Medical Journals as Gatekeepers: A Broken System
Research challenging the safety of Covid-19 vaccines is being silenced by medical journals, stifling critical debate.
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One such example involves a study on adverse events following the Covaxin vaccine, which was retracted after the journal faced pressure from the vaccine manufacturer.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Similarly, a narrative review examining lessons learned from the global roll-out of the Covid-19 vaccine campaign was retracted post-peer review, with no clear explanation provided.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.
The study revealed DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines in Canada, with levels far exceeding regulatory safety limits.
However, instead of initiating serious discussion, regulators dismissed the findings, largely because the study was not peer reviewed.
Determined to address these concerns, the authors submitted their manuscript to four different journals, only to face rejection at every turn, consistently blocked from entering the peer-review process.
The most recent rejection, from Cureus (part of Springer Nature), stands out because the journal editor explicitly outlined the reasons.
At best, their rationale was misguided; at worst, it was grossly uninformed. Either way, the implications for scientific integrity are deeply troubling.
Claim 1: FDA and vaccine manufacturers acknowledge residual DNA in vaccines.
It’s true that regulators and manufacturers recognise the presence of residual DNA, but this deflects from the core issue: contamination levels far exceed safety thresholds.
In fact, a study conducted by high school students in the FDA’s own laboratory reported DNA contamination levels between 6 and 470 times above the regulatory safety threshold of 10 ng per dose.
David Speicher, virologist and lead author of the study, remarked: “It’s amazing that even high school students working in an FDA laboratory can reproduce our findings and publish their work, but our study continues to be stonewalled.”
Claim 2: No SV40 protein present.
The journal dismissed concerns about SV40 promoter gene sequences in the vaccines by asserting that no SV40 protein was present, implying the gene fragments had no functional risk.
However, the authors clearly highlighted the potential dangers posed by SV40 promoter gene sequences.
Dr Jessica Rose, molecular biologist and co-author of the study, explained the significance of the SV40 promoter was its ability to recruit “nuclear localisation sequences” that bind DNA and transport it into the nucleus, where integration into the genome is possible.
Kevin McKernan, a genome expert and other co-author added that SV40 promoter sequences could even enter dividing cells during the temporary absence of a nuclear envelope, as demonstrated by research from Lou et al.
Claim 3: Residual DNA is digested by DNAase.
The claim that DNAase digestion of the plasmid eliminates the risks ignores a critical detail. Fragmenting DNA into billions of smaller pieces actually increases the likelihood of genomic modification.
As cancer genome expert Phillip Buckhaults once explained, “Instead of having one big piece, you’ve got, like, a bazillion little pieces. They’ve turned a shotgun slug into buckshot pellets.”
Dr Rose also noted that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) protect these fragments, facilitating cellular entry. Additionally, RNA can bind to DNA during manufacturing, forming RNA:DNA hybrids resistant to DNAase digestion.
Claim 4: DNA integration into the nucleus is biologically “implausible.”
This assertion surprised the study authors, given LNPs are specifically designed to deliver genetic material to the inside of cells.
McKernan referenced a 2023 study by Lim et al. in Nature, which demonstrated DNA integration in approximately 7% of cells exposed to DNA fragments with a transfection agent.
As Prof Buckhaults once told me, “We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of naked DNA, put them in lipofectamine which is a solution that delivers genetic material into cells, and by magic, some of the pieces integrate into the cellular DNA, and permanently modified the cells. I've been doing this since I was a graduate student.”
The study authors acknowledge that genomic integration in humans may be rare, but dismissing such risks after billions of vaccine doses have been administered, is irresponsible.
Moreover, DNA fragments need not integrate into the nucleus to cause harm; they can chronically trigger pathways in the cytoplasm that could increase cancer risk, such as the cGAS-STING pathway.
Claim 5: No evidence of genotoxicity or increased cancer rates in vaccinated populations despite “billions” of doses administered.
Regulators often dismiss concerns about increased cancer rates following vaccination, citing a lack of evidence; however, Freedom of Information requests reveal that they are not actively monitoring cancer incidences.
Emerging evidence warrants caution says Dr Rose, pointing to a case report in the European Heart Journal, describing a 22-year-old developing a rare cancer within four months of receiving the Pfizer vaccine. The researchers concluded:
“The unusual manifestation of recurrent, fulminant, refractory pericarditis without evidence of any underlying medical condition prompted us to consider his COVID-19 vaccination as a putative risk factor.”
A broken system
Dr Speicher acknowledged that his team is not the first to face multiple rejections from journals, but wants to see serious reform in scientific publishing.
“Every good scientist has faced their share of manuscript rejections,” he said. “I’m just disappointed about how broken the system is and that journal editors act as gatekeepers, preventing good counter-narrative science from being published.”
“Sooner or later, regulators and governments need to face the issue that this mRNA technology has widespread issues, including DNA contamination. It can’t be ignored any longer,” said Speicher.
Canadian immunologist Byram Bridle, who was not involved in Speicher’s study, said he was angered upon reading the rejection letter, describing it as the “antithesis of science.”
He called it “one of the most deplorable examples of how broken and politicised the editorial and peer review process has become,” adding, “I have seen no more obvious example of a nefarious rejection. It's laughable, even to a layperson.”
Dr Bridle described the "misinformed" rejection letter from Cureus as deeply concerning, stating, “It is a sign that the entire scientific process is in jeopardy.”
Cureus’ response
Cureus and Springer Nature were approached for media comment but did not respond.
However, they did respond to the author’s rebuttal with a boilerplate response that ignored the substantive scientific points.
“Thank you for reaching out. We understand that you may not agree with the outcome but please be assured that this decision was made after careful review and thorough consideration of all relevant factors. While we recognize that this may not be the resolution you were hoping for, the decision is final.
Sincerely,
The Cureus Editorial Team”
NB: Dr Speicher wrote about the previous journal rejections on his substack.
[All scientific journals are increasingly acting as gatekeepers, promoting established narratives while sidelining research that challenges the status quo.]
FTFY. c.f. "climate change"
At this point why do we need to publish in scientific journals when we know they are propaganda that doesn’t follow science.
Why can’t researchers publish independently or why not here on X?
They will get plenty of peer and non-peer review if they put their findings out to the masses.