Science under siege!

How external parties unrelated to scientific quality and rigor are attempting to interfere with the publication process.

In recent days, the situation surrounding the attack on the article by David Speicher, Jessica Rose, and Kevin McKernan titled “Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada” [1] has become increasingly worrying. The entire scientific community should be deeply concerned about the intense pressure and harassment that the sacred and age-old peer-review publication process is undergoing from third parties, who may have serious conflicts of interest stemming from the funding they receive.

On November 22, Retraction Watch published an extremely concerning and questionable article on several critical aspects. The article describes how Dr. Rolf Marschalek, a biochemist at Goethe University (Frankfurt, Germany) and one of the reviewers of the Speicher et al. paper, was “very upset” because he had recommended rejecting the manuscript, yet it was published anyway. Poor dear… He was upset because he recommended rejecting the paper, yet it was published... And so what Dr. Marschalek?! Anyone in this field knows very well that this can happen. For example, if the paper was reviewed by other reviewers (as it normally should be) and some reviewers were favorable, the editor might have balanced the positive and negative opinions, carefully evaluating the authors’ responses and the scientific rigor, and decided to accept the paper for publication. This is without considering potential conflicts of interest Dr. Marschalek might have, as Kevin McKernan detailed in his response article to Retraction Watch’s criticisms.

Furthermore, Retraction Watch publicly disclosed Dr. Marschalek’s peer review, even though Taylor and Francis, the publisher of Autoimmunity, clearly states in its guidelines that: “Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor.”

Poor Rolf… He was apparently so upset that the article was not rejected, that he forgot his confidentiality duties.

Additionally, Retraction Watch reports that Dr. Marschalek claimed the Qubit method used by the authors was “not suited” for use. However, the article titled “A rapid detection method of replication-competent plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for quality control” conducted at the FDA White Oak facility, used the same method and detected residual DNA contamination in a single human dose from 6 to 470 times (values within a similar range as Speicher’s et al. findings of 36 to 627 times) above than the FDA’s acceptable limits (10 ng/dose) [2]. For those trying to downplay the results of this study because it was conducted by students; the answer is yes, they were students, but the research was carried out under the direct supervision of FDA scientists, in a FDA facility, as reported in the article (and thus, presumably following FDA protocols).

Finally, regarding the critique of data in Figure 2 by Speicher et al., where Dr. Marschalek said the figure “clearly tells the reader that there is no correlation” between vaccine lot DNA content and adverse event reports, the authors clarify that the correlation between residual DNA contamination and adverse events reported in VAERS is exploratory only. In fact, the article makes no conclusions on this aspect.

In my opinion, the development of adverse reactions depends on many variables. As I’ve pointed out on several occasions [3-6], the immunization mechanisms of these pharmaceutical products, the uncontrolled biodistribution of the vaccine-derived genetic material, the unknown duration of genetic material’s persistence in the body, the use of N1-methylpseudouridine causing frameshifting [7], and the intrinsic toxicity of the spike protein [8] are just some of many factors, besides plasmid DNA contamination, that can cause severe adverse reactions. Furthermore, the vaccinator’s experience (whether the shot is injected correctly into muscle tissue or accidentally hits a blood vessel), and the vaccine recipient’s health condition may add even more variables. Therefore, seeking a linear relationship between plasmid DNA contaminant content and the number of adverse reactions is not so straightforward, and accordingly, the authors rightly stated in their manuscript that this analysis was just exploratory.

In conclusion, I would like to share a few thoughts. Why does the established narrative want this article to be retracted so badly and with such stubborn determination? If Dr. Marschalek (as everybody else), has objections to the article, he could simply write a Letter to the Editor or a Commentary article in any journal outlining his concerns. This is the usual practice among scientists, instead of whaning for the retraction of a paper.

I suspect that the reason the entire propaganda apparatus of the established narrative is fiercely attacking Speicher et al.’s article is because it is the first paper published in a journal indexed in all major databases and regularly peer-reviewed that demonstrates the issue of the DNA contamination. They do not want the contamination from plasmid DNA to be officially acknowledged or recognized by the scientific community. Besides the potential health risks this entails, it also raises another crucial problem: the lack of consistency between the composition of the vials and what is declared in the pharmaceutical product description.

