this retraction is solely for social media to be able to label it as such with a fake fact check. they don't care what the truth is. They don't care that their misinformation is the most dangerous misinformation.
On the balance of probabilities, this retraction appears to constitute scientific fraud, pure and simple.
On the balance of probabilities, this appears to be a corrupt cover up.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed here.
The journal editors have a case to answer.
They have not demonstrated that this retraction was not motivated by conflict of interest or other improper considerations.
Stigmatizing an author and potentially "perverting the course of science" by favoring one narrative over another should not be undertaken lightly.
Heads must roll!
How long until the paper at the first link below, co-authored by Peter McCullough, meets the same fate?
From Mogwai, commenter in The Daily Sceptic:
Important paper just out. A scientific investigation looking at the alleged protection of the clot shots from severe illness and death.
Conclusion:
”The widely accepted medical narrative today, as if the booster doses of the mRNA vaccines prevent severe illness and deaths despite their failure to protect against infections, lacks scientific support. It is more likely that this proclaimed efficacy against severe illness and deaths is merely a wishful myth, which has no empirically grounded evidence. We therefore openly call for an immediate, even if temporary cessation of the vaccination campaign until real evidence is available, especially considering the critical safety signals, which seem to be downplayed unjustifiably in the medical and scientific discourse.”
I wouldn't call this particular case fraud but I would call it bad form and indicative that the system is rotting. Thanks for the links I'll take a look.
A quick literature search by me revealed no definitions of what may consitute a fraudulent retraction and no research into, or even discussion of, the topic.
There were instances of what appeared to be fraudulent withdrawal by authors, e.g. of a dubious metaseries originally published in The Lancet purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are ineffective in the treatment of COVID-19.
However, there were no instances cited that I could identify of retraction that was or appeared to be intended to "pervert the course of science." I would consider a fraudulent retraction to be one in which there is no evidence of scientific misconduct, egregious errors or ethical violations on the part of the authors of the retracted paper and where there is a clear conflict of interest on the part of journal editors or where retraction stands to benefit a third party or parties, e.g., government, public health bureaucrats , those promoting a particular narrative or a funding source.
Perhaps I should have said "appears" rather than "is" and "appears to constitute" rather than "constitutes."
I might have gone too far but this certainly stinks of fraud in my opinion, even if fraud cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
I may edit my remarks.
Thank you for your comments which are very perceptive as always Rebekah.
You really do a great job and your readers appreciate you and the work you do.
The hit piece in the chronicle of higher learning was most amusing. They entirely relied on a PhD student who, in his many many years of not reviewing literature has become an expert on shoddy covid data. I wonder if he wears a mask?
I try my best not to "judge" people I see wearing masks, but when I see someone wearing a mask in their car, alone, or wearing a mask outside, the desire just overwhelms me!
I very much agree. Of course, most people are just doing their best. But people like that phd student are the sort of people who have scared those poor people you see masked, alone and in their cars. For the people who have foisted this pseudoscientific medical fascism on us, we should reserve all of our disdain. And mock them with extreme prejudice. I think it might be the only way to break the spell.
Every single time I hear someone say, "the narrative is crumbling," I think about examples like this. Among "team reality" the narrative was always B.S. Among "team apocalypse" the narrative--along with the goodness of NPIs, the magic of masks, and the blessings of the vaccine--remains unarguable. When someone says this is not so, we only have to look to results like this retraction.
If you need some help trying to sort through the DAEN data. I’ve scraped it into one big database so that I can make my own queries on it rather than the presets used on their site. Let me know if you have a specific query and I can try to run it for you. I’ve also filled in the blanks on some of those that are missing age data using info from FOI requests.
Also this guy/girls stack (link below), he gave the idea of how to make it easier than I first thought.
He's suggested making revisions as an alternative to retraction. His paper has been censored which means he's not hearing constructive criticism. If you knew what corrections were required then presumably he would make them.
I both admire Skidmore's article and find the underlying method sketchy. The Rasmussen survey on the same topic had 10% of households with a vaccine death and 11% with a COVID death. There are 131 million US households, so that would be about 13 million vaccine and 14 million COVID deaths. How is that possible when the US has 3 million annual deaths?
