Censored by the academic preprint servers
medRxiv and arXiv are systematically rejecting academic papers that do not fit the narrative.
We were asked today if it was true that the preprint server medRxiv (which is supposed to accept unreviewed papers relating to health and medicine) was automatically rejecting all our covid papers. In fact, we have reported on such rejections several times before (see, for example here and here). As we have made clear, initially when we were not challenging the ‘official’ covid narrative in the spring of 2020 we had no problems getting our research papers accepted in peer reviewed journals as well as preprint servers like medRxiv and arXiv. Indeed, we have just checked and all of these papers (which were mainly focusing on covid risk factors) in 2020 were published on medRxiv:
Butcher, R., & Fenton, N. E. (2020). Extending the range of symptoms in a Bayesian Network for the Predictive Diagnosis of COVID-19, medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.22.20217554
Prodhan, G., & Fenton, N. E. (2020). Extending the range of COVID-19 risk factors in a Bayesian network model for personalised risk assessment. medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215814
Fenton, N. E., McLachlan, S., Lucas, P., Dube, K., Hitman, G., Osman, M., Kyrimi, E., Neil, M. (2020). "A privacy-preserving Bayesian network model for personalised COVID19 risk assessment and contact tracing". MedRxiv, 2020.07.15.20154286. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154286
Neil, M., Fenton, N.E, Osman, M., & McLachlan, S. (2020). "Bayesian Network Analysis of Covid-19 data reveals higher Infection Prevalence Rates and lower Fatality Rates than widely reported". Journal of Risk Research, 23 (7-8), 866-879 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1778771 . Preprint: MedRxiv, 2020.05.25.20112466. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.25.20112466
But every paper submitted after that has been rejected and, on reflection, it is surprising just how many there were and at the ‘reasons’ given. So, for the record, here is the full list from medRxiv with the associated rejection letters (in each case we also link to the article as published either on ResearchGate or the first two on arXiv):
2020 Bluetooth Smartphone Apps: Are they the most private and effective solution for COVID-19 contact tracing? Scott McLachlan, Peter Lucas, Kudakwashe Dube, Graham A Hitman, Magda Osman, Evangelia Kyrimi, Martin Neil, and Norman E Fenton
We regret to inform you that your manuscript is inappropriate for medRxiv. It is primarily a review/viewpoint not a research article with new data and therefore out of scope.
2020 A Note on UK Covid19 death rates by religion: which groups are most at risk? Norman Fenton
Thank you for your submission to medRxiv. Unfortunately, during the screening process, we determined that this manuscript is not suitable for medRxiv. It is not a clinical research paper so out of scope.
2020 Misinterpreting statistical anomalies and risk assessment when analysing Covid-19 deaths by ethnicity, Norman E Fenton , Martin Neil, Magda Osman, and Scott McLachlan
Thank you for your submission. As part of our process, all submissions are screened to ensure they match medRxiv posting criteria and scope (see https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv). During our screening process, your manuscript was judged to be primarily a viewpoint rather than a clinical research article with new data and is thus not within medRxiv scope (see https://www.medrxiv.org/about/FAQ), so will not be posted.
2021 What proportion of people with COVID-19 do not get symptoms? Norman Elliott Fenton , Martin Neil, and Scott McLachlan
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript is inappropriate for posting. medRxiv is intended for research papers, and our screening process determined that this manuscript fell short of that description.
2021 Bayesian Meta Analysis of Ivermectin Effectiveness in Treating Covid-19 (with sensitivity analysis to account for possibly flawed studies), Martin Neil and Norman Fenton
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be posted. A small number of papers are deemed during screening to be more appropriate for dissemination after peer review at a journal rather than as preprints.
2021 Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database, Scott McLachlan, Norman Fenton, Magda Osman, KUDAKWASHE DUBE , Patience Chiketero, and Yvonne Choi
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript is inappropriate for posting. medRxiv is intended for full research papers, and our screening process determined that this manuscript fell short of that description.
2021: Paradoxes in the reporting of Covid19 vaccine effectiveness, Norman Fenton , Martin Neil, and Scott McLachlan
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. As part of our process, all submissions are screened to ensure they match medRxiv posting criteria and scope. During this process, we determined that your manuscript is not suitable for medRxiv. It is not a clinical research article with new data and therefore it is out of scope and will not be posted.
2021: Discrepancies and inconsistencies in UK Government datasets compromise accuracy of mortality rate comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated, Martin Neil, Norman Fenton , and Scott McLachlan
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be posted. A small number of papers are deemed during screening to be more appropriate for dissemination after peer review at a journal rather than as preprints.
2022: Official mortality data for England suggest systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination, Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, Joel Smalley, Clare Craig, Josh Guetzkow, Scott McLachlan, Jonathan Engler, Dan Russell, and Jessica Rose
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. As part of our process, all submissions are screened to ensure they match medRxiv posting criteria and scope. During this process, we determined that your manuscript is not suitable for medRxiv. It is not a clinical research article with new data and therefore it is out of scope and will not be posted.
