The censorship of science during the “COVID-19 era”
All unbiased scientists who experienced various forms of censorship should come forward and disclose their experiences. The censorship of science must stop!
During the COVID-19 pandemic many governmental institutions implemented policies and mandated medical treatments claiming that such decisions were based on science. In my opinion, there has never been a greater abuse of the term “science” in the history of humankind. As an example, recall the statement of Janine Small (President of International Developed Markets for Pfizer), when Rob Roos (a member of parliament from the Netherlands), questioned whether the Pfizer vaccine had been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market, during a hearing in the European Parliament on October 10th, 2022. Janine Small replied: “We had to really move at the speed of science, to really understand what is taking place in the market”.
It is important to pay attention to how Ms. Small used the language. The statement “to really understand what is taking place in the market” suggests that Pfizer was more concerned with the market (i.e. the economic aspect) than the efficacy of its product. Consequently, she used the word “science” improperly, abusing its meaning in order to legitimize Pfizer’s rush to introduce its product in the market.
The term “science” has been misused countless times in similar occasions. The global response to the outbreak, was strong and monolithic, mandating lockdowns and promoting indiscriminate mass vaccination in the name of “science”, while completely silencing, censoring, and smearing the scientific viewpoints that were questioning such measures. The decision-makers claimed that they were following the “general consensus” in order to stop the spread of the virus and protect the people. Yet, only one side of the scientific opinion has been voiced, while the other has been completely censored, regardless of its integrity and reliability. Then, if not all the parts are in agreement, how can we speak of “general consensus”?
As a matter of fact, the scientific method is inextricably based on the exchange of ideas and on the constructive debate. A famous and characteristic example is the debate between Camillo Golgi and Santiago Ramon y Cajal (Figure 1), at the turn of the 20th century, who despite having opposing opinions, were the two main scientists that revealed the morphological organization of the cerebellar cortex, and for their contribution they shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1906 [1].
Figure 1: Camillo Golgi (left) and Santiago Ramon y Cajal (right) [image credit: taken and modified from commons.wikipedia.org].
Since December 2019, the scientists who dared to question the mainstream narrative have been subjected to several forms of censorship. For instance, the British mathematician Prof.
, who has a remarkable academic career, has dealt with many forms of silencing throughout the pandemic, and thus he described the “Five stages of academic censorship for those challenging the narrative” [2,3]. Since the freedom of speech and the fruitful scientific debate are seriously under jeopardy, I firmly believe that the scientific community must follow Prof. Fenton’s courageous example and publicly denounce the censorship of science. Therefore, I decided to share my personal experience writing this article.Histopathological findings from several conclusive scientific publications demonstrate that the genetic vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 display an off-target distribution in terminally differentiated tissues that are vulnerable to severe symptomatic damage [4–9]. These include the heart and brain, which may incur in situ production of spike protein triggering a strong autoimmunological inflammatory response. Such inflammatory responses may result in the tragic death of young children, as shown in the study by Nushida et al. which describes the case of a 14 years old Japanese girl who died two days after receiving the third dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine [8]. Since there was no preceding infection, allergy, or exposure to any other drug toxicity, the patient was diagnosed with post-vaccination multi-organ inflammation. The histopathological findings clearly showed T-lymphocytic and macrophage infiltration in the lungs, in the pericardium, in the myocardium, in the liver, in the kidneys, in the stomach, in the duodenum, in the bladder and in the diaphragm.
In December 2022, together with Dr.
, we assembled an international and multidisciplinary team of medical professionals and researchers including cardiologists, pathologists, histopathologists, oncologists, microbiologists, molecular and structural biologists, in order to assess the critical issue of the synthesis of spike protein in off-target tissues, and to explore the potential consequences of the resulting autoimmune damage [10]. On the basis of the histopathological evidence, in our work we raise major concerns about the safety of vaccination, especially for younger age groups and naturally immune who have a negligible theoretical benefit from vaccination. In order to prevent the loss of additional lives, our paper aims to draw the attention of the scientific and regulatory communities on the absolute necessity for biodistribution studies as well as for rational harm-benefit assessments by age group.I would like to stress that such paper is not an opinion or an hypothesis article, but rather it is an evidence based review of solid scientific data (published on peer-reviewed scientific journals), written and revised by 10 international medical professionals and researchers, some of whom have outstanding careers and very high H-indexes. Furthermore, the histopathological specimens represent robust evidence in which the outcome is clearly visible, not a “abstract science” susceptible to subjective interpretation. Given the aforementioned facts, and considering that the entire world is dealing with a health emergency (and thus all available information is required), the logical outcome would have been for the article to get published as soon as possible, so that the scientific community would be promptly informed and a debate could have been initiated. That wasn’t the case, though.
