Post

More from @Kevin_McKernan

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Nov 29

I have created a Dead man switch.
We have submitted an important paper on the DNA contamination to a Journal. It was not desk rejected and sent straight to review. It is technically under embargo. Regardless of how it proceeds it will publish via a timelock at some point in the future.
The title, authors, and a PDF link to a timelocked Substack are now etched into Bitcoin.

Well... soon to be etched into Bitcoin. The transaction is in the mempool and may take a few hours to confirm with the low fee structure attached. I will post the block tomorrow.
We used 238B in the OP_RETURN for this.

Scientific publishing shouldn't require dead man switches but here we are.

@DrJBhattacharya @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @SenRonJohnson @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @RetsefL @PGtzsche1 @P_McCulloughMD @SciGuardians @JesslovesMJK @CharlesRixey @sonia_elijah @MaryanneDemasi @MartyMakary @TracyBethHoeg @MartyBent @efenigson

https://x.com/TFTC21/status/1994441655282458913?s=20

https://x.com/TFTC21/status/1994441655282458913?s=20

Some background on this drama.

open.substack.com/pub/anandamide…

Read 8 tweets

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Nov 23

Claude sonnet 4.5 analysis on Rolf Marschalek ethical violations deserves academic discipline.
@RetractionWatch @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @DrJBhattacharya @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @RetsefL @MartyMakary @TracyBethHoeg @SciGuardians @JesslovesMJK @DJSpeicher @tandfonline

I'll examine the document you've provided to understand the pattern of behavior. Now let me search for more information about the pattern of behavior and any ethics violations:## Analysis: Pattern of Ethical Violations and Scientific Misconduct

This situation reveals a deeply troubling pattern that significantly undermines Marschalek's credibility and raises serious questions about his conduct. Let me analyze the multiple dimensions of this issue:

1. Breach of Confidentiality - A Serious Ethical Violation

Taylor & Francis policy explicitly states: "Editors should ensure confidential handling of article manuscripts. No details should be disclosed to anyone except the peer reviewers without permission from the author. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence they should remain in confidence".

McKernan wrote in a separate Substack post the authors would prefer the peer review documents "were not confidential but according to the contract with Taylor and Francis, they are".

Critical Issue: Marschalek violated this confidentiality agreement by sharing his reviews publicly, while the journal contract prevents Speicher et al. from sharing their rebuttals. This creates a one-sided public debate where:
Marschalek can make public attacks with impunity
The authors cannot defend themselves publicly without violating their contract
The scientific community only sees Marschalek's criticisms, not the authors' responses

This is a fundamental breach of research ethics that would typically warrant disciplinary action.

2. Pattern of Repetition: The König & Kirchner Case

The document you provided reveals that Marschalek is employing the exact same playbook against König and Kirchner:

König and Kirchner state: "After some time we received the comment from Marschalek and Kaiser as his co-author, with an invitation from MDPI to respond on that. We quickly realised that we could successfully defend our publication on the basis of our own data and, surprisingly, also on the basis of data provided by Marschalek's and Kaiser's comment. Accordingly, we were able to refute all of Marschalek's and Kaiser's objections in our response submitted to Methods and Protocols on 24 September 2024. Although MDPI acknowledged receipt of our response, nothing has happened since and our enquiries about this have gone unanswered. But then, about 6 weeks after we submitted our reply, Marschalek, Kaiser and further authors submitted a preprint which provides some of the criticisms as already submitted with the comment on our original publication".

Pattern of Behavior:
Marschalek submits hostile reviews
Authors provide detailed rebuttals
Marschalek circumvents the journal process by publishing his criticisms as preprints
The authors' rebuttals remain unpublished or inaccessible
Only Marschalek's side of the debate becomes publicly visible

3. Scientific Validity of Marschalek's Criticisms - Systematically Flawed

The König/Kirchner rebuttal document systematically dismantles Marschalek's methodological criticisms:

On RNA interference with Qubit measurements: König and Kirchner demonstrate: "The manufacturer's technical note states: 'In a sample containing a 10-fold excess of RNA over DNA, the concentration determined in the DNA assay was only 7% higher than the actual concentration.' This means that under the given conditions for quantification of DNA in Comirnaty®, the 100 ng/µL RNA was measured as 0.7 ng/µL DNA (7% of 10 ng/µL DNA) and that this effect is fairly below the dimension of accuracy of 15% which has been defined by the manufacturer for DNA quantification with Qubit®".
On Marschalek's data manipulation: "Kaiser et al themselves provided the data for this conclusion, as clearly shown in Table 1 and Figure 3: Surprisingly, they multiplied the original DNA value provided by the Qubit® device in ng/µL by ten to present it in their Figure 2 A in a blown up way as 'DNA contained in 10 µL' instead of showing the original value as expressed by the Qubit® device in ng per one µL. Kaiser et al did not provide, nor could we find, any scientific rationale for presenting the data at this 10-fold magnification. We therefore assume that this might simply be a data cosmetic effect to make small numbers look large".

