisme van COVID-19 mRNA-vaccins kenmerkt ze als gentherapieproducten (GTP's), maar ze zijn uitgesloten door regelgevende instanties.") Controversieel misschien, maar 'fout'? Het gaat in feite om een nieuwe categorie waar de wetenschap nog niet helemaal uit is, op zoek naar een sluitende definitie.
The experts working on it maintain that it is not gene therapy. This is reminiscent of virologists who maintain drip contamination for respiratory viruses because it allows them to work under a milder regime. The approval of gene therapy vaccines, for example, would not have gone as smoothly. Some think it is wise not to call it gene therapy, to take the wind out of the sails of anti-vaxxers. Others feel that you insert genetic material to prevent a disease and therefore it may be called gene therapy, just like the gene therapies that have so far aimed at permanently altering genetic material in the body. (Source)
Al met hooguit reden om deze controverse te laten benoemen in het paper, maar toch niet om het in te trekken...
Especially not when you hear a member of Bayer's Board of Directors say that thanks to vaccines, the population has begun to think more positively about gene therapy. There are two presuppositions in that: vaccines were a success and are gene therapy. Bayer itself is betting heavily on gene therapy so is happy with that development. (All fact checkers, by the way, are wringing their hands to impute a different meaning to that plain language.)
Point 5: Vaccine batches vary widely in purity. It has been confirmed by multiple laboratories that vaccines have been distributed that far exceed the maximum DNA residue standard. What is in the article are correct paraphrases of what is in the cited studies. If errors were made in the process, you would expect at least some examples of that.
I am not in a position to assess point 6. The monkey virus SV40 was in some vaccines produced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Many studies were done on it because it was associated with the development of cancer. This has led to strict regulations. Current vaccines are supposed to be free of the SV40 virus thanks to improved manufacturing processes and those stricter regulations. That is not for nothing, but it may indeed not be stated in the reference. For me, that wasn't relevant enough to buy the item.
Point 7: The mRNA vaccines did not receive adequate testing, if only because the long-term effects were never considered, the trials themselves were reported in questionable ways, and a different product was tested than was distributed.
Point 8: Autopsies have shown that the vaccine spikes were present in vaccinated people weeks and even months after the injection, even in vital sites such as the brain and reproductive organs. Fatal heart disease has been undeniably caused by the vaccine spike. The mechanism has been proven, we don't yet know how often it occurs.
COPE: Reasons for withdrawal
The Commission on Publication Ethics COPE rules Here's when editors should consider retracting a publication. This is in one or more of the following cases:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
- It constitutes plagiarism
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
- It contains material or data without authorisation for use
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
- It reports unethical research
- It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
- The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Eén zo'n aanwijsbare fout is al reden genoeg. Ik herken in de gegeven redenen noch de letter, noch de geest van deze richtlijnen en waar dat wel zo is wordt niet geconcretiseerd waar de richtlijn zou worden geschonden.
The course of events
The pro-active editors (who say they follow withdrawals, not initiate them) of Retractionwatch write:: "Een paar dagen na het verschijnen van het artikel vroegen we John Adler Jr., de hoofdredacteur van Cureus, of de staat van dienst van de auteurs hem zorgen baarde. In zijn antwoord leek hij het risico toe te geven, maar hij verdedigde ook de beoordeling van het artikel door het tijdschrift:"
"Ja, ik ben me ervan bewust dat veel van deze auteurs sceptische fanatiekelingen zijn als het gaat om de gevaren van vaccins. Onze redactionele reactie hierop was extra waakzaamheid tijdens het peer review proces met 8 verschillende recensenten die hun mening gaven over het al dan niet publiceren van het artikel, waaronder een paar met veel kennis van statistiek. Er werd dus een geloofwaardig peer review proces gevolgd en de spaanders vielen waar ze mochten. Dat is alles wat ik kan zeggen. Als jij of andere lezers fatale fouten in dit artikel zouden opmerken nu het gepubliceerd is, zoals het niet nauwkeurig rapporteren van financiële COI's [belangenconflicten], totaal foutieve statistische analyses, vervalste gegevens, enz. dan zullen we dit natuurlijk te allen tijde opnieuw evalueren. De beslissing die Cureus nam, staat in schril contrast met de redactionele beslissing van Elsevier om het artikel te censureren op basis van ad hominem-bezwaren."
