from Great Game India:
A study by Dr. Hui Jiang and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer was retracted by Stockholm University amid controversy over the retraction’s reasons and alleged external pressure from concerned scientists and public backlash.
The co-author of a paper indicating that the spike protein from both the COVID-19 virus and the COVID injections damages DNA repair processes, hence contributing to cancer, stated that the primary author was forced to retract the work.
Newly disclosed emails now put into doubt the intentions behind the retraction, indicating imprecise reasons given in the retraction request, as well as an upset from one scientist about the “social relevance” of the paper, warning that it was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Dr. Hui Jiang of Stockholm University and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University published a study in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses in October 2021 titled “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro.” According to independent journalist Rebekah Barnett, three days before an investigation into Jiang and Mei’s paper began on November 5, 2021, medical educator Dr. Mobeen Syed, also known as “Dr. Been,” posted a video on YouTube about the implications of Jiang and Mei’s paper for cancer development, which has over 1.4 million views.
“Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired… then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair… Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair,” Been explained.
Email exchanges from Stockholm University provided to Barnett under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests not only demonstrate backlash from one scientist regarding this video, but they also reveal concerns from a second scientist regarding concerns over “publicity” rather than the lack of evidence supporting a retraction.
Furthermore, co-author Mei informed Barnett that she never consented to the retraction and that Stockholm University practically pushed the lead author, Jiang, to retract the study.
“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” Mei said. “Stockholm University asked the first author, Hui Jiang, to retract it, and they began to formalize the process. This is an illegal retraction. I have reported to the editorial office that the retraction process is incorrect, and I strongly disagree with it.”
FOIA-released emails show that Mei vehemently contested the retraction to co-author Jiang on February 1, 2022, just days before he formally submitted the retraction request:
“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote.
“An improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data” was the reason given in a May 2022 retraction notice.
“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations,” the notice read.
Mei, however, disagreed with Barnett, stating that the retraction was “unjustified” and that the allegations were “unfounded.”
“I strongly disagree (with the retraction notice), because the experiments have a control sample: Nucleoprotein containing 6Histag and GFP report, which localizes in the cell plasmid rather than in the nucleus. Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information,” said Mei, adding, “I never signed the retraction notice.”
‘Not clear if public pressure or scientific faults’ led to retraction
Email correspondence reveals that days after receiving a “generic” request letter on November 9, 2021, MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), which produces open-access scientific publications, contested the retraction.
“We have checked your retraction request… and feel the information provided is insufficient,” Donna Virlan, the MDPI publishing manager, wrote on November 22.
Gloria Gao, assistant editor at MDPI, seconded the objection, pointing out that the apparent reason for the retraction request was “publicity” and that there was not enough evidence to support it.
“At the moment, the Committee and editors have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity,” she wrote on November 24.
Read More @ GreatGameIndia.com
