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!
- "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." That's an amazing way of saying that they simply sensor what they don't like.
- It would be fun if you present a short calculation of the probability that the different treatment of those papers was merely by coincidence.
Thanks for documenting all the rejections. I'm a freelance journalism who writes stories that "challenge conventional wisdom." Forty months ago when I submitted a very important story on "early spread," I quickly realized this was a taboo topic and ALL prominent news organizations would not publish my big "scoop/exclusive."
I sent this story to probably 25 or 30 "news" organizations. Only about four editors even replied with a prosaic "We-are-not-interested" message. Nobody told me why my detailed feature story was not publication-worthy or asked to see more of my evidence.
Finally, unoverDC.com published my feature story on Tim and Brandie McCain, who had Covid in December 2019 (Tim almost died).
I later wrote a follow-up piece, documenting all the news organizations that had zero interest in a story about possible "case zeroes" in America. This story is far more chilling than "early spread." The real scandal is a massive coordinated effort to censor taboo stories.
Anyway, the same thing that is happening to you is also affecting "contrarian" independent freelance journalists.
Note also all the public health agencies (including the CDC) who had no interest in investigating credible claims of people who had early Covid cases ...
This article by Professor Shahar is worthy of Professor Fenton's attention, as it has conclusions about vaccine efficacy and the healthy vaccinee effect.
One claim which I would question, despite acknowledging the author's expertise and knowledge is this :
The implication of the ‘healthy vaccinee’ phenomenon — when estimating vaccine effectiveness — is called confounding bias. A naïve comparison of Covid mortality in vaccinated people and unvaccinated people, even if age-adjusted, is grossly misleading because the latter have higher risk of death to begin with. At least part of their higher Covid mortality, if not all, has nothing to do with not being vaccinated. They are simply sicker people.'
I refused the jabs and have not fallen prey to the lurgy, whereas most of my wholly jabbed friends , relatives and acquaintances have.
This is not a boast, merely I believe an indication of informed dissent, which our leaders did their best to nudge into oblivion and which might, therefore, confound the overall higher morbidity of the unvaccinated, when age adjusted.
Stats are beyond me, however, so perhaps Professor Fenton would elucidate for us.
It really is entertaining to cling onto the idea that there is any residuum of academic integrity remaining in the publishing portals. Face it; science is in a state of rigor mortis prior to its terminal, irretrievable flaccidity. Luckily, there are some real gems of insight that escaped the steel shutters, though in time they too will be expunged.
The names and rationale of the "moderators" remains unknown, sounds like the definition of unaccoutable. Even the name "Moderators" sounds useless, bang on.
Presumably. 'fact checkers'-human or bots- are also rejecting research which challenges climate change and gender fluidity dogma, assuming that is, that there are enough determined stalwarts to risk challenging the omerta and finding the funds to do so.
Is there a central blacklist of reputable researchers like Professors Fenton and Ioannidis , on a database somewhere?
Those responses by medRxiv seem like an AI classification system that does keyword searches, and upon finding specific keywords, triggers an automatic rejection.
For the papers with same rejection messages, do a unique keyword comparison (to find what word(s) they have in common between all of them).
ArXiv sounds manual with them devolving to copy-paste generic messages.
I propose two experiments:
1) Maybe submit a paper about the bias at the respective preprint server outlets to each one in turn; them removing it would be an obvious conflict of interest, and also meta-ironic.
2) Take a pre-existing preprint paper structure that has passed preprint review, and restructure it to use your own words instead. So when they say it doesn't meet their standards, you can point to the paper structure you used (ideally a pro-vaccine paper) and ask 'why did you permit that paper in then?'.
It's a bit like how researchers tested the rigour of the peer-review process at a journal by submitting a portion of Mein Kampf and simply altering the keywords of the demographs mentioned, where lack of evidence, political aggression, hostile speech should have been red flags. The "paper" got accepted and the peer review journal discredited as a result.
Perhaps yourselves ought to set up a pseudonym and see what rigourless pro-vaccine garbage you can pass the censors at medRxiv. Maybe the pro-vaccine version of Mein Kampf will meet with their approval, much like the other garbage journal outlet?
Dr Malcolm Kendrick wrote earlier this year about "A painful and growing realisation that medical research was horribly …. broken. Biased and corrupted".
The long march through the institutions doesn't just continue, it accelerates.
When they can't deny a submission on the merits, the next step is to discredit widely published and cited researchers and analysts by incrementally reducing them to unpublished nonentities.
There are unique human individuals making the decisions to suppress and blacklist. It's time they were identified.
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!
Censorship? NO! NWO control actually!
- "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." That's an amazing way of saying that they simply sensor what they don't like.
- It would be fun if you present a short calculation of the probability that the different treatment of those papers was merely by coincidence.
