Leading alternative investigative journalist, Rebekah Barnett, has been in the forefront of breaking the story about the Covid vax-cancer link retracted study. The case is informative as it shows the limits, and flaws of the present peer-reviewed process, such that even when peer review does provide an affirmation for publication, politics can still intervene. It also says much about the university-Big Pharma connection in general.
The published 2012 article allegedly showed that both the Covid viral spike protein, as well as the mRNA of the Covid vax could interfere with DNA repair mechanisms, which could lead to cancer.What is of interest to us here is not so much the scientific results, which have been confirmed by other studies, but the retraction of the article which occurred in 2022, despite objections from the lead author. Using Freedom of Information requests, Barnett found out that the editor held that retraction of the paper could be done without any evidence of scientific misconduct, which is odd to say the least. As well, Barnett consulted the lead author who felt that his university had forced the retraction due to external pressure. That pressure, as documented below by Barnett seems to have come from the usual suspects. As with the compromised universities, this sort of rugged investigative journalism about the usual suspects, and the doings of the academy, is not seen in the mainstream.
This paper joins a long list of papers that uncovered disturbing facts about the Covid mRNA vaxxes, which were retracted. It is difficult to get such papers published in the first place. In general, the universities derive considerable medical research funding from Big Pharma, and are compromised having a massive conflict of interest. Money politics rules the universities over truth. Hence, universities cannot be regarded as objective pursuers of truth, and associated journals are therefore questionable as well. It is better to have the entire academic scientific process by-passed with internet publications. These can be open peer-reviewed, by all of humanity, as well as experts. Sure, there will be junk published, but there is junk published now. The cycle of Big Pharma-universities-professional journals, need to be broken.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccines-journal-covid-shot-cancer-retracted-study/
"A recent investigation by Australian journalist Rebekah Barnett suggests politics and financial interests, not scientific concerns, led to the retraction of a 2021 peer-reviewed study finding the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA vaccine impair critical DNA repair mechanisms, which could lead to cancer.
Viruses, published by MDPI, retracted the study in 2022, despite objections by the lead author, Ya-Fang Mei, Ph.D., of Sweden's Umeå University.
Subsequent research and case studies have largely validated the findings of the retracted study conducted by Mei and Hui Jiang, Ph.D., of Stockholm University in Sweden.
Barnett's investigation, built on work by independent journalist John Davidson and Dr. Ah Kahn Syed, included emails released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealing that Eric O. Freed, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of Viruses, oversaw its retraction.
Freed, a scientist with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggested the retraction could proceed without evidence of scientific misconduct, raising questions about his impartiality.
The study's co-author originally requested the retraction. However, Mei strongly objected, claiming Stockholm University "forced" the retraction due to external pressure.
The NIH rejected Davidson's FOIA request for Freed's emails related to the retraction, citing trade secret exemptions. However, Barnett's FOIA to Stockholm University uncovered some of these emails.
Barnett's article contains images of many FOIA'd emails describing the progression of arguments among various scientists and journal and university personnel leading up to the retraction.
Retracted paper showed spike protein could cause cancer
Mei and Jiang found that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein — and its mRNA-vaccine-derived analog — significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is essential for maintaining genomic stability and preventing cancer.
The researchers demonstrated that the spike protein localizes in the cell nucleus and inhibits DNA repair by hindering the recruitment of key repair proteins BRCA1 (breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein) and 53BP1 (p53-binding protein 1) to the damage site.
The spike protein's suppression of the p53 gene, known as the "guardian of the genome," is particularly concerning, as the gene is crucial in preventing cancer development — particularly, breast, ovarian and other cancers affecting women.
Moreover, the study found that the spike protein impairs V(D)J recombination, a complex genetic process occurring in the early stages of T and B lymphocyte development, which are key components of the adaptive immune system.
This process is essential for generating a diverse repertoire of T-cell receptors and antibodies (immunoglobulins) that can recognize and combat a wide range of pathogens.
'Not clear' if public pressure or faulty science led to retraction
Published on Oct. 13, 2021, the Mei and Jiang paper was among the first to draw the connection between mRNA vaccination and immune suppression. It generated significant publicity, garnering over a half-million downloads in its first month.
The retraction process was unusual. On Nov. 9, 2021, Jiang, the study's co-author, requested the retraction. MDPI more than once balked at Jiang's request, citing a lack of evidence of scientific error and acknowledging the paper had stirred up "some publicity."
Oliver Schildgen, Ph.D., MDPI's academic editor who originally accepted the paper, in a Nov. 21, 2021, letter to Freed described Jiang's letter as "rather generic." He said it was "not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the request."
Outside pressure mounted from the likes of German scientist Götz Schuck, Ph.D. — not a virologist or even a biologist but a materials scientist — who wrote several emails to Schildgen claiming the paper was being "instrumentalized as a source of misinformation" and alleging MDPI had been "hacked by anti-vaccinationists."
Numerous fact-checking organizations contacted Stockholm University to question the validity of the paper. The university, responding to the mounting pressures, ultimately forced the retraction.
The May 2022 MDPI retraction notice stated that the study's experimental design and methods could have inaccurately characterized the spike protein's effects on DNA repair mechanisms and immune function.
Lead author Mei never signed the retraction notice, stating that the reasons cited for the retraction were "unfounded and the retraction is unjustified."
In a June 2 Substack post, genomics expert Kevin McKernan wrote, "The retraction argument given [by MDPI] was an absurd questioning of the use of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in biological assays. To retract this paper over that assay will make 1000 other papers fall."
Freed stated the "retraction of a paper does not require evidence of scientific misconduct" but could result from unreliable data and "honest mistakes" leading to faulty conclusions."
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/retraction-scandal-update
"Retraction scandal update
By now you've hopefully read my report from the weekend about the alleged forced retraction of a Covid vaccine cancer-risk study (the 'Jiang and Mei paper') after it generated a huge amount of publicity.
The exposé has ignited a lot of discussion, including some posts I want to recommend to you…
The Jiang and Mei story is just one of many examples of papers showing Covid vaccine harms, which pass peer-review but are later retracted following an activist witch hunt. Examples that come to mind are Mark Skidmore's paper estimating 290,000 Covid vaccine fatalities for 2021 in the US (Skidmore was eventually exonerated and his paper published in a different journal), and several papers by
and colleagues showing various Covid vaccine harms.
We knew that activist pile-ons precipitated such retractions, but we couldn't prove that they were the reason for the retractions… until the Jiang and Mei paper.
"This could be the first time that political pressure has been proven to have been exerted to force the retraction of a valid scientific paper of such significance," says
(Arkmedic) in a follow up post to mine.
Arkmedic's 'GileadGate Exposed,' delves into the vested interests of key players involved in the Jiang and Mei retraction. It involves biopharma company Gilead, the NIH, Wuhan and CRISPR.
Being a genomics scientist, Kevin is able to chime in on the reason proffered by Jiang for retraction of his own paper:
"The retraction argument given was an absurd questioning of the use of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in biological assays. To retract this paper over that assay will make 1000 other papers fall. It was clearly political to those of us watching closely but we didn't have the proof until Rebekah Barnett FOIA'd their ass and revealed what had really gone on."
Then he riffs on the problem with peer-review more generally, and the religious reverence and dogmatism some scientists exhibit. One of Kevin's favourite sayings is that only 50% of peer-reviewed science is reproducible. Therefore, he makes the case that reproduction of results is a more important indicator of the reliability of scientific findings than whether a paper has passed through peer-review or not."