60 Comments
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

The mere fact that they use the term "anti-vaxx" is a clear indication that they are compromised. No credible scientific resource would use such a term, even in camera.

Expand full comment

Your Nazi Austria post proves they had everything sewn up well before any jabs approved and probably apply to more countries too. Must be such a headache for them to keep trying to show any benefits.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

"The Lancet" in name only, trading on its once-illustrious reputation for accuracy and respectability.

Now a very blunt instrument indeed.

Expand full comment

They’ve revealed themselves. Nothing will be considered serious from them to my medical brain.

Expand full comment

"The Lancet" = They still endorse discredited and debunked quackery, such as bloodletting.

Expand full comment

Actually, I wouldn't be so quick to disparage bloodletting.

But The Lancet long ago lost any credibility, I agree.

Expand full comment

I enjoyed that !

Expand full comment

I write what I feel.

Expand full comment

ICO might not burnish Fenton, but if you've got a good lawyer friend and deep pockets, you could instead threaten the Lancet by saying if they don't publish the unredacted versions, then you will file a lawsuit on the ground of defamation (using the redacted versions as reasonable grounds) and seek disposition of the files (a fancy way of saying you'll get the court to order they turn over the respondent documents - their discussions), on the grounds you suspect behind the scenes you have been defamed,

This will usually occur during the 'discovery' phase, which is *before* the trial even begins, so the court can establish the facts of the case in question.

Lancet will then have to weigh the costs of litigation + news attention grabbing headlines showing they defame academics behind the scenes, versus just giving you the documents unredacted outright (cheaper and quieter for them). If you secure docs by disposition, then you can cite them during legal proceedings and ultimately make them public indirectly.

That said, I am *not* a legal professional, this is *not* legal advice, and you ought to speak with a legal professional your options. This is merely an informational heads up.

Expand full comment

Also, as a follow up comment, also not legal advice, still not a legal professional: do NOT draft your own legal threat letters, as lawyers can smell the flaws a mile off and will disregard.

Get a very professional looking legal company to letter and file for you. That way they know the threat is serious and not just a 'Karen level' type threat.

Expand full comment

This is what Alex Berenson did with Twitter. To fund the suit he started a go fund me. And he won in court!

Expand full comment

Dr Fenton, I will happily contribute to funding a lawsuit.

Expand full comment

I will as well.👍✊

Expand full comment
author

Fixed!

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 18, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Mr. Fenton, you are providing a great service to humanity. Your efforts are further revealing the systemic corruption of our public institutions including Journals. It is critical that the public understands the Journals are way past their due date and should be placed out with the trash. I have too many paid subscriptions but I need to add one more to acknowledge your integrity.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

I had a very short and fruitless email correspondence with Elsevier in late 2021 about their summary withdrawal of a peer-reviewed paper by Rose and McCullough previously accepted by 'Current Problems in Cardiology'. You clearly are infinitely more tenacious and have touched many nerves.

Nothing less than the future of rational discourse is at stake here and you are absolutely right to pursue your lines of enquiry.

Expand full comment

Unbelievable! "he does seem to have a legitimate academic appointment" - grotesque. I used to be a Lancet / Richard Horton fan but not anymore. The Lancet has nobody with the honed expertise of Norman Fenton to assess the work. The comment 'it is factually incorrect - indeed, it is misinformation - to say that the reported adverse reactions are "substantial" ' is so ridiculous, so absurd, not even a bad joke. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984 where Winston has to see, really see, 4 fingers as 5 fingers. The Party says 5 fingers so whatever you think you see you are wrong. However, the truth is leaking out and will become ever more evident. Thank you for doing this nuanced statistical analysis of what date there is.

Expand full comment

Academia is broken beyond repair.

And I say that as an academic.

Expand full comment

Dr. What a crock of crap this response is to your request. Nice try! Nothing to see here...move on

Expand full comment

Wow. The plot thickens. This is communist style suppression.

Cannot express how much I appreciate your and Martin's efforts.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

time to abandon the old gatekeeper journals and peer review thought control. A distributed ledger of all scientific papers and subsequent review process is the way forward. that's what the blockchain is good for.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

They must now be stuck, spinning their wheels, because they will not dare exchange any written discussions of this article for fear of future FOI's/law suits!

Time to lawyer up!

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

I'm surprised that they didn't either ignore the letter or reply with more biased science.

It's creepy that they are concerned about people and backgrounds.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Inspiring... I'm going out to Twitter right now and make sure I have read and "liked" (as appropriate) all your recent tweets!

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

It was not enough to redact the names. If we are forced to speculate, perhaps they had to redact the material that was per se defamatory. We wouldn't want people to get sued over emails, would we?

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023

I was thinking the same thing. The unredacted emails could be seen as defamatory. However, I would think if they are actually defamatory, redacting them does not change the defamatory nature of the original emails. One way to see the unredacted emails would be to start defamation proceedings. I don’t know how it is in the UK but here in Australia that would be a very expensive exercise for both parties and probably not worth the expense.

Edit: I didn’t see The Underdogs comment, pretty much what he/she said.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

Dr Fenton, the vaccine injury numbers from covid zero Western Australia have finally dropped. We have been waiting two years to see what the jab does in a population with zero community transmission of covid. https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/the-worlds-eyes-are-on-western-australia

Expand full comment