In fact, I challenge anyone to claim that, not only two different batches, but even two vials from the same batch have the exact same content of biomolecules, given the presence of these DNA fragments of varying lengths is completely random.

Furthermore, I am almost certain that the Editor-in-Chief of Autoimmunity is a person of scientific integrity who is not responsible for the escalation of this matter. Otherwise, he would not have evaluated the article from the beginning, sent it to reviewers in an impartial manner, nor accepted the article for publication after a careful and balanced assessment of the reviewers’ feedback. On the other hand, I suspect that Taylor and Francis is under significant pressure from third parties, including fact-checking platforms, aiming to have the article retracted.

This whole affair reveals some incredibly disturbing aspects. It clearly shows how outside factors, unrelated to scientific rigor and the publication standards, are threatening the “sanctity” of these processes that have driven science for over a century. If I were the journal Editor, I would be deeply disturbed by external parties, with potential serious conflicts of interest due to their funding sources, trying to interfere with my decision, taken based on reviewers’ comments and my scientific assessment. I urge all impartial scientists to stand against this assault on science, as recently experienced by Dr. Miki Gibo, Prof. Masanori Fukushima and coauthors, now at risk of happening to David Speicher, Jessica Rose, and Kevin McKernan - and tomorrow, it could be any of us.

PS: Out of curiosity, I wonder if Retraction Watch has ever asked for the retraction of articles aligned with the established narrative, starting with the randomized trial study of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine [9], that was prematurely halted after about six months, offering placebo recipients the chance to vaccinate, thus losing any opportunity to study medium- to long-term effects, especially relevant to carcinogenesis.

Reference list

[1] D.J. Speicher, J. Rose, K. McKernan, Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada, Autoimmunity 58 (2025) 2551517. https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2025.2551517.

[2] T.J. Wang, A. Kim, K. Kim, A rapid detection method of replication-competent plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for quality control, Journal of High School Science 8 (2024) 427–439.

[3] P. Polykretis, Role of the antigen presentation process in the immunization mechanism of the genetic vaccines against COVID-19 and the need for biodistribution evaluations, Scandinavian Journal of Immunology n/a (2022) e13160. https://doi.org/10.1111/sji.13160.

[4] 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, Autoimmunity 56 (2023) 2259123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2023.2259123.

[5] P. Polykretis, Carelessness, Randomness, Irresponsibility, Sloppiness, Inattention, Slackness (C.R.I.S.I.S), Dr. Panagis Polykretis Substack (2025). https://panagispolykretis.substack.com/p/carelessness-randomness-irresponsibility (accessed November 23, 2025).

[6]

[7] T.E. Mulroney, T. Pöyry, J.C. Yam-Puc, M. Rust, R.F. Harvey, L. Kalmar, E. Horner, L. Booth, A.P. Ferreira, M. Stoneley, R. Sawarkar, A.J. Mentzer, K.S. Lilley, C.M. Smales, T. von der Haar, L. Turtle, S. Dunachie, P. Klenerman, J.E.D. Thaventhiran, A.E. Willis, N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting, Nature 625 (2024) 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06800-3.

[8] P.I. Parry, A. Lefringhausen, C. Turni, C.J. Neil, R. Cosford, N.J. Hudson, J. Gillespie, ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA, Biomedicines 11 (2023) 2287. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11082287.

[9] S.J. Thomas, J. Edson D. Moreira, N. Kitchin, J. Absalon, A. Gurtman, S. Lockhart, J.L. Perez, G.P. Marc, F.P. Polack, C. Zerbini, R. Bailey, K.A. Swanson, X. Xu, S. Roychoudhury, K. Koury, S. Bouguermouh, W.V. Kalina, D. Cooper, J. Robert W. Frenck, L.L. Hammitt, Ö. Türeci, H. Nell, A. Schaefer, S. Ünal, Q. Yang, P. Liberator, D.B. Tresnan, S. Mather, P.R. Dormitzer, U. Şahin, W.C. Gruber, K.U. Jansen, Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months, New England Journal of Medicine (2021). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345.