Following feedback on yesterday’s blockbuster article a reader forwarded me the Retraction Watch coverage of this retraction - which completely misses the point of what happened here.
Retraction Watch pride themselves on identifying fraud in scientific papers yet they knew that this was not a fraudulent paper. The reply from Ya-Fang Mei is copied below and confirms (with evidence) that the His-tag method used was not only an established method but differentiated spike protein from the other proteins in its location in the nucleus.
By supporting Freed and Schildgen in this politically motivated witch-hunt Retraction Watch have massively undermined their probity and have potentially contributed to this oncological catastrophe. It is of little surprise to me, as I have followed their blind-eye-turning since their incredibly weak reporting on the Lancetgate scandal.
If you work at retraction watch and you don’t agree, feel free to post in the comments.
[Below: Ya-Fang Mei’s response as published by Retraction Watch, the text to the right of the confocal picture is a clarification of Mei’s text accompanying this picture]
Jul 31, 2022·edited Jul 31, 2022Liked by Dr Ah Kahn Syed
These evil bastards can only see up to their immediate career advancement for running a smokescreen for the establishment. Don't they realize they're contributing to our very doom through recklessly supporting these dangerous products! I think things will only spiral out of control with the introduction of the monkeypox vaccines.
I'm honestly impressed they gave Mei right-of-reply in the article. I thought of RW as really little more than another node in the typical pharma-funded "debunking" echo-chamber network which spans everything from the Trusted News Initiative MSM + Big Tech leviathans to the Wikipedia canon lawyers. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Uh nobody. The guardians guard themselves and call it "the scientific method."
I just posted about another article that has been held in pre-print since 2020, which also has high relevance for tumor biology and the immune system (as well as brain, sperm, placenta):
Why would it matter whether a publication is "retracted" or not? It is already public, and accessible free of charge. Whoever wants to read it, can freely read it. Whoever is migrating through Kübler-Ross stages, will deny it irrespectively of whether or not it is "retracted"
Retractionwatch or Retractionbotch?
I guess the next obvious question might be- how do Retraction Watch get their funding?
Retraction Watch is a fraud.
They know what they are doing & do not care. That is the reality.
These evil bastards can only see up to their immediate career advancement for running a smokescreen for the establishment. Don't they realize they're contributing to our very doom through recklessly supporting these dangerous products! I think things will only spiral out of control with the introduction of the monkeypox vaccines.
I always appreciate the initial reviewers' comments and the discourse before acceptance for publication.
Prof Ya-Fang Mei should release this correspondence, with the referees' names, the editors' names and conflicts, and any supporting documents.
I appreciate that cross-jurisdiction slander and defamation is a difficult and expensive task. I am not hopeful that his final comment is likely.
I'm honestly impressed they gave Mei right-of-reply in the article. I thought of RW as really little more than another node in the typical pharma-funded "debunking" echo-chamber network which spans everything from the Trusted News Initiative MSM + Big Tech leviathans to the Wikipedia canon lawyers. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Uh nobody. The guardians guard themselves and call it "the scientific method."
I just posted about another article that has been held in pre-print since 2020, which also has high relevance for tumor biology and the immune system (as well as brain, sperm, placenta):
https://medquotes.substack.com/p/not-new-spike-transferrin-receptor
Why would it matter whether a publication is "retracted" or not? It is already public, and accessible free of charge. Whoever wants to read it, can freely read it. Whoever is migrating through Kübler-Ross stages, will deny it irrespectively of whether or not it is "retracted"
One can only wonder how the in silico analysis tlked about P53 and BRCA from 2020 survived until today?