From ANH International
THE TOPLINE
- A key paper published in a Springer Nature journal that exposed multiple problems with the “safe and effective” narrative espoused by the scientific and medical establishment was recently published, then retracted
- The journal gave several reasons for the retraction, that occurred after nearly 5 months of peer review, and allowed no right of reply or appeal
- The capture of leading academic journals by the medical-industrial complex makes it almost impossible for dissenting scientists to use ‘accepted’ science to challenge the prevailing narrative
- Steve Kirsch, veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur and one time covid vaccine trial funder, a co-author of the paper, is suing Springer Nature for damages caused by the paper’s retraction.
A leading cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, two scientists, Jessica Rose PhD and Stephanie Seneff, and veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur and an early covid vaccine trial funder, Steve Kirsch, were among the counter-narrative experts who published a comprehensive scientific article in the Springer Nature journal Cureus late January that laid bare the extent to which the public had been misled over the available science on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The article, which underwent a nearly 5 month intensive peer review process, documents major problems in the way that data, which led to emergency use authorizations (EUAs), subsequent registration and then global mass vaccination, were interpreted and communicated to the public. The publisher, the Springer Nature group, is one of the biggest academic publishers in the world.
For those of us who have had concerns about the safety of mRNA vaccines, the publication of the article cemented many of our views over the extent to which the official narrative around COVID-19 and the silver bullet offered to the world in the form of novel mRNA genetic vaccines had been manipulated. We had already tendered such concerns between 2020 and 2022 through our own analyses of available information (see our 300+ covid article repository here [in reverse chronological order]). Recognizing the censorship ongoing in the journals, and the need to reach beyond an academic audience, we chose to publish most of our interpretation of events on our own website. An exception was my lead authorship of a paper on outcomes among unvaccinated individuals which was pulled from one preprint server before being published in 2022 in the newly established, uncensored, peer reviewed journal, the International Journal for Vaccine Research, Theory and Practice.
This aside, the Cureus paper seemed, to many of us, the bang-up-to-date slam dunk that should have told the world this new technology had failed to live up to the propaganda and censorship machines that accompanied its roll-out. Worse than that, the world had been duped, and many had been harmed or even killed unnecessarily – and a staggeringly large number of people around the world had been shielded from this reality. Maybe this paper would change that?
