Department of Justice vs. Medical Journals: Bias, Fraud, and Covid-19 Vaccine Censorship? By Professor X
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped a bombshell, sending letters to top medical journals—CHEST, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Obstetrics and Gynecology—questioning their editorial practices. Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, in The Focal Points (April 30, 2025), claims these letters, penned by interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, expose a "Journal Cartel" that's been rigging science, especially on Covid-19 vaccines. Allegations of bias, censorship, and financial conflicts suggest journals suppressed studies questioning vaccine safety and efficacy, acting as "vaccine promotional vehicles" while stifling early treatment research. With X ablaze (@NicHulscher, @naomirwolf), is this a reckoning for corrupted science, or a witch hunt?
Hulscher's article alleges:
DOJ Inquiry: The DOJ sent letters to CHEST, NEJM, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, probing bias, transparency, and whether they fairly present competing views, especially on Covid-19 vaccines and policies. Ed Martin's letters, per NBC News (April 26, 2025), question how journals handle misinformation and funder influence.
Vaccine Bias: Journals allegedly suppressed studies on vaccine risks (e.g., side effects, inefficacy) and early therapeutics (e.g., ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine), publishing only pro-vaccine narratives. Hulscher cites two papers he co-authored in International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (2024), claiming vaccines are "ineffective and unsafe."
Journal Cartel: Major publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, etc.), under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, control two-thirds of global journals, enforce unpaid peer reviews, and censor for profit. A class-action lawsuit targets this "cartel" for harming science.
Conflicts of Interest: Nearly half of journal editors and 59% of peer-reviewers received over $1 billion from pharma (2020-2022), per Hulscher, skewing editorial decisions.
Censorship Examples: Hulscher's autopsy study linking vaccines to deaths was retracted by Elsevier post-peer review, allegedly for threatening the "Biopharmaceutical Complex." Other studies (e.g., on ivermectin, myocarditis) faced similar retractions, violating COPE guidelines.
Legal Ramifications: Censorship could violate fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), antitrust (Sherman Act), defamation, obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), and RICO laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), as journals mislead the public and harm health.
X posts amplify this. @NicHulscher (April 30, 2025) calls it a "legal reckoning" for suppressing vaccine safety data, while @naomirwolf and @DailyClout hail the DOJ's move against "pandemic fraud." @RickMcCargar claims journals buried vaccine risks for profit.
Let's sift through Hulscher's claims:
DOJ Letters: Confirmed by MedPage Today (April 24, 2025), NBC News (April 26, 2025), and STAT (April 24, 2025). At least five journals got letters from Martin, asking about bias, misinformation handling, and funder roles. CHEST's letter leaked on X via @EricReinhartMD (April 2025), sparking debate. NEJM's Eric Rubin called it "vaguely threatening." This is real, not conspiracy fluff.
Vaccine Bias: Hulscher's cited studies (Mead et al., 2024) argue vaccines caused harm, but they're published in a niche journal, not peer-reviewed giants like NEJM. NEJM did publish vaccine-critical letters (e.g., "Healthy Vaccinee Bias," 2023) and studies on side effects (e.g., thrombocytopenia, 2021), but none conclude vaccines are broadly "unsafe." Suppression is harder to prove—retractions like Hulscher's autopsy study (2023) suggest editorial gatekeeping, but COPE violations need clearer evidence.
Journal Cartel: The publishing monopoly is real—Elsevier and Springer Nature dominate, per ProPublica (2016). A 2024 lawsuit against publishers for unpaid peer reviews and high fees supports Hulscher's "cartel" claim. But direct proof of coordinated vaccine censorship is thin, relying on anecdotes like retractions.
Conflicts of Interest: Studies (e.g., JAMA, 2020) confirm pharma payments to editors, but Hulscher's $1 billion figure lacks a primary source. It's plausible, given pharma's influence, but needs substantiation.