For uncommon events, surveys maybe tell us how many people are willing to fabricate stories. OTOH, most medical studies on COVID or vax boil down to surveys of doctors who are known to engage in their idea of noble lies.
This is why I prefer the scientific process over censorship. Lots of results, some in agreeance, some conflicting. See what can be replicated, what can't, debate, and figure it out. Censorship disrupts that process.
Bear in mind also that Skidmore said (in his interview with Steve Kirsch) that he has used a similar research format before for a prior paper that sailed through peer review, no problems.
One doesn't "trust" data mr gorski. It's part of the role of science to question, not to trust. The paper should not have been retracted. It should have remained readily accessible and readily able to be critiqued, and the more often the better.
There will come a day of reckoning, I hope, when all those who denied the 'good science' will be led , one by one, in solemn procession, and shuffling in leg irons, up the mountain to the edge of a fiery pit on Mt Doom, and walk the plank into oblivion.
Starting with the chief charlatan, the 'for hire' modeller Neil Ferguson who took the toxic dollar from Bill Gates.
Gates can go next: after contemplating his own doom in the fate of his acolyte and hireling.
Add scientific journals to long list of captured entities. A published peer review study now means as much as a 4th grade science project. Actually less so, as the 4th graders project is purer science.
SOP. There have been several papers that have predictably met the same fate.
The real truth is that the orchestrators and instigators are running out of fingers to put in the holes in the dyke holding back the ocean of death.
For example:
Walach, H.; Klement, R.J.; Aukema,W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693
and
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc* and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Same story over and over again. "The resistance", including this substack writer, spends countless hours producing high quality, super researched and quoted fact-based articles. Yet, to only be dismissed by arrogant, powerful-feeling and/or corrupted people. And the MSM still is the gatekeeper. How long will this be going on? Does it have to get worse before a critical mass gets worried and/or angry with it?
What happened to the moral compass of the enablers? What do they get out of this? When do they get tired of being used and manipulated through fear and propaganda? And more importantly - are the "resistance fighting reserves" waiting to enter the battlefield of opinion? Because every soldier needs a break and needs to recover and recharge to avoid burn-out.
I lately feel fatigued. My blood pressure is too high - for the first time. So I need lightness and fun and humour and love. But I also feel a responsibility to contribute and support.
I am also looking for new deeper strategies. I am tired of spending hours and days researching and proof to the world what is going on. And yet, I can't let it go, either. Once again, I spent the whole morning reading and contributing. I could have done some fun stuff instead.
I think I am done with the "proof stuff". It has been proven over and over and over and over again. By super scientific careful work like the article mentioned in this substack. To what avail? It's redacted, and as one commentator here pointed out, MSM fact-checkers will now use this official redaction to eliminate it from the broader public truth. That's how it works.
I am not saying that the thousands of similar articles produced were useless. Not at all. They, one day, will become very, very important to trial and punish the enablers. Because of all that work, they will never be able to say they didn't know. (However, does anyone keep hard copies at home of these documents? Can they disappear or not as long they are in the cloud?)
I am just wondering what else we could do. A new ingenious strategy that somehow slips through the gates of the MSM and reaches the people directly? No, that's not possible. We have to accept that MSM has access to the majority of people.
We need to use MSM without them knowing it. We need Trojan horses. We need to produce articles that appear to support the narrative of the powerful and, therefore, will be printed and screened to the people but have an underlying profound unconscious message hidden in it that works like a tiny seed of doubt in people's minds.
The totalitarian gatekeepers don't have humour, love, kindness, and laughter, and they don't trust. They are incapable of trusting the unfolding of life. That's why they need to control everything. They are governed by the fear of losing control. This is a spiritual disease. And they are perfect in the controlling game. Control through information at this point. I don't think we can beat them there, as this substack article is so powerfully pointed out.
I am just brainstorming here, people. Please help me because that's another strength we have over them, apart from love, caring, humbleness, humour and kindness. We have a networking open creative structure. They have a hireacharcial structure, a top-down structure.
