This is the confirmation that your work is timeless, or (at least) beyond the limits of the current time.
Weirdly, rejections of papers have come to the the best proof quality work a researcher or scientist could imagine. Not everyone is awarded this level of respect these days...
Thank you for what you do and how you share it with the rest of us.
Hit them with a DSAR for every piece of paper, phone call or recording of your legal name. You might find out they have breached your data discussing it with other companies. They are obviously guilty of conduct ancillary to war crimes and crimes against humanity, one day we might find a judge who is not bent but I won't hold my breath.
Your dedication to vaccine safety is commendable but obviously not everyone appreciates honest and open discussion. We’ve been deceived for generations by unproven vaccine safety profiles with the absence of any gold standard placebo controlled clinical trials. Big Pharma has deep pockets and their payoff schemes are widespread. Our children are unhealthy and many won’t even talk about that it’s possibly the 75 drug combinations our kids are vaccinated with may be the cause. Until the truth is brought out in the open, nothing will improve.
"Vaccines", like so many other so called medical journals, no longer holds any credibility so its editor and authors no longer have a career. They can drift into the "bought and paid for by pharma" wasteland with the rest of the morally bankrupt medical community who sold their soul to the devil. I hope they can sleep at night (NOT).
May I suggest that you remove the term 'cheap trick' from the lexicon. It implies 'bad motive' Your paper shows that reclassification techniques leads to flawed conclusions in all studies that employ those techniques and that is all that needs to be said. Whether or not these reclassifications were used deliberately to achieve the flawed conclusions is another (albeit quite serious) matter, but the term 'cheap trick' certainly conveys an innuendo of deliberate deception which Editors will immediately find unacceptable.
No reason for rejection was given because it would be too easy to show they had no legitimate reason, other than of course loosing those hefty advertising dollars.
Sadly, censorship is still rampant. It WILL eventually get better, just because the truth is SLOWLY coming out. But there are still forces trying to stop that. Thank you for your efforts.
Maybe the paper name is putting them off? Call it for the obscure "oversights" commonly made in studies/analysis. Present it as something for a university text book, instead of looking accusatory?
"The first thing I'd point out is that nowhere on this planet is there such a thing as a safe vaccine." That was the reply I got from a Cardiologist running a heart drug trial I had volunteered for in 2022 purely out of curiosity when I asked his opinion of that jab.
Congratulations!
This is the confirmation that your work is timeless, or (at least) beyond the limits of the current time.
Weirdly, rejections of papers have come to the the best proof quality work a researcher or scientist could imagine. Not everyone is awarded this level of respect these days...
Thank you for what you do and how you share it with the rest of us.
Hit them with a DSAR for every piece of paper, phone call or recording of your legal name. You might find out they have breached your data discussing it with other companies. They are obviously guilty of conduct ancillary to war crimes and crimes against humanity, one day we might find a judge who is not bent but I won't hold my breath.
I so admire your pertinacity and stamina.
And I admire your thesaurus!
Very good.
Your dedication to vaccine safety is commendable but obviously not everyone appreciates honest and open discussion. We’ve been deceived for generations by unproven vaccine safety profiles with the absence of any gold standard placebo controlled clinical trials. Big Pharma has deep pockets and their payoff schemes are widespread. Our children are unhealthy and many won’t even talk about that it’s possibly the 75 drug combinations our kids are vaccinated with may be the cause. Until the truth is brought out in the open, nothing will improve.
"Vaccines", like so many other so called medical journals, no longer holds any credibility so its editor and authors no longer have a career. They can drift into the "bought and paid for by pharma" wasteland with the rest of the morally bankrupt medical community who sold their soul to the devil. I hope they can sleep at night (NOT).
May I suggest that you remove the term 'cheap trick' from the lexicon. It implies 'bad motive' Your paper shows that reclassification techniques leads to flawed conclusions in all studies that employ those techniques and that is all that needs to be said. Whether or not these reclassifications were used deliberately to achieve the flawed conclusions is another (albeit quite serious) matter, but the term 'cheap trick' certainly conveys an innuendo of deliberate deception which Editors will immediately find unacceptable.
Thats the job of the reviewers. And the last negative review made no issue of it.
They can simply say so.
I also think that in the first place it may be a matter of naming and they won't allow the term "cheap trick" to be printed.
No reason for rejection was given because it would be too easy to show they had no legitimate reason, other than of course loosing those hefty advertising dollars.
Sadly, censorship is still rampant. It WILL eventually get better, just because the truth is SLOWLY coming out. But there are still forces trying to stop that. Thank you for your efforts.
The real problem with your paper is that it tells the truth. Many people today can’t handle the truth.
You are trying to play football, but the rules have changed - the goalposts have moved - and the balls are now wonky - its like rugby.
Maybe the paper name is putting them off? Call it for the obscure "oversights" commonly made in studies/analysis. Present it as something for a university text book, instead of looking accusatory?
"The first thing I'd point out is that nowhere on this planet is there such a thing as a safe vaccine." That was the reply I got from a Cardiologist running a heart drug trial I had volunteered for in 2022 purely out of curiosity when I asked his opinion of that jab.
We are looking at that. But you have to be invited to join and be an accredited epidemiologist or similar.