Censorship Cases: Hulscher's autopsy study retraction by Elsevier (2023) is documented, with X posts (@NicHulscher) claiming it was spiked for its vaccine-death link after topping global research trends. Other retractions (e.g., ivermectin, myocarditis) are verified, but journals cite methodological flaws, not explicit censorship.
Legal Violations: Fraud, antitrust, and RICO claims are speculative but legally plausible if collusion is proven. No DOJ charges exist yet, per Washington Post (April 19, 2025).
Strengths: The DOJ letters are undeniable, and retractions like Hulscher's raise red flags. Pharma's financial grip on journals is well-documented.
Hulscher's argument—that journals became vaccine cheerleaders, censoring dissent for profit—holds water:
DOJ Letters Are Legit: The DOJ's probe, confirmed by NBC News and STAT, isn't a fishing expedition. Martin's questions—about bias, funder influence, and viewpoint diversity—hit at real issues. NEJM's Rubin admits the letters feel "threatening," suggesting journals are rattled. CHEST and Obstetrics and Gynecology's cagey responses (legal reviews, no comment) hint at something to hide.
Pharma's Grip Is Undeniable: Journals aren't neutral. ProPublica (2016) exposed NEJM's editor Drazen's pharma ties, and 2020 data shows editors swimming in drug money. Hulscher's $1 billion claim may lack a source, but pharma's $100 billion annual R&D spend (per PhRMA) makes it plausible. If 59% of reviewers got a slice, bias isn't a stretch.
Censorship Smells Real: Hulscher's autopsy study, yanked by Elsevier after peer review, stinks of interference, especially as it trended globally. Other retractions—ivermectin (2022), myocarditis (2021)—follow a pattern: challenge the vaccine narrative, get spiked. Journals claim "methodological issues," but COPE guidelines demand transparency, not secret takedowns. The Lancet's "harassment" editorial (April 2025) dodges accountability, crying victim
Vaccine Narrative Was Pushed: NEJM and CHEST published pro-vaccine studies (e.g., BNT162b2 efficacy, 2020; maternal vaccination, 2022) but little on risks beyond rare side effects (e.g., thrombocytopenia, 2021). Hulscher's cited papers (Mead et al., 2024) argue vaccines caused widespread harm, yet mainstream journals ignored similar claims. This one-sidedness.
Legal Grounds Exist: If journals colluded to suppress vaccine risks, Hulscher's fraud, antitrust, and RICO claims aren't crazy. The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) could apply to a "cartel" rigging publications, and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) fits if retractions misled the public. No charges yet, but the DOJ's letters suggest a probe, not a bluff. Washington Post (April 19, 2025) notes Martin's activist bent, but that doesn't negate the inquiry's weight.
Hulscher's right: the DOJ's probing journals for bias, and CHEST, NEJM, and Obstetrics and Gynecology are squirming. Evidence of pharma influence and retractions supports his censorship charge. Journals aren't saints, and the DOJ's questions are fair game.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-doj-launches-investigation
According to NBC, at least three major medical journals—CHEST, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Obstetrics and Gynecology—have received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice questioning their editorial practices. The letters, sent by interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, raised legitimate concerns about bias, lack of transparency, and whether these journals fairly presented competing scientific viewpoints—especially on topics like COVID-19 policies and treatments. The consistent direction of bias was to suppress any new studies of combination early therapeutics and reports on poor efficacy and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Essentially, the journals became vaccine promotional vehicles. None of the major journals published manuscripts that concluded the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination, despite more comprehensive papers published elsewhere arriving at the truth. As a result, the medical readership and public at large were duped into believing the COVID-19 vaccines were "safe and effective" yet nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two extensively referenced analyses that found COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective and unsafe for human use:
While some journals pushed back—claiming editorial independence—others, like The Lancet, which apparently did not yet receive a letter, went so far as to label the inquiries "harassment."
For years, we have seen top-tier journals prioritize ideology over open scientific debate. In fact, most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and delays scientific progress—all to protect their multi-billion-dollar profits. This resulted in a recent class action lawsuit against the Cartel for "tremendous damage to science and the public interest."
