Tag Archives: Retraction

Why COVID-19 vaccine autopsy paper got retracted again!

Find out why the controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccine got retracted again!

COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!

People are sharing a post (archive) on X (formerly Twitter) by the McCullough Foundation, which announced that its autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines is being retracted for the “second” time!

McCullough Foundation:

BREAKING – Elsevier and Forensic Science International to CENSOR and RETRACT our groundbreaking autopsy study, marking the second censorship attempt following its initial suppression on the LANCET preprint server.

This represents a flagrant violation of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

The Biopharmaceutical complex does not want people to know that COVID-19 vaccines cause death. Their heinous actions to hide the truth will greatly backfire.

To be retracted shortly

Why COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!

I have earlier covered in detail why this controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines got retracted again.

I highly encourage you to read both pieces, but in case you are short of time, here’s a quick summary why it was inevitable that this COVID-19 vaccine autopsy paper would get retracted by any reputable scientific journal.

This was a “revised” version of an earlier preprint paper, which was removed by The Lancet in July 2023, because the paper violated its screening criteria, and its conclusions were not supported.
The authors only went through other people’s papers on autopsies, and made personal judgements on what caused those deaths, based solely on what they read.
They only looked at vaccinated people, and excluded unvaccinated people, which introduces bias, and makes it impossible to determine if there is even a signal that those deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines.
They did not mention using any objective and standardised criteria for determining whether a death is caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.
When the same group of researchers posted a review of 28 autopsies that they determined were “likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination”, it was found that many of them had unrelated causes of death!
The mean age of death was 70.4 years, which meant that most of the people in this study were elderly. Is it any surprise that the elderly were dying from cardiovascular, haematological, or respiratory problems???

In short, there are so many problems with this paper that it is truly surprising it even passed peer review and was published in Forensic Science International.

While the study authors are claiming “censorship”, the retraction of a flawed study is not censorship. It is simply part of the scientific review process, albeit a belated correction.

You might have thought that FSI editors would be more wary after a preprint version of this paper with the same title from the same group of researchers got kicked out of Preprints with The Lancet.

While I’m glad this incredibly flawed paper is finally being retracted, I wished I could say it was better late than never. The truth is – this is like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted.

The authors and anti-vaccine activists have already squeezed whatever publicity, prestige, page views, etc. they can get out of its publication. No one is going to do an apology tour after this paper gets retracted.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Cureus retracts study linking COVID vaccines to cancer!

Leave a reply

Find out why the journal Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer!

Cureus Retracts Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!

Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study by Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, a decision which drew outrage amongst the anti-vaccine community.

Some publications even suggested that Cureus made that decision after it was fact-checked by Facebook or Reuters.

Children’s Health Defense / Vigilant News :

Journal Retracts Peer-Reviewed Study Linking COVID Vaccines to Cancer After Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ It

Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to a study by Japanese researchers who analyzed government statistics to compare age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.

The journal Cureus last week retracted a Japanese study that found statistically significant increases in cancer mortality following COVID-19 vaccination, especially after the third COVID-19 shot.

Slay News : Top Journal Removes Peer-Reviewed Study Linking Covid Shots to Cancer after Facebook ‘Fact Check’

An explosive peer-reviewed study was recently published in a prestigious medical journal which identifies a direct link between Covid mRNA shots and cancer.

As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.

Why Cureus Retracted Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!

Here is a quick primer on why Cureus retracted the controversial Japanese study linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, and what it means…

Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review

Let me start by quickly pointing out that Cureus relies on post-publication peer review.

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast“, and Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

Yes, Cureus has an unusually fast review process, which is an important part of the journal’s philosophy. We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth.

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.

Therefore, “peer-reviewed” studies published in Cureus can and do get retracted after further review, like the infamous article “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al.

Even if the paper was properly peer-reviewed by a prestigious journal, that would only be the first step in the scientific review process, which would include replication and verification, as well as criticism by other members of the scientific community.

Fact #2 : Cureus Says Study’s Conclusions Are Invalid

After publishing the study on April 8, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus initiated a comprehensive post-publication editorial review on June 12, after the scientific credibility of the article was severely criticised.

The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article. A comprehensive post-publication editorial review is being conducted to determine if any action is required.

Finally, on June 26, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus determined that the data in the study did not show any correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status, which invalidated its conclusion. They then decided to retract the study:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.

The authors disagree with this retraction.

This may seem like closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted, but at least the controversial article has finally been retracted. In hindsight, perhaps such studies should undergo a more stringent peer-review process before being allowed to be labelled as “peer-reviewed”, or published…

Fact #3 : Japanese Study Had So Many Problems

The Gibo et. al. study only performed statistical analysis of publicly-available data to look at whether there has been any increase in cancer deaths. While such studies may suggest a potential issue with the COVID-19 vaccines, they cannot prove any correlation, much less causation.