Ad hominem (op de persoon spelende) bezwaren worden gemaakt op basis van afkomst, beroep of (vaak geframede) reputatie. 'De spreker' is belangrijker dan het feitelijke 'wat hij zegt'. Met die ad hominem bezwaren wordt niet alleen gedoeld op 'de staat van dienst van de auteurs' maar ook op een bezwaar dat twee epidemiologen hadden geuit, in hun wiek geschoten en duidelijk overklast. Wat kun je nog roepen als je geen argumenten hebt? 👇
"Het ontbreekt de auteurs volledig aan relevante professionele kwalificaties die hen in staat zouden stellen om de wetenschappelijke publicaties te beoordelen waarop ze zich baseren en/of die ze proberen te bekritiseren. De auteurs beschrijven hun affiliaties zelf onder de noemer "Onafhankelijk Onderzoek", of noemen privéstichtingen, of in één geval maken ze melding van een academische discipline die niets met biologie te maken heeft. Kortom, de auteurs kunnen niet putten uit een jarenlange opleiding in de biologische wetenschap, maar lijken autodidact te zijn via de "Universiteit van Google".
Why was that study withdrawn? What prompted Cureus to do this, after their initial clear position?
It must be the content.
The title and the Abstract:
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign
Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms.
In de tussentijd zijn er problemen aan het licht gekomen met de methoden, uitvoering en rapportage van deze cruciale onderzoeken. Heranalyse van de Pfizer-studiegegevens identificeerde een statistisch significante toename van ernstige ongewenste voorvallen (SAE's) in de vaccingroep. Er werden talloze SAE's geïdentificeerd na de Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), waaronder overlijden, kanker, hartafwijkingen en verschillende autoimmuun-, hematologische, reproductieve en neurologische aandoeningen.
Bovendien werden deze producten nooit onderworpen aan adequate veiligheids- en toxicologische tests in overeenstemming met eerder vastgestelde wetenschappelijke normen. Tot de andere belangrijke onderwerpen die in dit verhalende overzicht aan bod komen, behoren de gepubliceerde analyses van ernstige schade aan mensen, kwaliteitscontroleproblemen en procesgerelateerde onzuiverheden, mechanismen die ten grondslag liggen aan bijwerkingen, de immunologische basis voor de inefficiëntie van vaccins en trends in sterftecijfers op basis van de gegevens van geregistreerde onderzoeken. De onbalans tussen risico's en voordelen die door het bewijsmateriaal tot nu toe wordt gestaafd, is een contra-indicatie voor verdere boostervaccins en suggereert dat de mRNA-injecties op zijn minst uit het kinderimmunisatieprogramma moeten worden verwijderd totdat de juiste veiligheids- en toxicologische onderzoeken zijn uitgevoerd. De goedkeuring door de federale instanties van de COVID-19 mRNA-vaccins op een algemene populatiebrede basis was niet gebaseerd op een eerlijke beoordeling van alle relevante registratiegegevens en een gepaste afweging van risico's en voordelen.
Gezien de uitgebreide, goed gedocumenteerde SAE's (bijwerkingen) en de onaanvaardbaar hoge schade-batenverhouding, dringen we er bij regeringen op aan om een wereldwijd moratorium op de gemodificeerde mRNA-producten goed te keuren totdat alle relevante vragen met betrekking tot causaliteit, rest-DNA en afwijkende eiwitproductie zijn beantwoord.
