I think the established medical (and indeed most scientific) journals are like MSM nowadays. You're more likely to get vigorous debate and discussion elsewhere rather than the pal reviewed journals.
Reading this, I can’t help but ask—are we living through a kind of neo-Malthusian moment, where centralised power structures, under the guise of 'health' or 'sustainability,' suppress life-preserving knowledge in favor of systemic control?
The retraction of Dr. Hazan’s hypothesis paper, despite no proven misconduct, seems less like a case of editorial prudence and more like an example of what some are beginning to call a scientific dictatorship—a hallmark of technocracy. As Patrick Wood put it, technocracy isn’t merely a form of governance; it’s a system where enforcement of orthodoxy replaces open inquiry, and authority flows not from evidence but from control.
What’s more disturbing is how the act of asking uncomfortable questions now triggers reputational punishment. Questions themselves have become subversive.
I fear the journals aren’t simply failing—they are evolving into gatekeepers for a worldview that serves commercial, political, and ideological interests over truth. Your reporting continues to be one of the few bright lights cutting through that fog. Please keep going.
Prof Norman Fenton recounts in his latest blog how he has tried to get his paper exposing the insertion of "waiting periods" before one is counted as vaxxed as fraudulent and giving false efficacy. It was rejected without even going to peer review.
Any papers published by journals must be regarded with total suspicion, as they are almost certainly tainted by political correctness or Pharma corruption.
Thanks, Maryanne!! I quit taking Nursing Journals because I saw which way they were going. Reading the editorial told all. The lady with the lamp would turn over in her grave!
The WEF says they "own" science. Fauci said he "is" science. What we are witnessing is the death of the scientific revolution. This is totalitarianism on a global scale. The powerful have determined what can be said and what can't be, what can be printed and what can't be. They hope to keep us all isolated in our bubbles of ignorance, and proceed onward as we remain perplexed and befuddled by what is going on. It won't work. You don't need to know what's in the cheaters hand once you've read their "tell". Without knowing what the truth is, and what the lie is, the tell reveals that cheating is going on and who is doing it. With that, trust vanishes. It is quickly evaporating, and the cheaters keep trying to play us, more and more, not realizing that each time they undermine their credibility more and more. Still, they continue to fool a lot of people. A scary number. Tolstoy revealed the denouement in his story: "God Sees the Truth But Waits." We still have some waiting, and fighting, to do.
In Feb 2019 the Pradhan Group issued a paper showing why SARS CoV2 (Covid 19} was lab engineered. Collins and Fauci got it retracted within weeks.
I would think someone in the medical industry forced the retraction of the paper in your article. Who else reads this stuff especially before it hits the general public ? But I guess the computer can pick up any key words to identify a "threat".
Her boss was threatened.
The NEJM lost subscribers during the Covid 19 days.
Cross-referencing two articles today on academic fraud which is clearly intended to suppress scientific discovery and debate and strengthen the grip of vaccinophilic orthodoxy:
The silencing of scientific curiosity
Medical journals have became enforcers of orthodoxy - retracting genuine hypotheses while protecting proven fraud.
The authors are leading investigators and reporters of the COVID-19 pandemic debacle and all the questions of fraud and censorship which have arisen in its wake. Both are Australian women.
As each week passes Maryanne, very sadly, we hear the exact same story, just via a slightly different vehicle of notification.
Clearly, the team that undertook the study in regards to the possible benefit of ivermectin, adopted the correct principles, understood within authentic science and by scientists with integrity.
But as you state, one only has to follow the money to understand where the power is, and it is NOT with those of integrity and authenticity.
Data from the numbers of people in Africa who regularly take ivermectin as a prophylaxis against worms, and the small numbers of deaths from Covid, against the very low uptake of the "vaccine" provide, even a non scientist, with relevant questions about the possible effectiveness of ivermectin.
Thus, it is very conceivable that a genuine authentic scientist would reasonably hypothesise on that data alone, let alone following particular additional relevant evidence.
I sense that we need the likes of Elon Musk to sponsor honest scientific magazines, such that the money needed to ensure their existence, does not cause their integrity to be undermined by the vile self serving scum that is BigPharma.