We are more agile, flexible, quicker and decentralised. They are, by their personality types (mostly obsessive, compulsive, phobic, and controlling), rigid, inflexible, slow and centralised. There must be a way to use that to our advantage. We have to stop playing their game. We have to change the way we fight them.
this retraction is solely for social media to be able to label it as such with a fake fact check. they don't care what the truth is. They don't care that their misinformation is the most dangerous misinformation.
they have no shame.
And you care?
David Gorski, the disgraced and discredited low IQ oncologist and fact checker on the wrong side of history by any chance?
Nope.
The narrative should have crumbled long ago & it’s so appalling that it has not. They keep quadrupling down
Congratulations, Dr. Skidmore - retraction in the current time is a highest badge of honor.
On the balance of probabilities, this retraction appears to constitute scientific fraud, pure and simple.
On the balance of probabilities, this appears to be a corrupt cover up.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed here.
The journal editors have a case to answer.
They have not demonstrated that this retraction was not motivated by conflict of interest or other improper considerations.
Stigmatizing an author and potentially "perverting the course of science" by favoring one narrative over another should not be undertaken lightly.
Heads must roll!
How long until the paper at the first link below, co-authored by Peter McCullough, meets the same fate?
From Mogwai, commenter in The Daily Sceptic:
Important paper just out. A scientific investigation looking at the alleged protection of the clot shots from severe illness and death.
Conclusion:
”The widely accepted medical narrative today, as if the booster doses of the mRNA vaccines prevent severe illness and deaths despite their failure to protect against infections, lacks scientific support. It is more likely that this proclaimed efficacy against severe illness and deaths is merely a wishful myth, which has no empirically grounded evidence. We therefore openly call for an immediate, even if temporary cessation of the vaccination campaign until real evidence is available, especially considering the critical safety signals, which seem to be downplayed unjustifiably in the medical and scientific discourse.”
https://www.jpands.org/vol28no1/ophir.pdf
Accompanying video (13mins ) of the lead author talking about his findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbTwoTMBB6Q&ab_channel=YaakovOphir%2CPhD%7C%D7%93%22%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8
I wouldn't call this particular case fraud but I would call it bad form and indicative that the system is rotting. Thanks for the links I'll take a look.
A quick literature search by me revealed no definitions of what may consitute a fraudulent retraction and no research into, or even discussion of, the topic.
There were instances of what appeared to be fraudulent withdrawal by authors, e.g. of a dubious metaseries originally published in The Lancet purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are ineffective in the treatment of COVID-19.
However, there were no instances cited that I could identify of retraction that was or appeared to be intended to "pervert the course of science." I would consider a fraudulent retraction to be one in which there is no evidence of scientific misconduct, egregious errors or ethical violations on the part of the authors of the retracted paper and where there is a clear conflict of interest on the part of journal editors or where retraction stands to benefit a third party or parties, e.g., government, public health bureaucrats , those promoting a particular narrative or a funding source.
Perhaps I should have said "appears" rather than "is" and "appears to constitute" rather than "constitutes."
I might have gone too far but this certainly stinks of fraud in my opinion, even if fraud cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
I may edit my remarks.
Thank you for your comments which are very perceptive as always Rebekah.
You really do a great job and your readers appreciate you and the work you do.
The hit piece in the chronicle of higher learning was most amusing. They entirely relied on a PhD student who, in his many many years of not reviewing literature has become an expert on shoddy covid data. I wonder if he wears a mask?
I try my best not to "judge" people I see wearing masks, but when I see someone wearing a mask in their car, alone, or wearing a mask outside, the desire just overwhelms me!
I very much agree. Of course, most people are just doing their best. But people like that phd student are the sort of people who have scared those poor people you see masked, alone and in their cars. For the people who have foisted this pseudoscientific medical fascism on us, we should reserve all of our disdain. And mock them with extreme prejudice. I think it might be the only way to break the spell.