Back in April, I wrote a comprehensive look at that study, but here are the key points of why that Japanese study does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:

it did not even establish the COVID-19 vaccination status of people in the data!
Japan used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines
the study lacked a control group of unvaccinated people, which invalidated its conclusion
cancer deaths have been rising for decades, as the chart below shows
Japan has an aging population, which could easily explain the increase in cancer rates and deaths
cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981

The study did not even establish the vaccination status of people included in the data, never mind how many actually received the third dose! The authors actually admitted that at the end of their long paper:

Fact #4 : Turbo Cancer Does Not Exist

Finally, there is no such thing as “turbo cancer”, and after billions of doses have been administered worldwide in the past 3 years – there is still no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine can cause cancer, or make cancer go “turbo”.

The US National Cancer Institute also clearly states that there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. It also pointedly stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Sports | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Japan study show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths?!

Leave a reply

Did a new study show that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Japan study shows explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!

People are claiming or suggesting that a new study shows that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan!

Alex Jones : New Japanese Study Suggests mRNA Vaccines Behind Explosion of Cancer Cases in Japan during the Pandemic. I suggest the sun is yellow…

Concerned Citizen : 🚨🌎💉 Japanese Cancer Research

Comprehensive study from Japan reviewing Cancer data correlations with mRNA injections.

“Strongly suspecting increase instance of several types of cancer especially after 3rd dose of Booster Vaccine”

“Statistically significant increase in age adjusted mortality rates of all cancer, but specifically – prostate, ovarian, pancreatic & breast cancers were witnessed in 2022, after 2 thirds of the Japanese population received the mRNA Lipid nanoparticle vaccines”

Absolutely terrifying data, based on highly detailed studies.

Vaccinated or not – people everywhere should be screaming as loud as they can at their elected officials for answers on this – the subject simply continues to be ignored by Legacy Media & Governments alike.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH : A COVID-19 vaccine is not analogous to recharging the body. With each shot there is the risk of cardiac arrest, stroke, blood clots, and new immunological problems. Gibo et al suggest there is cumulative oncogenicity toxity with starting at 3rd ill-advised injection.

Toby Young : A new peer-reviewed study has linked mRNA jabs to excess cancer deaths in Japan, with pancreatic, prostate and ovarian cancers showing excess deaths in both 2021 and 2022.

Show less

Truth : Japan study does not show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!

This appears to be another example of fake news by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Japan Continues To Support COVID-19 Vaccination

Let me start by quickly pointing out that Japan continues to support vaccination against COVID-19. In fact, its Health Ministry has officially designated the COVID-19 vaccine (translated archive) as a routine vaccination:

Starting from 2024, the new coronavirus vaccine will be considered a routine vaccination, and people aged 65 and over will be eligible for the vaccination.

The schedule for routine vaccinations is to be conducted once every fall and winter, based on data on the status of infectious diseases and the effectiveness of vaccines.

The type of COVID-19 vaccine (strain contained in the vaccine) used for routine vaccinations will be reviewed annually for the time being.

I should also point out that COVID-19 vaccinations continue to be supported by virtually every country in the world. That would not be the case if the COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to cause or accelerate cancer.

Fact #2 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review

These claims appear to be based on a Japanese study by Miki Gibo et. al. called “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan” (PDF).

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.

Fact #3 : Study Does Not Show Cancer Deaths From mRNA Vaccines

In fact, the authors themselves admitted at the end of their paper that their findings have “not been clinically validated“, and that “further studies” are warranted.

Here are some reasons why this paper does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:

COVID-19 Vaccination Status Was Not Established

Further analytical statistics study by vaccination status is needed.

Japanese government data showed that as of April 2024, 80.4% received at least one dose, 79.5% received at least two doses, while just 67% received all three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. In other words – about ⅓ of the people in the study do not meet the definition of receiving the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Japan Used A Mix Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Japan also used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The study did not filter out those who received non-mRNA vaccines, so how can anyone use its analysis to tie any excess deaths to the mRNA vaccines???

There Was No Control Group

The study also lacked a control group – unvaccinated people. So how can anyone use its analysis to link any excess deaths to COVID-19 vaccines?

For all we know – the excess deaths may be attributed to unvaccinated cancer patients dying from COVID-19! After all, cancer patients are more likely to die from COVID-19 than healthy people.

Cancer Deaths Have Been Rising For Years

The study appears to focus only on three years – 2020, 2021, and 2022. However, if you look further back, you will see that deaths from cancer have been rising for years, as Professor Marc Veldhoen pointed out!

