Executive summary
The scientific journals have been getting away with unethical retractions for decades.
They unethically retracted our paper, “
The paper convinced Dr. Boz to finally talk about the elephant in the room
When Dr. Boz, a very popular doctor on YouTube, heard about our paper, she read it and it changed her thinking. This is precisely why the journal wanted to retract it… because it was a compelling article that would change minds.
Watch this video entitled “The biggest crime in the history of medicine” where Dr. Boz finally confronts the elephant in the room after avoiding it for years. What caused her to do that? Our paper!!! That’s the kind of impact it had. That’s why the journal sought to retract it; because it had an impact.
Now, watch this video of Dr. Boz after she learned the paper was retracted. She is livid that the journal retracted the paper. The title of the video was “Paper retracted. Was I duped?”
Short story, she’s livid that the paper was unethically retracted.
She had exactly the same reaction we did… it’s complete bullshit and she even zeroed in on the same “sticks out like a sore thumb” reason that they gave, e.g., “the trials were adequate.” Editors cannot retract a paper based on their OPINION the FDA did a thorough safety test of the vaccine. This reason being bogus is obvious to everyone that the paper was not withdrawn consistent with COPE Guidelines. You cannot withdraw a paper based on opinion. It must be a significant error of FACT.
Other articles:
-
Scientific Censorship – lessons NOT learned (Jessica Rose)
We also received letters from the academic community and some of the reviewers on how appalled that they were that the paper was retracted.
We were the #1 paper in popularity on Cureus with an SIQ rating of 9.3 which is EXTREMELY high. They revoke the SIQ rating when they revoke the paper.
Email from a Springer author to the editor of the journal
Note, we received many such emails, too numerous to include in this article. Here’s one of them:
Dear Dr. Adler,
I am writing to you to express grave concern regarding the retraction of the above paper and to request information about the procedure and the reasons, or about the proper addressee to express concern.
I have published with your journal twice and also been a referee, and whether I will further use your journal as an outlet or make myself available for volunteer refereeing will depend on your answer. I am also an editor of a book-series with Springer Nature, which is the second reason for my concern, as your journal has become part of this group as of December 2022.
I have looked carefully at the paper by Mead and colleagues. I could detect nothing that would justify a retraction from a scientific point of view. The paper’s arguments are well supported by data and references. I can see no violation of good scientific practice. The paper is a narrative review and it couches its conclusions in that framework, even though they might be unwelcome. If harsh or unscientific language is the problem, or conclusions too rigorous, given the material presented, then a corrigendum would be the editorially correct way to deal with such problems.
The COPE guidelines know three major reasons for retractions: a) plagiarism, b) manipulation or faking of data, c) wrong analytical or statistical procedures. Which ones of these reasons do apply here?
I am not aware that this paper is plagiarized. There are no data here except those that are already published and properly referenced by the authors, and there is no analytical or statistical procedure that could be possibly wrong.
Hence, there might have been some conclusions that some people did not like. This is actually the way of science, and I feel that the weaponization of retraction as a means of silencing scientific and/or political dissens does great harm to the integrity of science and how the public views it.
I would be therefore very much obliged if you would give me the precise reasons for that retraction and by whom the allegations were made. I know that you might be saying that you cannot give me this information due to reasons of data protection. I would argue: authors are obliged to make transparent their conflicts of interest, while the retraction business blooms in the nebulous climate of anonymous allegations, where powerful people with conflicts of interest are in a position to pressurize editors into actions.
I can confirm that I will not share any piece of such information or make it public, should you share it with me, but it would be important for me to know. And thus I am looking forward to your answering my questions.
Collegial greetings
<redacted>
Summary
It’s an open secret. All the scientific journals have gotten away with this sort of unethical behavior in the past.
Most academic authors just rollover when this happens because it’s an unfair system with the journals holding all the cards.
But I’m not most academic authors. I have zero tolerance for these kinds of games, especially when my name is on the paper.
I hired a private investigator and dug up what really happened. It was unethical behavior and I have the evidence and will nail them to the wall in court. I can promise you that.
They’ve gotten away with this unethical behavior for decades.
It’s time for this to stop so that the medical community will finally learn the truth about the COVID vaccines.
If you like what I’m doing and want to help support my lawsuit and hold these journals accountable for their actions, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to my newsletter for just $5 a month. Thanks!