Japanese study showing an increased age-adjusted cancer mortality after the 3rd mRNA vaccine dose RETRACTED: It is time to stop the outrageous censorship of science!
Japanese study showing an increased age-adjusted cancer mortality after the 3rd mRNA vaccine dose RETRACTED: It is time to stop the outrageous censorship of science!
In your postscript to the article you say "The content posted on this account will always be available for fee.". Perhaps you meant to type "free".
Thanks for publicizing and analyzing the retraction.
I wonder which scientific journals do a transparent peer review (where the reviewers names are published) and stand by their authors until reasonable doubt is expressed to them by credible critics. Is there, for example, a journal structured along the cooperative model where the authors and reviewers are the owners and vote for the editors and managers as well as deciding criteria for funding and membership (ie excluding or at least publishing conflicts of interest and down-weighting content from such people).
Thank you very much for subscribing! I truly appreciate it.
I also thank you for pointing out the postscript error (“fee” instead of “free”), which drastically alters the message’s meaning.
In response to your question, certain scientific journals conduct an open review process where they ask if reviewers are okay with their names being disclosed once the study is accepted for publication. As an example, Frontiers uses this approach, as you can see in this article that I personally reviewed and for which I was asked if I agreed to be listed among the reviewers (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2022.992260/full). The cooperative model that you propose is very interesting, especially considering the amount of papers, which clashed with the established narrative, that were retracted during the COVID-19 era. Currently, the Editor always has the last say, and this played a crucial role in the implementation of censorship, because several papers were retracted after being published, or a many other were never sent for review, because the editor chose not to consider the study for publication. At present, researchers who wish to publish an article that is not in line with the established narrative have no choice except to persistently re-submit their work to various journals until an editor accepts it (please, see https://panagispolykretis.substack.com/p/the-censorship-of-science-during). And this is my suggestion to Dr. Gibo and rest of the authors of “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan”, to ask Cureus to have their paper completely removed from the website, to update it and then re-submit it to a new journal, until they publish it again.
In your postscript to the article you say "The content posted on this account will always be available for fee.". Perhaps you meant to type "free".
Thanks for publicizing and analyzing the retraction.
I wonder which scientific journals do a transparent peer review (where the reviewers names are published) and stand by their authors until reasonable doubt is expressed to them by credible critics. Is there, for example, a journal structured along the cooperative model where the authors and reviewers are the owners and vote for the editors and managers as well as deciding criteria for funding and membership (ie excluding or at least publishing conflicts of interest and down-weighting content from such people).
Dear krishna e bera,
Thank you very much for subscribing! I truly appreciate it.
I also thank you for pointing out the postscript error (“fee” instead of “free”), which drastically alters the message’s meaning.
In response to your question, certain scientific journals conduct an open review process where they ask if reviewers are okay with their names being disclosed once the study is accepted for publication. As an example, Frontiers uses this approach, as you can see in this article that I personally reviewed and for which I was asked if I agreed to be listed among the reviewers (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2022.992260/full). The cooperative model that you propose is very interesting, especially considering the amount of papers, which clashed with the established narrative, that were retracted during the COVID-19 era. Currently, the Editor always has the last say, and this played a crucial role in the implementation of censorship, because several papers were retracted after being published, or a many other were never sent for review, because the editor chose not to consider the study for publication. At present, researchers who wish to publish an article that is not in line with the established narrative have no choice except to persistently re-submit their work to various journals until an editor accepts it (please, see https://panagispolykretis.substack.com/p/the-censorship-of-science-during). And this is my suggestion to Dr. Gibo and rest of the authors of “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan”, to ask Cureus to have their paper completely removed from the website, to update it and then re-submit it to a new journal, until they publish it again.
Best regards,
Panagis