Many do not understand Elon Musk difference from the other billionaires. He rejects the advertising capitalist model, he opened Twitter X to everyone except where laws are broken - free speech is important but that doesn’t mean he agrees with extremists on X but it is importantly that we have access to knowing what people say believe etc otherwise it goes underground leading to sudden surprises
I find X the most open media source - judging what is truth is hard but no harder than MSM or other SM and there is no censorship on X which clearly Govt Regulators Publishers all dish misinfo and disinfo to control the unqualified great unwashed of no legal standing
Sched 4 Medicine advertising and informationals are illegal in Australia but with targeted reach on Facebook are becoming more of a truth in advertising issue. I will put my disturbing findings as a separate comment which links to publication of info without peer review or even publisher review and is a phenomenon of the new Trump era where Facebook has changed its fact checking. As we saw in the Cambridge Analytical scandal, FB is able to profile recipients who information is distributed to. Often the paid adverts are blocked from commentary which is different from X
I think you are identifying a real world issue here. Big corporations seeking the profitability prize for potentially unsuccessful research, which can easily fail, seek political and regulator guarantees for effort (investment) by persuasion, bribery and ultimately corruption. Big pharma plays to win.
I think there are whole fields where it isn’t a problem, maybe the population base of the illness disease is smaller which doesn’t attract the attention or rewards of huge populations - the glittering prizes..
What we have seen with COVID vax and treatment has been guaranteeing profitable rewards to big pharma mainly in the west, Pfizer, meant killing any competition. ie their goal mass market for investment in mRNA vax and antiviral drug treatment which minimises hospitalisation (costly) and death (societal alarm). The target to stop “out of patent” existing medicines ie ivermectin, retract publication of statistical efficacy whilst allowing unscientific support of the novel patented drugs by fast track. This extended to stopping simple barrier safe statistically effective early community based treatments or preventatives ie studied & proven antiviral nasal sprays VIRALEZE™ SaNOtize (Enovid) both stopped in country of origin. In yr 1 of pandemic misleading droplet transmission theory not airborne even restricted mask and clean air solutions.
So take Australia 25million of 25 million popn at covid risk. Profits to big pharma generate $2.7billion just for antiviral drugs for over 70s and immuno compromised . The game is worth winning - via regulators, politics, legislation and studies trials in publication - positive investment in influence.
Turn from covid we are seeing the issue of Alzheimer treatment. The article in the Economist 17 March 25 shows a research prof from Manchester University and Nuffield still working at 90 yrs old - for 40 yrs she could not get her work proving the herpes virus was a likely cause of Alzheimer’s and that amyloid and tau part of natural brain defence mechanism. Years of professional journals refusing to report her work on cadavers… treated as enemy of “mainstream”. This isn’t science because NOTHING is predetermined. There really is no mainstream that can’t need challenged. Research needs to be reported and truths proven. But like the overturning of years of established theory about peptic ulcer took one brave researcher giving himself a peptic ulcer by self admin of stomach content and cured it with antibiotics. THE PEPTIC ULCER CURE. Gamechanger. We have a Gamechanger happening today in Alzheimer’s helped by recent Covid understanding that the brain isn’t sterile and latent herpes virus can enter the brain and slowly cause amyloid and tau protective tangling. Up to this year the naysayers could win until publication could not be avoided because of enormous real world data from over 65yrs routine shingles vax in several countries including 300,000 in Wales. But back to publication why was Prof Ruth Itzhaki refused publication over 40 yrs - was it research scholarships and funding from govts and opportunistic big pharma holding publishers by the neck.
And now there is the question raised by the acknowledged long time build up of Alzheimer’s in the billions world popn and that enormous marketplace where one paragraph in the Economist article stated
“These sorts of retrospective analyses are often tricky to interpret, as people who take medications or get vaccinations tend to be more health-conscious in general, making them less likely to develop diseases such as Alzheimer's. But some of the results are promising. One study published in 2018 found that for older people in Taiwan who had cold sores, taking an antiviral cut the risk of dementia by 90%. Several subsequent analyses of medical data from other countries found more modest protective effects of antivirals, typically between 25 and 50%.”
Does this mean that from say the age of 40 regular use of antivirals in the nose like antiviral nasal sprays forming a barrier could be a protection stopping the active herpes virus transferring to the brain.
What if this is researched and found to be statistically valid - will big pharma with novel drug profitability threatened pressure regulators and publishers
“Do not mention the war (solutions which could have millions protected)”
Honesty and truth in Science and following inspirational human ideas is so important
Thanks again to MD for your quest for truth and honesty. Profitability and corruption go hand in hand
Really appreciate the way you often respond to our comments within minutes and we know you are active in reading them. You are a one in a million investigative journo Maryanne
Thank you Maryanne, you are so thorough in exposing a lie. After I realized I was pfizer covid vaccine injured, I started to search desperately in the medical journals for answers. I began to notice the obsequious lauding of the shots, before getting into the meat of the article. I thought it was odd. I soon came to realize they were kissing the hand that feeds them. Pharma, who controls everything to do with healthcare through funding has corrupted the truth for their own benefit. Reading your substack I learned that RFK is aware of this bias in science which warmed the cockles of my heart. Thank you ever so much.