Most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and del…
Nearly half of medical journal editors have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, while 59% of peer-reviewers for major medical journals received more than $1 billion from drug companies from 2020 to 2022:
The Journal Cartel's corruption extends to censoring critical pharmaceutical product safety data in accordance with the Biopharmaceutical Complex, likely costing lives:
A prime example of this corruption is when Cartel member Elsevier blatantly violated COPE guidelines by censoring our study "A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination" — shortly after successful peer review and official acceptance — likely because it demonstrated a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Our study had just become the #1 trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas before Elsevier abruptly intervened:
Many other studies that contradicted the official corrupted narrative have faced the same fate of wrongful retraction after full publication:
1.Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. Retraction: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign [retraction of: Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876.]. Cureus. 2024;16(2):r137. Published 2024 Feb 26. doi:10.7759/cureus.r137
2.Hazan S. Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin's Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity [retracted in: Front Microbiol. 2023 May 11;14:1216170. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1216170.]. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:952321. Published 2022 Jul 11. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.952321
3.Hazan S, Vidal AC, Hulscher N, Goudzwaard A, McCullough PA, Steinberg AA. Cardiac findings in a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of combination therapy (HAZDPac) to treat COVID-19 patients [retracted in: BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Feb 18;25(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04554-6.]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):710. Published 2024 Dec 19. doi:10.1186/s12872-024-04376-y
4.Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial [retracted in: Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2025 Jan;65(1):107416. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107416.]. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56(1):105949.
5.Rose J, McCullough PA. WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Curr Probl Cardiol. Published online September 30, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011
This corrupt web of suppression, fraud, and retractions demands a legal reckoning:
The targeting and censorship of scientific studies, particularly when done systematically or for financial or ideological gain, could potentially have serious legal ramifications:
1. Fraud and Misrepresentation
Potential Legal Violation: Journals or reviewers may engage in fraud if they intentionally suppress or retract studies based on misleading or false pretenses. Examples include:
Retracting studies under the guise of ethical or procedural issues when no such issues are substantiated.
Suppressing research that challenges commercial interests, thereby misleading the public about the safety or efficacy of certain products (e.g., pharmaceuticals).
Applicable Laws: Federal and state fraud statutes, such as:
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud): Applies if traditional postal services or courier systems are used to further the fraudulent scheme.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Covers schemes executed through electronic communications, including email and online platforms, to suppress or discredit legitimate research.
2. Anti-Trust Violations
Potential Legal Violation: If a group of publishers, journals, or organizations (dubbed the "Academic Publishing Cartel") colludes to suppress competing scientific narratives or alternative viewpoints, this could constitute anti-competitive behavior.
Applicable Laws: Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7), which prohibits monopolistic practices and conspiracies to restrain trade.
3. Defamation
Potential Legal Violation: If the "science sleuths" or journals publish untrue statements about the integrity or validity of researchers or their studies, this could constitute defamation.
Applicable Laws: State defamation laws, which protect against reputational harm caused by false statements.
4. Violation of Retraction Guidelines (Breach of Contract or Good Faith)
Potential Legal Violation: Retractions that violate the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, journal policies, or contractual agreements with authors could result in lawsuits for breach of contract or bad faith actions.
Applicable Laws: Contract law and tort law (e.g., duty of good faith and fair dealing).
5. Obstruction of Justice and Public Health
Potential Legal Violation: Systematically suppressing research that highlights public health risks (e.g., vaccine side effects) could be construed as obstruction of justice or even endangerment if the suppression results in harm to the public.
Applicable Laws: Federal statutes related to obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) and public endangerment.
6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
Potential Legal Violation: If the coordinated censorship, suppression, and fraudulent retraction of scientific studies is part of an organized pattern of activity involving fraud, obstruction, or extortion for financial gain, it could rise to a RICO violation.
Comments