320 Comments

You really still thought they would publish the truth?

Expand full comment

With due respect to: M. Nathaniel Mead • Stephanie Seneff • Russ Wolfinger • Jessica Rose • Kris Denhaerynck • Steve Kirsch • Peter A. McCullough and all other researchers who have lived the same situation.

This article, like many others retracted before it, is labelled "Peer reviewed".

One question remains and will remain as long as articles are submitted for approval to " Peer reviewer " who have no hesitation in betraying the fundamental ethics we have a right to expect from their position.

My questiion:

"Why do you insist on publishing your articles in these journals instead of developing a parallel system of scientific publications that would be uncensored in an electronic format only?

Scientists, who have so much to offer the world and free science, I implore you to free yourselves by pooling your knowledge and resources and developing a website where freedom of expression will be the rule.

The only way to defeat a system is not to attack it head-on, but to build a parallel system whose efficiency will demonstrate the corruption, inefficiency, dangerousness and obsolescence of the current one, whose absolute control by the dictatorial power of money has become obvious.

Building such a system will not be easy, but you and all your colleagues, who have experienced the ignominy of seeing themselves swept aside by the powers that be, are the only ones who can lay the foundations, because you know all the ins and outs.

Your science, your courage, your determination and the admiration we have for you, which you richly deserve, all make it necessary to build such an infrastructure.

If it is true that the truth liberates, then please liberate humanity with the truth of a science freed from the shackles of dictatorship.

Yours respectfully

Expand full comment

Thanks for your comment, which is in alignment with efforts long underway before the retraction. I have been working on exactly such a system since the day of the retraction, and it's good to see others affirming the need. Stay tuned!

Expand full comment

Yes, just like our very successful (for the communists) Public School System, create a truthful parallel system that cannot be bought-out or unduely influenced by the blob. Have it available for the public after a short while, too. That means the research funding system, and it's funding by tax dollars "for the greater good" is treason by our own constitution, and political ties must be cut. The established system is so entrenched and successful in their deceitful narratives, why fight it when we have the means to just defund and let them dry on the vine, as they should.

We have a long way to go to get to truth. Lies are an abomination to a civil society. A form of government that must lie and deceive to gain the foot in the door like a thief must be prosecuted early and often out of existence, and only teach the truth.

Expand full comment

If the habit of thinking critically became widespread in a society, it would prevail everywhere, since it is a way of dealing with life's problems.

The glowing words of any orator would not cause panic in people educated in this way.

They take time to believe and are capable, without difficulty and without the need for certainty, of holding things to be probable to varying degrees.

They can wait for the facts, then weigh them up without ever allowing themselves to be influenced by the emphasis or confidence with which proposals are put forward by one party or another.

They can resist those who appeal to their deepest prejudices or who use flattery.

Education in this critical capacity is the only education that can be said to produce good citizens.

William Graham Sumner

Expand full comment

That's a cop-out, Steve. Even though facts don't matter to them, it is still important to get your rebuttal to their fraud on record for others to see. Otherwise, it will be easy for anyone to claim that they were right. Please do take them up on their invitation to reply and make it a good one. Thanks

Expand full comment

Thank you Steve Kirsch for EVERYTHING you have done, and are continuing to do to bring TRUTH!

Expand full comment

The journal of Critical Medicine published a study saying that the majority of Long COVID sufferers were vaccinated. Anyone care to make bets on whether or when this will be retracted? https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/study-finds-majority-of-patients-with-long-covid-were-vaccinated-5596736?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=top-news-top-stories-0-large-4

Expand full comment

Steve,

After reading Peter McCullough's response to Tim Kersjes, I don't think for one second the Editors in Chief at Cureus made the decision to retract on their own. I suspect they were 'leaned on' by the Censorship State. Just like Google, Facebook, and Twitter before them Cureus took the easy way out and retracted the paper.

Tucker Carlson's recent interview of Mike Benz sheds some light on the how and why.

Uncensored: The National Security State & the Inversion of Democracy:

https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-the-national-security-state-the-inversion-of-democracy/

By the way, I just finished watching YOUR interview with Tucker Carlson. WELL DONE!

Here's a thought:

Your interview with Tucker Carlson will be seen by Millions.

The argument whether mRNA Covid Vaccines cause net harm now moves from the medical literature to the Public Square.

Expand full comment

As of 1600 hrs UTC Sunday 25 Feb the paper was still open for comment. I made one. The paper is still there. What's up ?