The manuscript has been submitted multiple times since January 30th, 2023, the date of the first submission to the The BMJ (Figure 2), but it has always been rejected by the editors without ever making it to the reviewers.
Figure 2: Screenshot of the first submission of the manuscript in The BMJ, on January 30th, 2023.
Overall, the article has been submitted 10 times to the following journals:
The BMJ (https://www.bmj.com) on January 30th, 2023.
International Journal of Epidemiology (https://academic.oup.com/ije) on February 12th, 2023.
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-microbiology-immunology-and-infection) on February 15th, 2023.
Vaccines (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/vaccines) on February 24th, 2023.
Biomedicines (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomedicines) on March 1st, 2023.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms) on March 13th, 2023.
PeerJ (https://peerj.com) on March 22nd, 2023.
F1000research (https://f1000research.com) on April 23rd, 2023.
Journal of Autoimmunity (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-autoimmunity) on May 9th, 2023.
Autoimmunity (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/iaut20) on May 22nd, 2023.
I want to emphasize again that the manuscript has never been sent to the reviewers prior to the submission in the journal Autoimmunity, where it has been finally accepted for publication on September 10th, 2023 (Figure 3). In other words, the manuscript was accepted for publication the first time it was allowed to go through the review process.
Figure 3: Front page of the article “Autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in terminally differentiated tissues” (https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2023.2259123).
During all the aforementioned submissions, there have been some ludicrous facts that deserve a special mention. For instance, the journal Vaccines rejected the paper despite the fact that on February 3rd, 2023, Dr. Peter A. McCullough received a formal invitation to submit a paper for the Special Issue entitled: “Current Understanding of Immune Response after COVID-19 Vaccination” (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Screenshot of the invitation email for the Special Issue “Current Understanding of Immune Response after COVID-19 Vaccination”.
Why on earth, a review of solid histopathological findings reporting autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, written by 10 international medical professionals and researchers, and submitted after a formal invitation has been judged as “not suitable” for a special issue with the topic: “Current Understanding of Immune Response after COVID-19 Vaccination”?!
Another ludicrous example was the submission to the journal PeerJ. We submitted the manuscript on March 22nd, 2023, and almost one month later I received the rejection letter dated April 17th, 2023, in which it was written: “Unfortunately none of the Academic Editors on our Editorial Board has agreed to handle your paper” (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Screenshot of the rejection letter sent by the PeerJ Team.
At least they have been honest by admitting that none of the academic editors on the editorial board had agreed to handle the paper…
Everybody who works in this field knows that the submission process can be time-consuming, but usually the step that lasts longer is the review process, which begins when the editor accepts to consider a manuscript for publication and sends it to the reviewers. If the science of the manuscript was poor or the topic was not suitable for the journal, why didn’t PeerJ reject it immediately right after the submission? Why has the submission remained in a pending state for nearly a month, and why none the academic editors agreed to handle the paper? Have you got any theories as to why?
I have a feeling that we would have published the paper within few weeks if the manuscript’s main point had been that the genetic vaccines against COVID-19 are “safe and effective”.
What worries me the most about this story, aside from the discrimination and the subtle form of censorship, is the withholding of the scientific data that clash with the mainstream narrative. I wonder how many studies that could shed light on the mechanisms underlying the effects of COVID-19 genetic vaccines on the organism are being withheld or delayed. How many scientists who obtained results that contradict the narrative have gone through similar (or even worst) experiences?
These facts could help to interpret some unexplainable contradictions found in several articles published during the “COVID-19 era”. In my opinion, a characteristic example of this phenomenon is represented by the paper entitle “Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk” by Hanna et al., 2023 [11]. In the paper the authors clearly state: “Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into BM EVs. However, as only trace quantities are present and a clear translational activity is absent, we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 h after vaccination. Nevertheless, since the minimum mRNA vaccine dose to elicit an immune reaction in infants <6 months is unknown, a dialogue between a breastfeeding mother and her healthcare provider should address the benefit/risk considerations of breastfeeding in the first two days after maternal vaccination.” (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Summary of the article “Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104800).