When the leaders of the culture reject the concept of objective truth in favour of dogma, assertion and authority, our science-based capitalist society is bound to collapse because investment will cease to provide the expected return.
I see the early signs all around. The corruption of our media and academia who are attempting to suppress the truth about treatments for SARS-CoV-2; the UK green energy policy which bizarrely relies on importing expensive gas from the Middle East; the inflationary Ponzi arrangement which is the UK state pension scheme. None of this is going to end well, except perhaps for the wealthy.
Watch TED second appearance by Carole Cadwalladr after her 2019 talk about Cambridge Analytica - the issues of advertising, algorithms and data ownership by the broligopoly
What about papers that shouldn't have been published in the first place?
For example a systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety, published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004.
The authors of the review conclude: "We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events."
The authors also say: "Despite a lack of good quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."
They also admit: "Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low."
How could they come to any conclusions based on studies of which the methodological quality was low? Aka 'garbage in, garbage out'.
And to recommend against any further research...
It's bizarre...
It seems the purpose of this WHO-funded review was to defend the use of aluminium in vaccine products - was it a coincidence that aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccines were in the pipeline at the time?
This review is influential on vaccination policy, it's been used to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines...but it was based on studies of which the methodological quality was low...
In my opinion this review paper should not have been published, and I question how it got through peer review at The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
There are NONE so blind, as those that WILL NOT see !
Journals are just a business now, predatory and profit based.
Look in any newsagents - the message is magazines are dead
Well, PLAYBOY certainly thinks so ! 🤔 . No 'print edition' for 5 years (an anonymous source informs me....🙄)
lol! A friend of a friend 😂
Fantastic work Maryanne.
I think the established medical (and indeed most scientific) journals are like MSM nowadays. You're more likely to get vigorous debate and discussion elsewhere rather than the pal reviewed journals.
Brilliant and deeply important piece, Maryanne.
Reading this, I can’t help but ask—are we living through a kind of neo-Malthusian moment, where centralised power structures, under the guise of 'health' or 'sustainability,' suppress life-preserving knowledge in favor of systemic control?
The retraction of Dr. Hazan’s hypothesis paper, despite no proven misconduct, seems less like a case of editorial prudence and more like an example of what some are beginning to call a scientific dictatorship—a hallmark of technocracy. As Patrick Wood put it, technocracy isn’t merely a form of governance; it’s a system where enforcement of orthodoxy replaces open inquiry, and authority flows not from evidence but from control.
What’s more disturbing is how the act of asking uncomfortable questions now triggers reputational punishment. Questions themselves have become subversive.
I fear the journals aren’t simply failing—they are evolving into gatekeepers for a worldview that serves commercial, political, and ideological interests over truth. Your reporting continues to be one of the few bright lights cutting through that fog. Please keep going.
Yeah, I never thought I’d see the day when it became dangerous to be curious about science. 🤯
Thanks Gaz
Good stuff as usual.
Prof Norman Fenton recounts in his latest blog how he has tried to get his paper exposing the insertion of "waiting periods" before one is counted as vaxxed as fraudulent and giving false efficacy. It was rejected without even going to peer review.
Any papers published by journals must be regarded with total suspicion, as they are almost certainly tainted by political correctness or Pharma corruption.
Thanks, Maryanne!! I quit taking Nursing Journals because I saw which way they were going. Reading the editorial told all. The lady with the lamp would turn over in her grave!
The WEF says they "own" science. Fauci said he "is" science. What we are witnessing is the death of the scientific revolution. This is totalitarianism on a global scale. The powerful have determined what can be said and what can't be, what can be printed and what can't be. They hope to keep us all isolated in our bubbles of ignorance, and proceed onward as we remain perplexed and befuddled by what is going on. It won't work. You don't need to know what's in the cheaters hand once you've read their "tell". Without knowing what the truth is, and what the lie is, the tell reveals that cheating is going on and who is doing it. With that, trust vanishes. It is quickly evaporating, and the cheaters keep trying to play us, more and more, not realizing that each time they undermine their credibility more and more. Still, they continue to fool a lot of people. A scary number. Tolstoy revealed the denouement in his story: "God Sees the Truth But Waits." We still have some waiting, and fighting, to do.