The greatest surge actually occurred between 2014 and 1995, before increasing at a slower rate. Then cancer deaths started picking up from 2019 – before the COVID-19 pandemic, and before mRNA vaccines were approved.

Japan Has An Aging Population

Professor Veldhoen also pointed out that Japan has an ageing population, with over 30% of its people aged 65 years and older, while over 10% are 80 years and older.

This could easily explain the increase in cancer rates, as well as cancer deaths. Elderly people are less likely to survive cancer, after all.

Cancer Is Leading Cause Of Death In Japan

I should also point out that cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981 (source), accounting for ⅓ of total deaths.

In fact, this 2023 study projects that cancer cases will rise by 13.1% from 2020 to 2050, based on data collected from 1975 to 2019.

Obviously, this increase in cancer cases has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccines, because they were only approved at the end of 2020.

Fact #4 : Turbo Cancer Does Not Exist

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Cureus Retracts “Peer-Reviewed” COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

Leave a reply

It took them a while, but Cureus finally retracted the controversial “peer-reviewed” article on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines!

Take a look at the controversial article, and find out what Cureus decided to retract it!

Cureus Publishes Controversial COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

Anti-vaccine activists have been excitedly sharing what they call a “peer-reviewed” paper on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, while calling for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be removed.

The paper in question is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Unfortunately, it received a patina of legitimacy when it was published in the journal Cureus, with anti-vaccine activists gleefully pointing out that it was a “peer-reviewed” paper.

What many people don’t realise is that Cureus uses “an unusually fast” peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily on “post-publication peer review”, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication. All that “post-publication” criticism appear to have resulted in its decision to (finally) retract this controversial article.

Cureus Finally Retracts “Peer-Reviewed” COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

On 19 February 2024, one of the article’s co-authors – Steve Kirsch, revealed (archive) that Cureus has decided to retract the article, citing a number of concerns.

Dear authors,

I hope this email finds you well. I write regarding your article recently published in Cureus entitled, ‘COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’.

The journal was recently made aware of several concerns regarding the validity of the work and, upon conducting an internal review, the journal has decided to retract your article. Upon further review, we have identified a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view can’t be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to:

We find that the article is misrepresenting all-cause mortality data
We find that the article appears to be misrepresenting VAERs data
The article states that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine saved two lives and caused 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, and the Moderna vaccine saved 3.9 lives and caused 10.8 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, though there does not appear to be convincing evidence for this claim.
Incorrect claim: Vaccines are gene therapy products.
The article states that vaccines are contaminated with high levels of DNA. Upon review we found that the cited references are not sufficient to support these claims.
The article states that SV40 promoter can cause cancer because SV40 virus can cause cancer in some organisms and inconclusively in humans. However, we find that this is misrepresenting the cited study (Li, S., MacLaughlin, F., Fewell, J. et al.Muscle-specific enhancement of gene expression by incorporation of SV40 enhancer in the expression plasmid. Gene Ther 8, 494–497 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301419
The article states that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing, which the journal considers to be incorrect
The article incorrectly states that spike proteins produced by COVID-19 vaccination linger in the body and cause adverse effects.

Given the concerns with your article, we find that the stated findings in this narrative review are to be considered unreliable, and are not sufficiently supported either by the cited research in the article itself or by other research. In line with the COPE retraction guidelines, the Editors have therefore decided to retract your article. The journal will publish the following retraction notice:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. The following publication concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.

[will be amended as appropriate:] All authors agree to this retraction/ None of the authors agree to this retraction /[author name] agrees to this retraction/[author name] does not agree to this retraction/ [author name] has not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.

Please let me know by 23 February whether you agree or disagree with this retraction, as this will be noted in the retraction notice. Retraction of the article means that we will publish the retraction notice as a separate publication which will bidirectionally link to your article. The article itself will be clearly marked as retracted.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,

Tim Kersjes
Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions
Springer Nature Research Integrity Group

Show less

The list of concerns in the Cureus letter is frankly, too short. In my earlier article, I already listed a number of other concerns with the article:

unsubstantiated claims that the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were too short
unsubstantiated claims that mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were not proven safe or effective
misleading emphasis on absolute risk (AR) versus relative risk (RR) in understanding vaccine efficacy
misleading emphasis on unverified adverse events that were reported after vaccination.
unsubstantiated claims that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”

In any case, Cureus officially retracted this “peer-reviewed” article on 26 February 2024, with this statement:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the concerns with the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.

The authors disagree with this retraction.

One can’t help but wonder if this incident might persuade Cureus to spend a wee bit more time and effort on its peer-review process… or better still, don’t allow such articles to be labelled as “peer-reviewed” until they have at least passed proper, legitimate peer-review.

You can read more about those claims in my fact check article – COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!