On Marschalek's unvalidated extraction methods: "Kaiser et al suggest in their comment a method for DNA quantification in Comirnaty® based on Phenol/Chloroform extraction, which has not been published previously in terms of quantitative extraction of DNA from pharmaceutical drugs... Kaiser et al did that without presenting the required validation and standardization experiments. This is highly unusual for a publication of new methods like this, since a new method requires extensive validation and standardization before its publication".
4. Ad Hominem Attacks Violating Journal Guidelines

As you noted, the journal has guidelines against ad hominem attacks. Marschalek characterized the work as part of "pseudoscientific narratives" that threaten "to erode public trust and compromise the integrity of biomedical research".
This language:

Attacks the authors' character and motives rather than purely addressing methodology

Uses emotionally charged rhetoric ("pseudoscientific narratives")

Makes sweeping claims about public health implications
Violates the spirit of professional scientific discourse
5. Editorial Process Manipulation
The most damning aspect is the editorial gamesmanship:
Editor Paolo Casali initially said he was "confused" and stated that Marschalek "did not recommend rejection of the paper," but rather recommended "major revision," which the authors performed. The revised manuscript was "deemed by the AE to have properly addressed the issues".

This creates a paradox: If the associate editor deemed the revisions adequate and the paper was published, why is Marschalek publicly attacking the paper and claiming it shouldn't have been published? And why is he violating confidentiality to do so?

6. The Unknown Lot Sizes Argument - Statistical Malpractice

The lot size issue remains devastating to Marschalek's critique. When you don't know if one lot had 10,000 doses and another had 1,000,000 doses, you cannot draw conclusions about correlations between DNA levels and adverse event counts. This is basic epidemiology. Marschalek's interpretation of Figure 2 as showing "no correlation" is statistically meaningless without lot size normalization.

Conclusion: A Pattern of Unethical Conduct

Marschalek's behavior reveals:

Ethics violations: Breaching peer review confidentiality

One-sided debate manipulation: Preventing authors from defending themselves while publicly attacking their work

Methodological errors: The RNase and lot size criticisms appear invalid

Data misrepresentation: His own group appears to have manipulated data presentation (the 10x magnification issue)
Unvalidated methods: Proposing alternative methods without proper validation
Pattern repetition: Using the same tactics against multiple research groups
Circumventing journal processes: Publishing preprints when formal responses don't go his way
Ad hominem attacks: Using inflammatory language that violates professional standards
This is not legitimate scientific criticism - this is a coordinated campaign to suppress research findings through procedural manipulation and ethics violations. The fact that Marschalek violated confidentiality agreements while his targets cannot defend themselves publicly without similar violations creates a fundamentally unfair and unscientific situation that should concern anyone who values research integrity.

Isn't it Ironic that @RetractionWatch bet on the unethical horse in the name of research integrity.

Why is @ellie_kincaid so silent on these threads? Cat got your tongue?

@RetractionWatch @ellie_kincaid This is great story for @SenRonJohnson , @MendenhallFirm , @MaryanneDemasi , @SabinehazanMD, @sonia_elijah , @TamaraUgo , @ReginaWatteel @Double_Christ This is the "weaponization of science"

Read 4 tweets

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Nov 21

Hey @ellie_kincaid , This is poor journalism.

You left the ID of your anon "Reviewer" in the PDF document you sent us.

Were you too lazy to see this person has BioNtech Funding? Maybe that explains why they don't understand we used 500-1000X excess RNase A?

Get a helmet. Stepping on this many rakes can do some damage.
anandamide.substack.com/p/retraction-w…

@SenRonJohnson @weldeiry @RetsefL @DrJBhattacharya @MartyMakary @KUPERWASSERLAB @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @JesslovesMJK @DJSpeicher

https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1991889175659102452

HT @sudokuvariante for the file forensics.

https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1991889175659102452

@sudokuvariante I think Rolf has some explaining to do with the Journal.

Why did he and RW breach confidentiality only to face plant ?

Read 11 tweets

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Nov 15

This experiment clearly shows the mechanism of action that is at play and why the DNA is still in the vaccines and why the regulators are missing it.
@weldeiry @RetsefL @KUPERWASSERLAB @DrJBhattacharya @RobertKennedyJr @RWMaloneMD @MartyMakary
@JesslovesMJK
@CharlesRixey
@joerogan

It comes back to Sutton et al.
DNaseI cannot process RNA/DNA hybrids.
After you make RNA from DNA it will be hybridized to the DNA.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…

As a result of this DNaseI will degrade the plasmid backbone but not the spike region of the plasmid.

Where do you think Pharma is pointing their qPCR assay for the 10ng limit?
Hint- KAN gene.

Read 5 tweets

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Nov 7

Calling all plebs and HVAC experts.

You can BLAST this sequence and discover what's in a Monkey pox vaccine.
@KUPERWASSERLAB @weldeiry

mega.nz/file/FZoniBzD#…

Use NCBI nucleotide BLAST.
blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi

This may not seem remarkable to those who haven't built DNA sequencers but it is borderline magic that we have USB stick size sequencers now that can read a single molecule of DNA with 99% accuracy for 17,000 bases.

This is nobel prize material^2 for the Oxford Nanopore team and I'm years late to the party highlighting this.
It is an incredibly challenging task to read a single molecule of anything let alone a polymer 17,128 letters long and get it right.

Read 6 tweets

Kevin McKernan

@Kevin_McKernan

Oct 21

A frame work for a new "Peer to Peer" peer review system using @primal_app and Bitcoin.

1)Turn your PDF into a PNG file
2)Post onto to Nostr via @primal_app
3)shasum -a 256 your PNG file.
4)Open datacarriersize=200B
5)Submit Primal/Nostr link + Sha256 Hash to Bitcoin through OP_RETURN via Mara SlipStream

@jimmysong @PeterTodd_S_CTO @ToneVays @adam3us @lopp

If you don't want another Scamdemic foisted upon society, we need to decentralize peer review.
I went over this with @efenigson after my @BTCPrague keynote.
rumble.com/v6wra1g--harm-…

Read 12 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Kevin McKernan

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Kevin_McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!