Every single time I hear someone say, "the narrative is crumbling," I think about examples like this. Among "team reality" the narrative was always B.S. Among "team apocalypse" the narrative--along with the goodness of NPIs, the magic of masks, and the blessings of the vaccine--remains unarguable. When someone says this is not so, we only have to look to results like this retraction.
good work again. this is what i found in australia. I am a bit more speculative as i consider almost all reported deaths to be vaccine related. i ask on what authority does the tga overrule the doctor making the report. https://blog.justgeorgeous.net/justgeorgeous/current-research/sars-cov-2/tga-database-adverse-event-notification-says-935-deaths-after-covid-vaccine-but-total-is-2631-x10-means-26000-could-have-died-from-the-jab-in-australia/
If you need some help trying to sort through the DAEN data. I’ve scraped it into one big database so that I can make my own queries on it rather than the presets used on their site. Let me know if you have a specific query and I can try to run it for you. I’ve also filled in the blanks on some of those that are missing age data using info from FOI requests.
Also this guy/girls stack (link below), he gave the idea of how to make it easier than I first thought.
https://accaen.substack.com/
It shouldn't need to be said but commenters need to refrain from engaging with "David" and his ilk, it is a pointless exercise.
I do apologise. That is sound advice. I find it very difficult to suffer fools gladly. I'll try harder.
And yet here you are, defending this foolish paper from Skidmore...
Surely the criticisms could have been addressed through revisiond as Skidmore has argued.
That would be great - what corrections has Skidmore done? How has he reacted to the the critique, besides claiming to be the victim?
He's suggested making revisions as an alternative to retraction. His paper has been censored which means he's not hearing constructive criticism. If you knew what corrections were required then presumably he would make them.
What basis is there for your presumption?
I both admire Skidmore's article and find the underlying method sketchy. The Rasmussen survey on the same topic had 10% of households with a vaccine death and 11% with a COVID death. There are 131 million US households, so that would be about 13 million vaccine and 14 million COVID deaths. How is that possible when the US has 3 million annual deaths?
For uncommon events, surveys maybe tell us how many people are willing to fabricate stories. OTOH, most medical studies on COVID or vax boil down to surveys of doctors who are known to engage in their idea of noble lies.
The Rasmussen survey on social circles found virtually the same as Skidmore's. The time frame of the survey was also similar.
‘Died Suddenly’? More Than 1-in-4 Think Someone They Know Died From COVID-19 Vaccines
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/died_suddenly_more_than_1_in_4_think_someone_they_know_died_from_covid_19_vaccines
This is why I prefer the scientific process over censorship. Lots of results, some in agreeance, some conflicting. See what can be replicated, what can't, debate, and figure it out. Censorship disrupts that process.
Bear in mind also that Skidmore said (in his interview with Steve Kirsch) that he has used a similar research format before for a prior paper that sailed through peer review, no problems.
How can you admire someone who publishes sketchy reaserch?
I updated my comment to explain. Observational medical studies are also sketchy, so at least the citizen surveys give some counterweight.
How do you know?
Shit stirrer
At best. Shill for the worst of humanity.
The bandwidth wasters seem to be multiplying. Beware.
Do you don't know if we should trust Skidmore's data?
One doesn't "trust" data mr gorski. It's part of the role of science to question, not to trust. The paper should not have been retracted. It should have remained readily accessible and readily able to be critiqued, and the more often the better.
There will come a day of reckoning, I hope, when all those who denied the 'good science' will be led , one by one, in solemn procession, and shuffling in leg irons, up the mountain to the edge of a fiery pit on Mt Doom, and walk the plank into oblivion.
Starting with the chief charlatan, the 'for hire' modeller Neil Ferguson who took the toxic dollar from Bill Gates.
Gates can go next: after contemplating his own doom in the fate of his acolyte and hireling.
Do you consider Skidmore's paper 'good science'?
I'll leave that call to the experts: I am insufficiently qualified to hold a view on 'Good' v 'Bad' science.
And the paper is question? What is your opinion?
I have no opinion: as I said this is rather a complex and loaded issue.
Did you drive the retraction mr gorkski?
The paper linked to below is good science.
https://www.jpands.org/vol28no1/ophir.pdf
Accompanying video (13mins ) of the lead author talking about his findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbTwoTMBB6Q&ab_channel=YaakovOphir%2CPhD%7C%D7%93%22%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8
Not me. This is all Mark...
