📢The silencing of scientific curiosity
Medical journals have became enforcers of orthodoxy—retracting genuine hypotheses while protecting proven fraud.
As a scientific writer and researcher, I’ve witnessed the decline of medical journals firsthand. I interviews Rita Redberg, ex-EIC of @JAMAInternalMed, Richard Smith ex EIC of @bmj_latest and John Ioannidis, the most cited scientist in the world blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/are-medical-…
Never have I seen a more absurd example of this decay than the retraction of a hypothesis paper—yes, a hypothesis—authored by @SabinehazanMD in Frontiers in Microbiology.
In May 2023—more than a year after the article was peer-reviewed and published—the journal retracted the paper following a series of complaints on PubPeer, offering only a vague explanation about “scientific soundness.”
Retraction is historically reserved for cases of fraud or clear misconduct.
But in the case of @SabinehazanMD, the journal simply erased the paper on her "hypothesis" offering no transparent justification, no engagement with the scientific process, and no accountability.
Why was @SabinehazanMD attacked for proposing a hypothesis?
Is there professional jealousy in the microbiome space? Are pharmaceutical companies, threatened by low-cost alternatives like ivermectin, pressuring journals to kill competing narratives?
If so, the Securities and Exchange Commission (@SECGov) should investigate. Suppressing research that could affect investor decisions—by inflating the perceived value of antivirals or vaccines—could amount to securities fraud.
Journals may quickly cave to pressure. In July 2024, @BharatBiotech sued 11 authors—six of them students—and the editor of Drug Safety, Nitin Joshi, over a peer-reviewed article questioning the safety of their Covaxin vaccine.
In other cases, journals protects industry sponsored studies that are clearly fraudulent. Whistleblower Dr. Peter Wilmshurst has spent years trying to get the MIST trial retracted—published in @CircAHA. It’s riddled with false claims, undeclared conflicts, and unreported adverse events, yet the journal continues to protect it.
There’s a growing list of researchers penalised—not for bad science, but for exploring uncomfortable truths.
🚨Surge in brain tumours among nurses at Boston hospital triggers urgent inquiry
*More cases are coming forward*
Renowned cancer researcher @weldeiry calls for a full-scale inquiry—including potential Covid-19 vaccine-related risks @TheChiefNerd @btysonmd @Jikkyleaksblog.maryannedemasi.com/p/surge-in-bra…
.@CBSNews first reported at least 10 nurses had been diagnosed with brain tumours—some malignant, others benign—with three requiring surgery.
But the hospital disputed these figures, stating there are only 5 confirmed cases.
I contacted a nurse who worked at Newton-Wellesley for nearly a decade and was recently diagnosed with a brain tumour revealed that at least 17 individuals had come forward and were undergoing assessment.
Nurse's union @MassNurses said, “We are speaking with many, many more nurses and gathering their medical records."
The @newtonwellesley in Boston stated:
“The investigation found no environmental risks linked to the development of brain tumours...We can confidently reassure our dedicated team members and all our patients that there is no environmental risk at our facility.”
But the union said the investigation as “completely inadequate,” launching its own inquiry.
“We’re seeing reports of different types of brain tumours,” said the @MassNurses representative. “There may be environmental hazards, past or present, such as asbestos exposure or radiation… It’s too early to rule anything out.”
Peter Marks blamed the newly minted Health Secretary @RobertKennedyJr for his exit.
“It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote.
Throughout the pandemic, Marks proved himself to be an unwavering champion of Operation Warp Speed—a project that fast-tracked vaccine trials, cut corners on safety testing, and bypassed essential trial site and manufacturing inspections.
He repeatedly pointed to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as proof of rigorous safety monitoring, yet failed to improve its efficiency.
He authorised Covid-19 mRNA vaccines for young people without testing for meaningful clinical outcomes—basing the decision on immunobridging data of antibody titres, which even he admitted was a poor correlate of protection against Covid. bmj.com/content/379/bm…
Dr Soňa Peková, clinical biochemist and molecular geneticist with 71 published papers, detected excessive amounts of residual DNA in both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. 10letters.org/CzechResearch.…
Even a student study at @US_FDA's own lab found DNA contamination exceeding regulatory safety limits by as much as 470 times. Yet, authorities continue to downplay the issue. blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/new-evidence…
Dr Sin Hang Lee states: There is no conclusive evidence [no RCTs] that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the past 18yrs.
@Merck relied on surrogate markers of pre-cancers, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3).
But most CIN2/3 lesions resolve naturally.
Two studies - from Sweden and Scotland - are cited as proof that Gardasil reduces cervical cancer.
Sensationalist media headlines claim “No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women.”
💥Court Documents Reveal “Undisclosed” Adjuvant in Gardasil vaccine
@Merck's Gardasil vaccine contains an unapproved immune booster—kept secret from the public. A lawsuit is exposing the cover-up.
Dr Sin Hang Lee notes the presence of HPV DNA in Gardasil makes the vaccine far more immunogenic. @Merck was aware of this, and failed to publicly disclose it.
High levels of HPV DNA fragments left over from the manufacturing process act as a second adjuvant—which has not been approved by any regulator worldwide.
.@Merck took deliberate steps during the manufacturing process to preserve and protect HPV DNA, ensuring it would end up in the final product.
VLPs with HPV 18 DNA were omitted from the "disassembly/reassembly" stage - a purification step.
📢Australian government branded a "national embarrassment" over Covid-19 vaccines
Federal MP @BroadbentMP slams the government’s repeated failure to engage with compelling scientific findings, instead offloading responsibility to officials lacking the necessary expertise.
The government defers its responses to the @TGAgovau's Dr Lisa Kerr, who has consistently misrepresented safety thresholds, falsely claimed the contamination would degrade rapidly, and dismissed peer-reviewed studies without substantive critique.
Genomics expert @Kevin_McKernan publicly dismantled Kerr’s response in an open letter, exposing what he described as fundamental misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and outright falsehoods. anandamide.substack.com/p/open-letter-…