Project Avalon: a website for all vaccination damage reports. Since the beginning of 2021. From real people with real videos. Shocking. Not scientific blah-blah.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113668-Vaccination-Injuries-On-Record-for-Covid19
Yes, very much so. But in the comment sections I like to keep the focus on the article under which the comment is posted.
Dus je stelt intrekking voor?
Ach, zo belangrijk is mijn blog niet. En ik probeer mijn censuurscore op 0 te houden.
Excellent analysis about the Inquisition Anton. Totally agree. Of course, that Retraction Watch is the fact-checker of Science's only source: Big Brother.
I responded to the text in Point 8
"Autopsies have shown that the vaccine spikes were present in vaccinated people for weeks and even months after the injection, even in vital sites such as the brain and reproductive organs. Fatal heart disease has been undeniably caused by the vaccine spike. The mechanism has been proven, we don't yet know how often it occurs."
We now know how often this occurs, very often, but that all references to it do not pass the censorship, or are removed at lightning speed.
Dr. John Campbell continued this interview with Prof. Dalgliesh on his YouTube, with 2 links to his book, but there is nothing there, empty. https://youtu.be/sz6zMZMDoO0?si=ZU3Y0vLy1u3gdp3D
This very first important study on vaccine safety, by WOO researcher Wouter Aukema et al. see also X @waukema, was also labeled as Retracted! "The Safety of Covid Vaccinations: Should we Rethink our Policy?" "The Safety of Covid Vaccinations: Should We Review Our Policy?"
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1726#:~:text=The%20peer%20reviewed%20article%2C%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Safety%20of%20Covid%2D19%20Vaccinations%E2%80%94We%20Should%20Rethink%20the%20Policy%2C%E2%80%9D%20misinterpreted%20data%20to%20conclude%20that%20%E2%80%9Cfor%20three%20deaths%20prevented%20by%20vaccination%20we%20have%20to%20accept%20two%20inflicted%20by%20vaccination.%E2%80%9D1
In 2020, that other previous retracted.org website still existed.
Retracted studies are never deleted, it says online, but you have to put in a lot of effort to find them.
Here is the original article on researchgate.net
June 2021
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352706788_The_Safety_of_COVID-19_Vaccinations_-_We_Should_Rethink_the_Policy
Summary:
"Currently, we see 16 serious adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations and the fatal adverse event rate is 4.11/100,000 vaccinations.
For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we must accept two deaths caused by vaccination
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefits should prompt governments to rethink their vaccination policies."
Anton, couple of comments:
-The article can still be seen on Cureus. So I think that's good news.
-To make a judgment, you have to read it. I downloaded it and printed it, I find it more pleasant to read. Now halfway there. Have other things to do:-). But a neat line-up of everything that has gone wrong around these injections. Worth saving.
The pattern is always the same. There is a well-thought-out report that indicates, based on facts, what is wrong in the 'safe and effective' narrative. Next, the 'fact checkers' do not go into the facts (what do you mean fact checkers) but criticize the authors on their background (ad hominem). Another variant is that people start looking for nails at low tide. Spelling mistakes or irrelevant things that don't add up and discredit the entire article. I see that happening with Herman Steigstra's articles.
Still mass psychosis?
We are still in the period that formally offers the authors the opportunity to formulate a rebuttal. Retracted articles can also still be read, with a clear "RETRACTED" watermark on each page and a reference to what is wrong with them. At least that's the use.
The authors themselves are also taking action.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe26a6110-2117-4873-96d7-75afa6ab25db_1683x1328.png?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It is striking that the person behind the withdrawal is a certain Tim Kerjses. That doesn't just sound Dutch, but apparently he received his education in Groningen. What a small country can be great at.
Het is ongehoord. https://virusvaria.nl/studie-ingetrokken-ondanks-onderbouwd-verweer-science-verslaat-de-wetenschap/
Update in
https://virusvaria.nl/studie-ingetrokken-ondanks-onderbouwd-verweer-science-verslaat-de-wetenschap/