Thanks for documenting all the rejections. I'm a freelance journalism who writes stories that "challenge conventional wisdom." Forty months ago when I submitted a very important story on "early spread," I quickly realized this was a taboo topic and ALL prominent news organizations would not publish my big "scoop/exclusive."
I sent this story to probably 25 or 30 "news" organizations. Only about four editors even replied with a prosaic "We-are-not-interested" message. Nobody told me why my detailed feature story was not publication-worthy or asked to see more of my evidence.
Finally, unoverDC.com published my feature story on Tim and Brandie McCain, who had Covid in December 2019 (Tim almost died).
I later wrote a follow-up piece, documenting all the news organizations that had zero interest in a story about possible "case zeroes" in America. This story is far more chilling than "early spread." The real scandal is a massive coordinated effort to censor taboo stories.
Anyway, the same thing that is happening to you is also affecting "contrarian" independent freelance journalists.
Note also all the public health agencies (including the CDC) who had no interest in investigating credible claims of people who had early Covid cases ...
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/07/13/covid-19-is-a-real-search-for-the-truth-now-taboo/
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/06/israeli-nursing-home-study-shows-evidence-of-vaccine-deaths/
This article by Professor Shahar is worthy of Professor Fenton's attention, as it has conclusions about vaccine efficacy and the healthy vaccinee effect.
One claim which I would question, despite acknowledging the author's expertise and knowledge is this :
The implication of the ‘healthy vaccinee’ phenomenon — when estimating vaccine effectiveness — is called confounding bias. A naïve comparison of Covid mortality in vaccinated people and unvaccinated people, even if age-adjusted, is grossly misleading because the latter have higher risk of death to begin with. At least part of their higher Covid mortality, if not all, has nothing to do with not being vaccinated. They are simply sicker people.'
I refused the jabs and have not fallen prey to the lurgy, whereas most of my wholly jabbed friends , relatives and acquaintances have.
This is not a boast, merely I believe an indication of informed dissent, which our leaders did their best to nudge into oblivion and which might, therefore, confound the overall higher morbidity of the unvaccinated, when age adjusted.
Stats are beyond me, however, so perhaps Professor Fenton would elucidate for us.
https://reaction.life/has-the-mainstream-press-lost-all-desire-to-investigate-climate-alarmist-claims/
It really is entertaining to cling onto the idea that there is any residuum of academic integrity remaining in the publishing portals. Face it; science is in a state of rigor mortis prior to its terminal, irretrievable flaccidity. Luckily, there are some real gems of insight that escaped the steel shutters, though in time they too will be expunged.
Bulky Big Pharma boot on the publishing scales…
The names and rationale of the "moderators" remains unknown, sounds like the definition of unaccoutable. Even the name "Moderators" sounds useless, bang on.
This makes me think that Bill Gates is the owner.
Presumably. 'fact checkers'-human or bots- are also rejecting research which challenges climate change and gender fluidity dogma, assuming that is, that there are enough determined stalwarts to risk challenging the omerta and finding the funds to do so.
Is there a central blacklist of reputable researchers like Professors Fenton and Ioannidis , on a database somewhere?
Those responses by medRxiv seem like an AI classification system that does keyword searches, and upon finding specific keywords, triggers an automatic rejection.
For the papers with same rejection messages, do a unique keyword comparison (to find what word(s) they have in common between all of them).
ArXiv sounds manual with them devolving to copy-paste generic messages.
I propose two experiments:
1) Maybe submit a paper about the bias at the respective preprint server outlets to each one in turn; them removing it would be an obvious conflict of interest, and also meta-ironic.
2) Take a pre-existing preprint paper structure that has passed preprint review, and restructure it to use your own words instead. So when they say it doesn't meet their standards, you can point to the paper structure you used (ideally a pro-vaccine paper) and ask 'why did you permit that paper in then?'.
It's a bit like how researchers tested the rigour of the peer-review process at a journal by submitting a portion of Mein Kampf and simply altering the keywords of the demographs mentioned, where lack of evidence, political aggression, hostile speech should have been red flags. The "paper" got accepted and the peer review journal discredited as a result.
Perhaps yourselves ought to set up a pseudonym and see what rigourless pro-vaccine garbage you can pass the censors at medRxiv. Maybe the pro-vaccine version of Mein Kampf will meet with their approval, much like the other garbage journal outlet?
Dr Malcolm Kendrick wrote earlier this year about "A painful and growing realisation that medical research was horribly …. broken. Biased and corrupted".
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2023/03/17/broken-science-initiative/
No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power."
Jacob Bronowski
Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas Huxley
The long march through the institutions doesn't just continue, it accelerates.
When they can't deny a submission on the merits, the next step is to discredit widely published and cited researchers and analysts by incrementally reducing them to unpublished nonentities.
There are unique human individuals making the decisions to suppress and blacklist. It's time they were identified.