Retraction scandal update
By now you’ve hopefully read my report from the weekend about the alleged forced retraction of a Covid vaccine cancer-risk study (the ‘Jiang and Mei paper’) after it generated a huge amount of publicity.
The exposé has ignited a lot of discussion, including some posts I want to recommend to you…
The Jiang and Mei story is just one of many examples of papers showing Covid vaccine harms, which pass peer-review but are later retracted following an activist witch hunt. Examples that come to mind are Mark Skidmore’s paper estimating 290,000 Covid vaccine fatalities for 2021 in the US (Skidmore was eventually exonerated and his paper published in a different journal), and several papers by Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, Jessica Rose and colleagues showing various Covid vaccine harms.
We knew that activist pile-ons precipitated such retractions, but we couldn’t prove that they were the reason for the retractions… until the Jiang and Mei paper.
“This could be the first time that political pressure has been proven to have been exerted to force the retraction of a valid scientific paper of such significance,” says Dr Ah Kahn Syed (Arkmedic) in a follow up post to mine.
Arkmedic’s ‘GileadGate Exposed,’ delves into the vested interests of key players involved in the Jiang and Mei retraction. It involves biopharma company Gilead, the NIH, Wuhan and CRISPR. A must-read:
Kevin McKernan Anandamide discusses the “unholy” Jiang and Mei retraction in a post called ‘The Church of Peer Review.’
Being a genomics scientist, Kevin is able to chime in on the reason proffered by Jiang for retraction of his own paper:
”The retraction argument given was an absurd questioning of the use of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in biological assays. To retract this paper over that assay will make 1000 other papers fall. It was clearly political to those of us watching closely but we didn’t have the proof until Rebekah Barnett FOIA’d their ass and revealed what had really gone on.”
Then he riffs on the problem with peer-review more generally, and the religious reverence and dogmatism some scientists exhibit. One of Kevin’s favourite sayings is that only 50% of peer-reviewed science is reproducible. Therefore, he makes the case that reproduction of results is a more important indicator of the reliability of scientific findings than whether a paper has passed through peer-review or not.
John Davidson also shares some more detail on his background investigative work on the Jiang and Mei retraction, focusing particularly on the NIH connection:
With the cancer-risk cover-up being exposed in the Jiang and Mei retraction scandal, Steve Kirsch also highlighted one of my earlier posts discussing the latest scientific evidence that Covid vaccines can cause cancer formation. Timely, as we keep seeing in the news that cancer is on the rise in young people - in countries where the same age groups were heavily vaccinated for Covid.
Two new studies suggest mRNA Covid vaccines can contribute to cancer formation
A new preprint provides evidence that the spike protein of both SARS-CoV-2 and mRNA vaccinations inhibits an important tumor suppressor protein, which may lead to increased incidence of cancer. The preprint, titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 spike S2 subunit inhibits p53 activation of p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells
Finally, a personal note. I’m on a brief holiday in Bali. I had planned to base myself here and work from Bali for the winter (I so hate cold Perth winters), however a family emergency has nixed our plans and I will be returning home to Perth this weekend. Due to family circumstances, I will be a little quieter on here over the coming weeks.
This has also given me pause to reflect that, in truth, the pace at which I’ve been posting over the past month or two has been a bit much - it’s not sustainable. I’m a bit of a magpie. Every day there are so many interesting things to report on and I want to pick up everything shiny and investigate it further. But I am a team of one, and it’s simply not possible!
Over the coming weeks and months, as I do what I can while balancing family obligations, I will also work towards a more manageable and sustainable publishing schedule for the foreseeable. This means I’ll try to be more conscious in my decisions about what to report on, so that I can consistently deliver high-quality articles on issues that matter to you, and that the mainstream is not covering, or not covering well. So, dear readers, please do let me know in the comments which topics you enjoy reading about the most from this blog, and if there are any particular areas you’d like to see me cover.
Terima kasih, and see you next week.
To support my work, share, subscribe, and/or make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account. Thanks!
"please do let me know in the comments which topics you enjoy reading about the most"
Write about what you feel is important. Start pandering to us and you are doomed...
Health is no longer synonymous to well being. The US Army spent 5 trillions dollars to turn health institutions worldwide into whores.