Add scientific journals to long list of captured entities. A published peer review study now means as much as a 4th grade science project. Actually less so, as the 4th graders project is purer science.
Great job. I am going to fund the lawsuit to sue the editorial board and publisher. It’s time to go on the offensive.
Thanks Steve. I’d like front row seats for that 🍿
On what grounds?
Hi Rebekah,
Feel like wading into Edward Dowd's recent report?
https://twitter.com/DowdEdward/status/1640734879355682816
Actual report links are here.
Human Cost:
http://www.phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/The%20VDamage%20Project%20-%20Human%20%20Cost.htm
Economic Impact:
http://www.phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/The%20VDamage%20Project%20-%20Economic%20Impact.htm
SOP. There have been several papers that have predictably met the same fate.
The real truth is that the orchestrators and instigators are running out of fingers to put in the holes in the dyke holding back the ocean of death.
For example:
Walach, H.; Klement, R.J.; Aukema,W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693
and
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc* and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Same story over and over again. "The resistance", including this substack writer, spends countless hours producing high quality, super researched and quoted fact-based articles. Yet, to only be dismissed by arrogant, powerful-feeling and/or corrupted people. And the MSM still is the gatekeeper. How long will this be going on? Does it have to get worse before a critical mass gets worried and/or angry with it?
What happened to the moral compass of the enablers? What do they get out of this? When do they get tired of being used and manipulated through fear and propaganda? And more importantly - are the "resistance fighting reserves" waiting to enter the battlefield of opinion? Because every soldier needs a break and needs to recover and recharge to avoid burn-out.
I lately feel fatigued. My blood pressure is too high - for the first time. So I need lightness and fun and humour and love. But I also feel a responsibility to contribute and support.
I am also looking for new deeper strategies. I am tired of spending hours and days researching and proof to the world what is going on. And yet, I can't let it go, either. Once again, I spent the whole morning reading and contributing. I could have done some fun stuff instead.
I think I am done with the "proof stuff". It has been proven over and over and over and over again. By super scientific careful work like the article mentioned in this substack. To what avail? It's redacted, and as one commentator here pointed out, MSM fact-checkers will now use this official redaction to eliminate it from the broader public truth. That's how it works.
I am not saying that the thousands of similar articles produced were useless. Not at all. They, one day, will become very, very important to trial and punish the enablers. Because of all that work, they will never be able to say they didn't know. (However, does anyone keep hard copies at home of these documents? Can they disappear or not as long they are in the cloud?)
I am just wondering what else we could do. A new ingenious strategy that somehow slips through the gates of the MSM and reaches the people directly? No, that's not possible. We have to accept that MSM has access to the majority of people.
We need to use MSM without them knowing it. We need Trojan horses. We need to produce articles that appear to support the narrative of the powerful and, therefore, will be printed and screened to the people but have an underlying profound unconscious message hidden in it that works like a tiny seed of doubt in people's minds.
The totalitarian gatekeepers don't have humour, love, kindness, and laughter, and they don't trust. They are incapable of trusting the unfolding of life. That's why they need to control everything. They are governed by the fear of losing control. This is a spiritual disease. And they are perfect in the controlling game. Control through information at this point. I don't think we can beat them there, as this substack article is so powerfully pointed out.
I am just brainstorming here, people. Please help me because that's another strength we have over them, apart from love, caring, humbleness, humour and kindness. We have a networking open creative structure. They have a hireacharcial structure, a top-down structure.
We are more agile, flexible, quicker and decentralised. They are, by their personality types (mostly obsessive, compulsive, phobic, and controlling), rigid, inflexible, slow and centralised. There must be a way to use that to our advantage. We have to stop playing their game. We have to change the way we fight them.
“But this is the era of the pharma and censorship industrial complexes, and the topic is a sacred cow.”
Thank you Rebekah. Yes I agree. I’m looking forward to what Nick Petrovsky has to say on this very exact topic too.
https://rumble.com/v2gkaiy-nikolai-petrovsky-in-retrospect.html?fbclid=IwAR3o2o7gFb1y25uo9A0mrGDKP3x-9H8YrBm_nEHFH08YkpHpzcCaPkEnXFI