In Feb 2019 the Pradhan Group issued a paper showing why SARS CoV2 (Covid 19} was lab engineered. Collins and Fauci got it retracted within weeks.
I would think someone in the medical industry forced the retraction of the paper in your article. Who else reads this stuff especially before it hits the general public ? But I guess the computer can pick up any key words to identify a "threat".
Her boss was threatened.
The NEJM lost subscribers during the Covid 19 days.
Cross-referencing two articles today on academic fraud which is clearly intended to suppress scientific discovery and debate and strengthen the grip of vaccinophilic orthodoxy:
The silencing of scientific curiosity
Medical journals have became enforcers of orthodoxy - retracting genuine hypotheses while protecting proven fraud.
Maryanne Demasi PhD https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/the-silencing-of-scientific-curiosity
'Globally significant' Covid vaccine study biobank to be destroyed
The Queensland Government says there is "no longer a scientific and public health need" for this valuable biobank and linked data
Rebekah Barnett https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/globally-significant-covid-vaccine
The authors are leading investigators and reporters of the COVID-19 pandemic debacle and all the questions of fraud and censorship which have arisen in its wake. Both are Australian women.
As each week passes Maryanne, very sadly, we hear the exact same story, just via a slightly different vehicle of notification.
Clearly, the team that undertook the study in regards to the possible benefit of ivermectin, adopted the correct principles, understood within authentic science and by scientists with integrity.
But as you state, one only has to follow the money to understand where the power is, and it is NOT with those of integrity and authenticity.
Data from the numbers of people in Africa who regularly take ivermectin as a prophylaxis against worms, and the small numbers of deaths from Covid, against the very low uptake of the "vaccine" provide, even a non scientist, with relevant questions about the possible effectiveness of ivermectin.
Thus, it is very conceivable that a genuine authentic scientist would reasonably hypothesise on that data alone, let alone following particular additional relevant evidence.
I sense that we need the likes of Elon Musk to sponsor honest scientific magazines, such that the money needed to ensure their existence, does not cause their integrity to be undermined by the vile self serving scum that is BigPharma.
Many do not understand Elon Musk difference from the other billionaires. He rejects the advertising capitalist model, he opened Twitter X to everyone except where laws are broken - free speech is important but that doesn’t mean he agrees with extremists on X but it is importantly that we have access to knowing what people say believe etc otherwise it goes underground leading to sudden surprises
I find X the most open media source - judging what is truth is hard but no harder than MSM or other SM and there is no censorship on X which clearly Govt Regulators Publishers all dish misinfo and disinfo to control the unqualified great unwashed of no legal standing
I have the same experience with X…. By far the most diverse and open platform.
Sched 4 Medicine advertising and informationals are illegal in Australia but with targeted reach on Facebook are becoming more of a truth in advertising issue. I will put my disturbing findings as a separate comment which links to publication of info without peer review or even publisher review and is a phenomenon of the new Trump era where Facebook has changed its fact checking. As we saw in the Cambridge Analytical scandal, FB is able to profile recipients who information is distributed to. Often the paid adverts are blocked from commentary which is different from X
Follow the money.......sadly.
Remember when statins were outed, pilloried. No (up to date, educated) doctor would prescribe them anymore.
Remember when anti-depressants were widely debunked?
Remember when the cholesterol scapegoating malarkey was exposed?
Remember when the company who makes Stilnox finally announced it was addictive?
All of them started with articles published in "reputable" journals.
I think you are identifying a real world issue here. Big corporations seeking the profitability prize for potentially unsuccessful research, which can easily fail, seek political and regulator guarantees for effort (investment) by persuasion, bribery and ultimately corruption. Big pharma plays to win.
I think there are whole fields where it isn’t a problem, maybe the population base of the illness disease is smaller which doesn’t attract the attention or rewards of huge populations - the glittering prizes..
What we have seen with COVID vax and treatment has been guaranteeing profitable rewards to big pharma mainly in the west, Pfizer, meant killing any competition. ie their goal mass market for investment in mRNA vax and antiviral drug treatment which minimises hospitalisation (costly) and death (societal alarm). The target to stop “out of patent” existing medicines ie ivermectin, retract publication of statistical efficacy whilst allowing unscientific support of the novel patented drugs by fast track. This extended to stopping simple barrier safe statistically effective early community based treatments or preventatives ie studied & proven antiviral nasal sprays VIRALEZE™ SaNOtize (Enovid) both stopped in country of origin. In yr 1 of pandemic misleading droplet transmission theory not airborne even restricted mask and clean air solutions.
