Our paper critical of the COVID vaccines will be retracted by Cureus!

 We thought the mainstream medical journals would finally publish the truth. But we were wrong. Our paper calling for a vax moratorium will be retracted. Please download it ASAP.

STEVE KIRSCH

Executive summary

The paper I co-authored with 6 other authors will be retracted by the journal because the publisher won’t allow any paper that is counter-narrative to be published.

So our paper has to be retracted.

Please download it now by clicking the PDF link to the right of the title.

The email notifying us of the retraction

Here is the email we received:

From: Springer Nature Research Integrity Support <[email protected]>
Subject: RIG-12669 / Concerns regarding your recent article in Cureus
Date: February 16, 2024 at 4:19:45 PM EST
To: <author emails>

Dear authors, 

I hope this email finds you well. I write regarding your article recently published in Cureus entitled, ‘COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’.

The journal was recently made aware of several concerns regarding the validity of the work and, upon conducting an internal review, the journal has decided to retract your article. Upon further review, we have identified a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view can’t be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to: 

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.

Given the concerns with your article, we find that the stated findings in this narrative review are to be considered unreliable, and are not sufficiently supported either by the cited research in the article itself or by other research. In line with the COPE retraction guidelines, the Editors have therefore decided to retract your article. The journal will publish the following retraction notice: 

==

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. The following publication concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.   

[will be amended as appropriate:] All authors agree to this retraction/ None of the authors agree to this retraction /[author name] agrees to this retraction/[author name] does not agree to this retraction/ [author name] has not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.

==

Please let me know by 23 February whether you agree or disagree with this retraction, as this will be noted in the retraction notice. Retraction of the article means that we will publish the retraction notice as a separate publication which will bidirectionally link to your article. The article itself will be clearly marked as retracted. 

Please let me know if you have any further questions. 

Best regards,

Tim Kersjes
Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions
Springer Nature Research Integrity Group

Our response

It doesn’t do any good to show them these reasons are all bogus. The laundry list of items is simply a placeholder to make it look like the journal is following the science.

Nothing we can say on appeal will make any difference.

The decision was made to retract the paper and facts don’t matter. It’s about supporting the narrative. When they write “in our view can’t be remedied with a correction” it means “don’t even bother arguing with us, your paper is retracted.”

The vaccines were adequately tested even though they fabricated the data and excluded serious adverse events

According to the journal, the COVID vaccines were adequately tested, even though we have multiple whistleblowers who will testify in a court of law that the data in the COVID trial data were fabricated!

And people who were seriously injured in the trials, like 13-year-old Maddie de Garay who can no longer walk, are ignored by the journals as if they do not exist.

Their data is excluded from the trial results which is a criminal offense. But Pfizer won’t go to jail because the DOJ will never press charges. And the medical journals will go along with the narrative and not allow any of these case histories to be published.

Here’s some background on fabricating clinical trial data. And like I said, the DOJ will not even talk to these whistleblowers. They don’t want to know. Neither do the journals.

No public debates

There will be no public debates on whether the paper should be retracted because nobody is going to challenge us in a public debate. They can’t. They’d lose.

That’s the way science works: when a journal decides to retract your paper, there is no discussion and no appeal. The journal is always right. No public discussions.

The medical journals get to decide what is true and what is not and evidence doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is their perception of reality.

There will be no debates. They have spoken.