π₯ EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Covid vaccine cancer-risk study retraction was 'forced', scientist alleges
π₯ Emails obtained under FOIA show external pressure to falsely discredit the study
MEGA THREAD π§΅ππΌ
news.rebekahbarnett.com.au
π₯ Emails obtained under FOIA show external pressure to falsely discredit the study
MEGA THREAD π§΅ππΌ
news.rebekahbarnett.com.au
In 2021, an important study published in peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses revealed that the spike protein from both SARS-Cov-2 virus & vaccines damages key DNA repair pathways.
With implications for cancer formation & immune suppression, the study generated a lot of publicity
With implications for cancer formation & immune suppression, the study generated a lot of publicity
The study was then swiftly retracted under strange circumstances. The lead author Hui Jiang requested retraction of his own paper!
Some speculated that Jiang had been pressured in a politically-motivated effort to bury evidence of Covid vaccine harms.
Some speculated that Jiang had been pressured in a politically-motivated effort to bury evidence of Covid vaccine harms.
Now, the other author, Dr Ya-Fang Mei alleges that this was indeed the case.
In an exclusive interview, Mei told me:
βStockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors' consent, a clear violation of academic ethics.β
In an exclusive interview, Mei told me:
βStockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors' consent, a clear violation of academic ethics.β
Mei says that the University initiated the retraction, pressuring lead author Hui Jiang to retract it.
βI never signed the retraction notice," said Dr Mei.
Emails obtained under FOI show that she unequivocally stated,
βI absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction.β
βI never signed the retraction notice," said Dr Mei.
Emails obtained under FOI show that she unequivocally stated,
βI absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction.β
When Jiang first requested retraction of his paper, the journal pushed back:
"It was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the request"
β[We] have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity"
"It was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the request"
β[We] have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity"
The journal editor described Jiang's letter requesting retraction of his paper as "rather generic."
I was able to obtain a copy under FOIA - it is sparse, with no evidence provided for any of the points. It reads like a rush job.
I was able to obtain a copy under FOIA - it is sparse, with no evidence provided for any of the points. It reads like a rush job.
Mei said, "Stockholm University issued an order. We were asked to submit the letter within 48 hours before checking the lab book and experiment protocols.β
Jiang sent his letter on 9 Nov 2021. Stockholm Uni initiated an investigation into the study the day prior, on 8 Nov.
Jiang sent his letter on 9 Nov 2021. Stockholm Uni initiated an investigation into the study the day prior, on 8 Nov.
During this time, the journal and the scientists' universities received pressuring emails alleging that the journal had been βhacked by anti-vaccinationistsβ and urging immediate withdrawal of the paper (against scientific protocol) for reason of βsocial relevance.β
FOIA-ed emails show that Stockholm University also received queries from 'fact checkers' leading to this erroneous 'fact check', for example.
x.com
x.com
3 weeks after Jiang's retraction request, the journal still had no evidence of scientific misconduct.
However, the journal's Chief Editor, NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed stepped in to lower the bar:
"retraction of a paper does not require evidence of scientific misconduct."
However, the journal's Chief Editor, NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed stepped in to lower the bar:
"retraction of a paper does not require evidence of scientific misconduct."
Journalist John Davidson @BrokenTruthTV FOIA-ed Freed's emails related to the retraction but after dragging their feet for 8 months, the NIH refused to release them.
Davidson appealed - the NIH denied his request again.
Read about #NIHgate ππΌ
x.com
Davidson appealed - the NIH denied his request again.
Read about #NIHgate ππΌ
x.com
Mei's testimony, corroborated by circumstantial evidence within the FOIAed emails, gives a picture:
A scientific study with huge implications for human health pulled due to publicity, with scientific justification being hastily reverse-engineered to clear the lowest possible bar
A scientific study with huge implications for human health pulled due to publicity, with scientific justification being hastily reverse-engineered to clear the lowest possible bar
Eventually, the paper was retracted.
βI have to express my surprise about the entire history of this process,β said the journal's Academic Editor, who approved the paper for publication in the first place.
βI have to express my surprise about the entire history of this process,β said the journal's Academic Editor, who approved the paper for publication in the first place.
CANCER: Jiang & Mei's paper was the first to clearly show that spike protein (vax & virus) suppresses p53, a DNA/cancer repair protein, providing a mechanism for development of pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancer & lymphoma
@arkmedic wrote about this ππΌ
arkmedic.info
@arkmedic wrote about this ππΌ
arkmedic.info
Medical educator @drbeen_medical explains:
"Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired.. then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair... Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair."
"Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired.. then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair... Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair."
Jiang & Mei's findings have since been corroborated by multiple studies, including a new one from Brown University cancer specialist @weldeiry
Jiang & Mei weren't wrong. They were right at the wrong time.
oncotarget.com
Jiang & Mei weren't wrong. They were right at the wrong time.
oncotarget.com
The fact that this paper was buried means the public were denied the right to know about hugely important scientific developments with implications for human health, especially cancer risk.
Read the exclusive report & download FOIA docsππΌ
news.rebekahbarnett.com.au
Read the exclusive report & download FOIA docsππΌ
news.rebekahbarnett.com.au
Loading suggestions...