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The Retractionwatch.com website keeps track of which scientific studies are being withdrawn.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: "Het volgen van intrekkingen als een venster op het wetenschappelijke proces" (Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process). However, when it comes to corona, Retractionwatch (RW) does much more than just 'follow'. They also act on studies that do not match 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 withdraw 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.

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:

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.

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.") Controversial perhaps, but 'wrong'? In fact, it is a new category that science has not yet completely 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, there is at most reason to have this controversy mentioned in the paper, but not to withdraw 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 demonstrable error is reason enough. I do not recognize the letter or the spirit of these guidelines in the reasons given and, where I do, 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:: "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 (personal) 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 do not only refer to 'the track record of the authors' but also to an objection that two epidemiologists had expressed, who were offended and clearly outclassed. What can you say if you have no arguments? 👇

"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 the meantime, problems have emerged with the methods, conduct and reporting of these crucial studies. Reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data identified a statistically significant increase in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac abnormalities, and various autoimmune, hematologic, reproductive, and neurological disorders.

Furthermore, these products have never been subjected to adequate safety and toxicology testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Other important topics covered in this narrative review include published analyzes of serious harm to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events, the immunological basis for vaccine inefficacy, and trends in mortality rates based on data from registered trials. The imbalance between risks and benefits supported by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster vaccines and suggests that the mRNA injections should at least be removed from the childhood immunization program until appropriate safety and toxicology studies have been conducted. Federal agencies' approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a general population-wide basis was not based on a fair review of all relevant registration data and an appropriate balance of risks and benefits.

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs (side effects) and the unacceptably high harm-benefit ratio, we urge governments to adopt a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions regarding causality, residual DNA and aberrant protein production are answered.