2022: What the ONS Mortality Covid-19 Surveillance Data can tell us about Vaccine Safety and Efficacy, Norman Fenton , Martin Neil, Clare Craig, and Scott McLachlan
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript is inappropriate for posting. medRxiv is intended for research papers, and our screening process determined that this manuscript fell short of that description.
2023 "Extended: Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Death Reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database", McLachlan S, Neil M, Choi Y, Craig S, Dube K, Engler J, Osman M, Fenton N E
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to medRxiv. We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be posted. A small number of papers are deemed during screening to be more appropriate for dissemination after peer review at a journal rather than as preprints.
Please be assured that this conclusion is not a judgment on the merits of the work described.
What is also interesting is that every single non-covid paper we have submitted to medRxiv during this time period (all using similar techniques such as Bayesian network modelling, albeit none with Norman as lead author) has been accepted:
McLachlan S, Daley B J, Dube K, Kyrimi E, Neil M, Fenton N E, (2023) "The Health Condition Timeline as a Model for Pregnancy Disease Management", medrXiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.06.23285418
Collins, R., & Fenton, N. (2020). Bayesian network modelling for early diagnosis and prediction of Endometriosis. MedRxiv, 2020.11.04.20225946. medrXiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.04.20225946
Kyrimi, E., McLachlan, S., Dube, K., & Fenton, N.E (2020). Bayesian Networks in Healthcare: the chasm between research enthusiasm and clinical adoption. MedRxiv, 2020.06.04.20122911. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20122911
Kudakwashe Dube, Scott McLachlan, Ngonidzashe Zanamwe, Evangelia Kyrimi, Jasmine S Thomson, Norman Fenton, (2020) Managing Knowledge in Computational Models for Global Food, Nutrition and Health Technologies medRxiv 2020.06.05.20122952; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.05.20122952
It is more difficult to get the arXiv rejection information because they remove all information about rejected submissions from a user’s account and the email rejections do not even state the name of the paper rejected. But, as a flavour, here are some of the email rejections we had saved:
For the paper: What proportion of people with COVID-19 do not get symptoms? Norman Elliott Fenton , Martin Neil, and Scott McLachlan
Our moderators have determined that your submission is not of sufficient interest for inclusion within arXiv. The moderators have rejected your submission after examination, having determined that your article does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research.
As a result, we have removed your submission.
Please note that our moderators are not referees and provide no reviews with such decisions. For in-depth reviews of your work, please seek feedback from another forum.
Please do not resubmit this paper without contacting arXiv moderation and obtaining a positive response. Resubmission of removed papers may result in the loss of your submission privileges.
For the paper: Discrepancies and inconsistencies in UK Government datasets compromise accuracy of mortality rate comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated, Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, and Scott McLachlan:
Thank you for submitting your work to arXiv. We regret to inform you that arXiv’s moderators have determined that your submission will not be accepted and made public on arXiv.org
Our moderators determined that your submission does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly scientific research and is not of interest to arXiv.
arXiv moderators strive to balance fair assessment with decision speed. We understand that this decision may be disappointing, and we apologize that, due to the high volume of submissions arXiv receives, we cannot offer more detailed feedback. Some authors have found that asking their personal network of colleagues or submitting to a conventional journal for peer review are alternative avenues to obtain feedback
There were various repetitions of the above rejections but recently we have been getting the following reason (despite the fact that we only submit papers to arxiv that are fully within their stated scope (which is different to medRxiv with more focus of the computing/statistical analysis):
Our moderators have determined that your submission is on a topic not covered by arXiv or that the intended audience for your work is not a community we currently serve.
Matthew Brett, who is the person who asked about our experience with medrXiv, has investigated the acceptance criteria that these organisations seem to have introduced since covid.
Finally, at least we are it seems in good company. John Ioannidis of Stanford - one of the most highly cited scientists in the world - has had a very similar experience:
Scientism is a scourge on humanity.
Dr John Ioannidis' experience of having his COVID-critical preprints similarly rejected on spurious grounds is of course highly relevant here. Nevertheless, I'm appalled by the alibis he continues to give to the mRNA vaccines. The interview linked from this number of "Where are the numbers?" may be almost a year old, and Ioannidis may have modified his views since then, but Blind Freddy could already well and truly see the writing on the wall. Statements by Ioannidis such as the following reek of cognitive dissonance: "The rapid development of vaccines that were apparently very effective for decreasing the risk of serious disease was an amazing success and it could have been a wonderful opportunity to showcase the power of science and to build more trust in public health that had suffered over the years from attacks from the anti-vax movement." Apparently? Amazing success? For whom? Or this: "The consequences [of the official lie that the vaccines stopped transmission] were grave. In most developed countries, despite vaccination in 2021, excess deaths were higher in 2021 than in 2020." DESPITE vaccination? Is Ioannidis really so blinded by Science as to blame "COVID" and not the vaccines for excess deaths?! Or does he hang onto shibboleths of the official narrative in order to cling to his position at Stanford (for which I suppose I couldn't really blame him without being hypocritical myself)? Or both? Either way, it's most disappointing coming from an otherwise brilliant mind.
The brilliant minds of "Where are the numbers?" do not disappoint!