Share this comment
Something came out recently about the high number of covid era research studies being retracted and the implication was that they were silly or poorly done. From the title of one example, I could see the silly. However, here is the second study I am aware of that is completely solid but being rejected by a powerful publisher of research.…
Something came out recently about the high number of covid era research studies being retracted and the implication was that they were silly or poorly done. From the title of one example, I could see the silly. However, here is the second study I am aware of that is completely solid but being rejected by a powerful publisher of research. The other is by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough going into VAERS data of the MRNA injections of the last few years to identify breeched safety signals and myocarditis in particular. They do not speculate and hypothesize, but chart data from a legitimate government source. Like this article on autism, they get too close to a pharmaceutical intervention. Interesting that in both cases, though these 2 studies have been retracted by journals, the info they cover is arising in various other studies. My conclusion on the retraction of the many studies is that many/most examine uncomfortable truths and are of high standards and competent scholarship. It is not easy getting through the initial screening in peer reviewed publications.