Expand full comment

Now, THIS is a very detailed response to Cureus's removal of the paper. It names one of the key people behind the removal etc. This is from Peter McCullough's substack (one of the authors of the paper). This puts true egg on the face of Cureus's editors etc, where it belongs.

===

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-springer-nature-cureus-journal

===

Expand full comment
Feb 24·edited Feb 24

I wonder why is it that a paper like this gets published and then retracted citing all those "concerns that can’t be remedied with a correction". Of course I prefer to have had the opportunity to read it, but why wouldn't the editors notice these "concern issues" BEFORE the paper gets published?

Expand full comment

We all know why this immoral act is being done, and it was not unexpected. The saddest part of the episode is not the retraction. From my perspective, the saddest part is that the Editors know why this is being done and the Editorial Board knows why this is being done, and they are going along with it. This is true for all the Covid-19 vaccine papers retracted. I don't know of one journal editor involved with one of these retractions or one EB member who has resigned in protest over these politically-motivated retractions. That is a severe indictment of our educational system. It is producing robots with zero morals and ethics who are willing to go along with these obscenities in order to maintain their editor/EB positions.

I can understand why someone would want to be a journal editor, even for a bottom-tier journal such as Cureus (Impact Factor 1.2). There is a feeling of accomplishment of being a person whose publication decisions have served to advance the state-of-the-art in a field of research. However, the editors/EB of these journals that allowed the political retractions to occur have essentially become water-carriers for Big Pharma. What kind of personal satisfaction does that provide? This action by the editors of Cureus is a sad indictment of how low the integrity of medical (un)professionals has sunk.

Expand full comment

Thank you MerlinT. Reading it now!

Expand full comment

among the 295 current comments below, were somewhere my initial extremely good responses regarding this paper, based on ONE rejection comment of the reviewers, it was the gene therapy point! Actually, I did that without even reading that paper or its abstract carefully!!! Mea culpa! Reading more in detail just the abstract, I realized to have done a terrible MISTAKE in promoting this paper for a wide distribution among everyone!!! That one sentence from the abstract should have waken me up;

" we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered."

=> so the authors are, like Malone, for the universal GENETIC MODIFICATION OF THE HUMAN GENOME, aren't you, Mr. Kirsch et al.? That's CRIMINAL and you ALL know that from VERY BEGIN!!!! NONE OF YOU, authors, has the right to tell any human being on this planet to erase their God given genetic heritage for the common good of 'safety'! You all know NOTHING ABOUT GENES, equally like the reviewers! This paper, because of being only part truth, while still promoting 'safe mRNA treatments', should be flashed into a toilet and get degraded by the worst worms out there, together with the reviewers comments. SHAME ON YOU!

Blind me.

Expand full comment

Your comment makes zero sense. Do you understand what the word, "moratorium" means? It means to prohibit or stop. A "global moratorium", therefore, means to stop or prohibit the modified mRNA products. The authors of the article were being professional, by stating this point with such polite language.

How on Earth are you reaching the conclusion that Malone and Kirsch et al. are the evil beings that you seem to think?

Expand full comment

Katherine Watt has investigated the shoddy passage of the covid shots through the FDA/regulatory agencies and has concluded "the whole project is going on under the 50 USC Chapter 32 chemical and biological weapons program." As such, it did not have to undergo the normal channels of medical testing and review but the "clinical trials" were done as eyewash. The public really needs to be made aware of this. Check out her substack articles like this one: https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/feb-9-2023-childrens-health-defense

This is why going after the perpetrators in court is hard. I hope Steve et. al. can find another journal venue for their article and perhaps use the Cureus comments as a guide to tighten up their presentation in a few places - though it's clear these editors are bought & paid (like Russell Blaylock wrote & published about two years ago here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/ )

Expand full comment

It has been shown by prior FDA notes that this was only initially designed as gene therapy. I wonder if saying otherwise is legally actionable?

Expand full comment

Two commenters on the article stand out to me Chris Gupta and Masaki Fujuii. I would like to hear more from Masaki Fujii in an interview.

Expand full comment

Hi Greg.

My latest counter measure, was picking up a $25/year sim card from Speakout, so I can use the number specifically just for online registrations that insist on a phone number.

I think I've only used it for FB so far. I thought I might need it for YT, but not yet.

I'm a long time user of voip for my business, but lots of times they don't accept a voip number for a registration. fwiw, I recommend voip.ms

Cheers.

Expand full comment