The authors state that they believe that breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe (for such a fragile group as breastfeeding moms and consequently, even for their infants), despite the fact that their findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site but spreads systemically (an thus, the potential accumulation sites are unknown). How can a scientist state a priori that vaccination is safe due to the fact that “only trace quantities are present”, considering that “the minimum mRNA vaccine dose to elicit an immune reaction in infants <6 months is unknown”? These sentences are contradictory.
Personally, I can not find any interpretation of such contradiction, other than to please the editor (or the reviewers) by stating that the vaccines are safe (regardless the extremely worrying findings), in order to prevent the article from being rejected. As a consequence, in order to extrapolate the relevant information from the articles published during the “COVID-19 era” someone has to rely only on the raw data, filtering all the “diplomatic” sentences aimed to persuade the mainstream narrative.
It is imperative to put an end to the censorship of scientists and to the discrimination of the scientific data. If the rationale behind them is solid, all scientific findings, reports, viewpoints, and opinions should be granted equal consideration for publication and should be evaluated objectively by the reviewers. Therefore, I encourage all the unbiased scientists who experienced different forms of censorship, silencing, and discrimination to loudly expose their experiences, because the pillars of science are at serious risk.
PS: I would like to express my sincere gratitude and congratulations to the Editorial Team of the journal Autoimmunity for their unbiased stance toward science.
References
[1] C. Andreou, V. Bozikas, A. Karavatos, The fertile controversy between Camillo Golgi and Ramon y Cajal about the structure of the nervous system, Annals of General Hospital Psychiatry. 2 (2003) S146. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2832-2-S1-S146.
[2] Prof Norman Fenton [@profnfenton], The stages of academic censorship for those challenging “the narrative”
https://t.co/fqn5d6eNFL, Twitter. (2023). https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1652627126099607552
(accessed June 5, 2023).
[3] John Campbell talks with Norman Fenton about academic censorship, 2023.
(accessed June 5, 2023).
[4] C. Baumeier, G. Aleshcheva, D. Harms, U. Gross, C. Hamm, B. Assmus, R. Westenfeld, M. Kelm, S. Rammos, P. Wenzel, T. Münzel, A. Elsässer, M. Gailani, C. Perings, A. Bourakkadi, M. Flesch, T. Kempf, J. Bauersachs, F. Escher, H.-P. Schultheiss, Intramyocardial Inflammation after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Endomyocardial Biopsy-Proven Case Series, International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 23 (2022) 6940. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136940.
[5] C. Schwab, L.M. Domke, L. Hartmann, A. Stenzinger, T. Longerich, P. Schirmacher, Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination, Clin Res Cardiol. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5.
[6] M. Yamamoto, M. Kase, H. Sano, R. Kamijima, S. Sano, Persistent varicella zoster virus infection following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with the presence of encoded spike protein in the lesion, Journal of Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy. n/a (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1002/cia2.12278.
[7] M. Mörz, A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19, Vaccines. 10 (2022) 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101651.
[8] H. Nushida, A. Ito, H. Kurata, H. Umemoto, I. Tokunaga, H. Iseki, A. Nishimura, A case of fatal multi-organ inflammation following COVID-19 vaccination, Legal Medicine. 63 (2023) 102244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2023.102244.
[9] Prof. Arne Burkhardt, Current Findings on Vaccination Adverse Reactions, September 18th, 2022, n.d. https://www.bitchute.com/video/vGstfdSOt3rO/ (accessed September 16, 2023).
[10] P. Polykretis, A. Donzelli, J.C. Lindsay, D. Wiseman, A.M. Kyriakopoulos, M. Mörz, P. Bellavite, M. Fukushima, S. Seneff, P.A. McCullough, Autoimmune Inflammatory Reactions Triggered by the COVID-19 Genetic Vaccines in Terminally Differentiated Tissues, (2023). https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0140.v1.
[11] N. Hanna, C.M.D. Mejia, A. Heffes-Doon, X. Lin, B. Botros, E. Gurzenda, C. Clauss-Pascarelli, A. Nayak, Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk, EBioMedicine. 96 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104800.