The Retractionwatch Inquisition

The Retractionwatch.com website keeps track of which scientific studies are being withdrawn. You can subscribe to it. Their pay-off is: "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process" (Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process). When it comes to corona, however, Retractionwatch (RW) does much more than just 'track'. They also act on studies that are not in line with the corona narrative. RW saw such a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus and promptly contacted the editors. Despite the efforts of eight peer reviewers, this resulted in the decision to retract the article.

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:

"[There is] a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view can’t be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to:

1. We find that the article is misrepresenting all-cause mortality data
2. We find that the article appears to be misrepresenting VAERs data
3. 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.
4. Incorrect claim: Vaccines are gene therapy products.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. The article states that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing, which the journal considers to be incorrect
8. 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.

Point 2: Ditto with regard to VAERS (the American report database). Unclear, unspecified. ("appears to be misrepresenting": Maybe find that out first?)

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: "The mode of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTPs), but they have been excluded by regulatory agencies.") Controversial perhaps, but 'wrong'? In fact, this is a new category that science has not yet fully figured out, in search of a conclusive definition.
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)
All in all, at most, reason to have this controversy mentioned in the paper, but not to retract it...

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.

One such identifiable error is reason enough. I recognize in the reasons given neither the letter nor the spirit of these directives, and where they could apply, it is not specified where the directive would be violated.

The course of events

The pro-active editors (who say they follow withdrawals, not initiate them) of Retractionwatch write:: "A few days after the paper appeared, we asked John Adler Jr., the editor in chief of Cureus, if the track record of the authors concerned him. His response seemed to admit to the risk, but he also defended the journal’s vetting of the paper: "

“Yes I am aware that many of these authors are skeptical zealots when it comes to the dangers of vaccines. Our editorial response was extra vigilance during the peer review process with 8 different reviewers weighing in on publication or not, including a few with strong statistics knowledge. Therefore, a credible peer review process was followed and the chips fell where they may. That is all I can say. If you or other readers were to note fatal flaws in this article now that it is published, i.e. failure to accurately report financial COIs [conflicts of interest], totally erroneous statistical analysis, fake data etc. we will of course re-evaluate at any time."

Ad hominem objections are made on the basis of origin, profession or (often framed) reputation. 'The speaker' is more important than the actual 'what he says'. These ad hominem objections refer not only to 'the track record of the authors' but also to an objection that two epidemiologists had expressed, shot in the face and clearly outclassed. What else can you say if you don't have any arguments? 👇

"The authors completely lack relevant professional qualifications that would allow them to assess the scientific publications on which they rely and/or which they seek to criticize. The authors themselves describe their affiliations under the heading of "Independent Research", or mention private foundations, or in one case they mention an academic discipline that has nothing to do with biology. In short, the authors cannot draw on years of training in biological science, but appear to be self-taught through the "University of 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 the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.

urthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.