Last year I explained how the famous Nature journal gleefully identified mechanistic links between COVID-19 and cancer, and were somehow uninterested in my response pointing out that the same applies for COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, but it’s now been published elsewhere, and peer-reviewed, in dedicated cancer journal Oncotarget. Source.
While acknowledging the increasing evidence linking the jabs with cancer, I logically note that if we are to be concerned with COVID potentially causing cancer because of things like “COVID-19’s ability to cause inflammation, raise IL-6 levels, and raise helper T cell levels”, we should have the same concern over the jabs which do all that and more. I also point out the ironic fact that much of this evidence comes from the Nature family of journals. I also allude to the double standards in research on the jabs: good news from observational studies is championed, and bad news is downplayed as it’s not gold standard evidence and can’t prove causation.
Okay then.
But there’s more to the story. I might actually get my first retraction here.* After perusing what ‘the mouse’ and Kevin McKernan (remember that awesome article about DNA contamination in the jabs?) had to say on efforts to get his published research retracted it became quickly obvious that the same people have me in their crosshairs. Source. People like the well-supported and well-funded Lonni Besançon, who earlier spread lies about my Australian excess deaths article on social media, all the while admitting that he never read it! Before I even had a chance to let you all know about my little Oncotarget commentary paper a multitude of critical comments appeared on PubPeer. Really pathetic stuff, though I responded anyway. Comments about what my actual affiliation is (confusion perhaps caused by The University of Sydney cutting me off officially - just one of the many ways in which the powers that be have tried to destroy my life) and whether the incontestable points I made about the jabs were actually supported by the references I cited (these are all well-accepted by the scientific community, like the jabs raising helper T cell levels). Shouldn’t my actual points be refuted? Oh, they can’t. This is really dodgy but I don’t really see it as a negative to dwell on, more as a badge of honour. I just focus on my own mental health, my ongoing case, and associated research, and share it with anyone who is keen. One bit of sweet lemonade I get out of these lemons is that I am filled with even more confidence that in this ‘field’ where almost everyone’s motives are being questioned people like Kevin McKernan (who I’ve had good interactions with online), David Speicher (who I am yet to have any dealings with), and the always good value Jessica Rose (who I met in Washington and share a love of yo momma jokes with, ditto Ryan Cole) are real ones.
Okay then.
*Extra: None of my published research on COVID thus far has been retracted! I’ve been pretty careful and nuanced. Like how the experts and authorities during COVID weren’t. There have been silly responses that I could immediately debunk, as per my follow-up to the Australian excess deaths article. And there was one response, to JECP4, that was so bad that the journal editor didn’t let me respond, they just removed it - it was that bad. But I haven’t had any of mine retracted. Yet…
If it gives you any hope, the Speicher article is not yet retracted. Its been under investigation for nearly a year... but once you see the connections between Taylor & Francis "Research Integrity Team" to PubSmear via Nick Wise... Im not holding my breath. In many ways the Investigation process revealed so much more about them then is did us.
Not only did PubSmear fabricate AI-slop about our paper accusing us of using citations incorrectly... it turned out their AI platform hallucinated text from the citation to use against us. They literally sent text to the Journal as evidence of us misusing that citation and that text DID NOT EVEN exist in the citation they accused us of mis-representing.
When we reported their public confession of error to the Journal, another attack quickly emerged from Retraction Watch. They contacted us claiming they had an anonymous whistleblower who claimed to be one of our peer reviewers. This person was 'Whistleblowing' that he actually rejected the paper. Retraction Watch is IT illiterate and didnt realize the Anon PDF they sent us had meta data in it which revealed the Whistleblower and PDF author as being Rolf Marschalek.. a DFG funded vaccine researcher who was the last author on the Kaiser paper we were refuting!
This exposed 2 crimes. 1)Rolf violated his NDA for the review... Not that we care. We have asked the journal to make the whole peer review public now that Rolf has only exposed one side of it (his critiques). 2)Taylor and Francis should not have handed our paper to an author we were directly challenging in a closed review process as it gives the defending author the power of anon censorship of critiques of their own work. This is an overt conflict of interest for them to have done this. After we revealed that Retraction Watch blew the cover of their Whistleblower and the conflicts of interest he had, they quickly republished a whitewashed article pretending Rolf was brave enough to put his name on the critique and face the misinformation mob. In the same article titled "Exclusive: Reviewer recommended against publishing paper on DNA in COVID vaccines". One of the many problems with this Whitewashing article was that the Editor of the journal was contacted and refuted that any rejection had ever occurred. Rolf accepted the manuscript with edits and they had all the receipts.
It turns out Rolf Marschalek played the same dirty games with Konig et al papers on this very topic.
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/retraction-watch-tries-to-white-wash
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/retraction-watch-steps-on-another
You are always spot on Raphael!