So take Australia 25million of 25 million popn at covid risk. Profits to big pharma generate $2.7billion just for antiviral drugs for over 70s and immuno compromised . The game is worth winning - via regulators, politics, legislation and studies trials in publication - positive investment in influence.
Turn from covid we are seeing the issue of Alzheimer treatment. The article in the Economist 17 March 25 shows a research prof from Manchester University and Nuffield still working at 90 yrs old - for 40 yrs she could not get her work proving the herpes virus was a likely cause of Alzheimer’s and that amyloid and tau part of natural brain defence mechanism. Years of professional journals refusing to report her work on cadavers… treated as enemy of “mainstream”. This isn’t science because NOTHING is predetermined. There really is no mainstream that can’t need challenged. Research needs to be reported and truths proven. But like the overturning of years of established theory about peptic ulcer took one brave researcher giving himself a peptic ulcer by self admin of stomach content and cured it with antibiotics. THE PEPTIC ULCER CURE. Gamechanger. We have a Gamechanger happening today in Alzheimer’s helped by recent Covid understanding that the brain isn’t sterile and latent herpes virus can enter the brain and slowly cause amyloid and tau protective tangling. Up to this year the naysayers could win until publication could not be avoided because of enormous real world data from over 65yrs routine shingles vax in several countries including 300,000 in Wales. But back to publication why was Prof Ruth Itzhaki refused publication over 40 yrs - was it research scholarships and funding from govts and opportunistic big pharma holding publishers by the neck.
And now there is the question raised by the acknowledged long time build up of Alzheimer’s in the billions world popn and that enormous marketplace where one paragraph in the Economist article stated
“These sorts of retrospective analyses are often tricky to interpret, as people who take medications or get vaccinations tend to be more health-conscious in general, making them less likely to develop diseases such as Alzheimer's. But some of the results are promising. One study published in 2018 found that for older people in Taiwan who had cold sores, taking an antiviral cut the risk of dementia by 90%. Several subsequent analyses of medical data from other countries found more modest protective effects of antivirals, typically between 25 and 50%.”
Does this mean that from say the age of 40 regular use of antivirals in the nose like antiviral nasal sprays forming a barrier could be a protection stopping the active herpes virus transferring to the brain.
What if this is researched and found to be statistically valid - will big pharma with novel drug profitability threatened pressure regulators and publishers
“Do not mention the war (solutions which could have millions protected)”
Honesty and truth in Science and following inspirational human ideas is so important
Thanks again to MD for your quest for truth and honesty. Profitability and corruption go hand in hand
Really appreciate the way you often respond to our comments within minutes and we know you are active in reading them. You are a one in a million investigative journo Maryanne
Thanks a million …
Thank you Maryanne, you are so thorough in exposing a lie. After I realized I was pfizer covid vaccine injured, I started to search desperately in the medical journals for answers. I began to notice the obsequious lauding of the shots, before getting into the meat of the article. I thought it was odd. I soon came to realize they were kissing the hand that feeds them. Pharma, who controls everything to do with healthcare through funding has corrupted the truth for their own benefit. Reading your substack I learned that RFK is aware of this bias in science which warmed the cockles of my heart. Thank you ever so much.
You’re welcome Vivien 🥰
When the leaders of the culture reject the concept of objective truth in favour of dogma, assertion and authority, our science-based capitalist society is bound to collapse because investment will cease to provide the expected return.
I see the early signs all around. The corruption of our media and academia who are attempting to suppress the truth about treatments for SARS-CoV-2; the UK green energy policy which bizarrely relies on importing expensive gas from the Middle East; the inflationary Ponzi arrangement which is the UK state pension scheme. None of this is going to end well, except perhaps for the wealthy.
Watch TED second appearance by Carole Cadwalladr after her 2019 talk about Cambridge Analytica - the issues of advertising, algorithms and data ownership by the broligopoly
What about papers that shouldn't have been published in the first place?
For example a systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety, published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004.
The authors of the review conclude: "We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events."
The authors also say: "Despite a lack of good quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."
They also admit: "Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low."
How could they come to any conclusions based on studies of which the methodological quality was low? Aka 'garbage in, garbage out'.
And to recommend against any further research...
It's bizarre...
It seems the purpose of this WHO-funded review was to defend the use of aluminium in vaccine products - was it a coincidence that aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccines were in the pipeline at the time?
This review is influential on vaccination policy, it's been used to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines...but it was based on studies of which the methodological quality was low...
In my opinion this review paper should not have been published, and I question how it got through peer review at The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
See more in my article: "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken." https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/despite-a-lack-of-good-quality-evidence