Medical Journals as Gatekeepers: A Broken System

Research challenging the safety of Covid-19 vaccines is being silenced by medical journals, stifling critical debate.

Jan 23, 2025

∙ Paid

Cross-post from Maryanne Demasi, reports

Editors of scientific journals can reject submitted papers for whatever reason(s) they want behind closed doors. In most cased, they simply send a generic note to justify the rejection. In this case, the rejection letter contained egregious statements that clearly demonstrated a propaganda-fed bias. The practice of science and public health and safety is at risk as long as this kind of broken publication system is left unchecked. -

Dr. Byram W. Bridle

Medical journals are increasingly acting as gatekeepers, promoting established narratives while sidelining research that challenges the status quo.

Studies questioning the safety of Covid-19 vaccines, for example, are often dismissed outright, denied the opportunity to undergo peer review.

In some instances, even studies that pass rigorous peer review are later retracted due to external pressures.

One such example involves a study on adverse events following the Covaxin vaccine, which was retracted after the journal faced pressure from the vaccine manufacturer. The authors were subsequently sued for defamation.

Similarly, a narrative review examining lessons learned from the global roll-out of the Covid-19 vaccine campaign was retracted post-peer review, with no clear explanation provided.

Now, a pre-print published in October 2023 by Speicher et al., serves as the latest example of the significant obstacles researchers face in this field.

Subscribe to Maryanne Demasi, reports to continue reading

Visit the author’s Substack to subscribe and read more.