Prediction: "They will try to retract our work"

Reality: Just like it was written in a playbook, they're trying. They will fail.

I spoke about our new paper which is now up on Pubmed published in Autoimmunity at a recent Brownstone event. You can read it here. You can eread my layman’s write-up here. It currently has 39,458 views and has an Altmetric score of 1986, which means that the online activity tracking yield reveals there is a lot of interest in this paper in its seminal 13 days as a published article. I only wish it was 1984; that would be so perfect.

At the Brownstone event, I was given ample time on the stage by Jeffrey Tucker to speak on the subject matter of this paper, and to issue a request for everyone in the audience to download it, read it and share it ASAP. The reason why I have been so insistent that people download, read and share this work quickly is because the findings therein are so important that there will be an attempt to bury them and the paper itself.

This paper was entered into the Congressional record as part of a US Senate hearing (Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations) by Senator Ron Johnson on September 9, 2025, and I anticipated that because of this, and the paper’s exceedingly strong protocols, methodology and sheer scientific merit, it would be attacked immediately and a retraction attempt would be made. The other reason that I anticipated this is because it has happened to me before - most of you are aware of the “withdrawal” of my original myocarditis paper with Peter McCullough, that has since been updated and published). The findings in this most recent paper on DNA impurities in the Pfizer and Moderna vials prove that Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) did not take place (at the very least) and deliberate concealment of dishonoring GMPs constitutes scientific and regulatory fraud.

All we as scientists are trying to do is good science. We stand for truth and integrity in our fields, and we honor the scientific process and even the peer-review process.

On Wednesday, September 17th, 2025 at 5:08 AM, the email from the Advanced Journal Portfolio Manager of the journal Autoimmunity came into my inbox - just 11 short days following online publication - and it read:

Following publication, concerns have been raised about the article; as a result, we will be investigating the concerns raised and contacting you for further information shortly. We will be issuing the following temporary notice to your article on www.tandfonline.com.

So beside our very young and fresh paper, you will now see the dreaded icon of preliminary take-down. By the way, this investigatory process takes weeks.

I wrote back and I asked the Advanced Journal Portfolio Manager the following question:

Can you please elaborate on these concerns and who voiced them? I am curious to know.

Dr. Rose

They wrote the following:

Thank you for your prompt responses. This article has received significant attention on social media, as well as a series of post-publication comments on PubPeer. The commentary that we have seen indicates that we need to review the methodology and conclusions of the paper. Please be assured that we will follow our standard investigation process which is aligned to COPE guidelines and in accordance with our editorial policies

pubpeer. Right. We, in the scientific community aptly refer to it as ‘pubsmeer’. We already knew. I already knew. I just wanted this information to come from the journal’s liaison, and to be on record (instead of being an accusation, for example).

I wrote the following in return as I felt obligated to apprise the journal manager as to the pubpeer (I refuse to capitalize their name) motive:

We are already aware that the source is pubpeer, and we think it is important that you are aware that the aim of pubpeer and its affiliates is not scientific scrutiny based on merit, as demonstrated by the screenshot of the email below. Most - if not all - 'complaints' made by pseudonymed pubpeer affiliates address no pertinent scientific points of interest that would absolutely require subsequent amendment, which I suspect is the case here.

My two cents: I believe that engaging with pubpeer discredits us and the journal. They indeed hide behind pseudonyms (in most cases) and in my opinion, insult the authors, the reviewers, the editors and the journal itself with this type of behaviour. To me, it is quite scandalous.

On Thursday, September 18th, 2025 at 10:18 AM, the email from Retraction Watch came into my inbox - just 12 short days following online publication - and it read:

Dr. Rose:

Hello, I'm a journalist with Retraction Watch. I'm working on a story about Taylor & Francis investigating concerns raised on PubPeer about your recently published article, "Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada."

Do you have any response to the concerns, or any comment on the publisher's investigation? I reached out to Dr. Speicher a couple of days ago and haven't heard back.

Best

I did not respond either. Neither did the journal. To be honest, the article they wrote is quite good and I do recommend reading it. It’s telling and gives names. Not complete names yet; that’s coming. Click on the photo below to get to link to article.

In the article they write that I predicted this action [by pubpeer]. Because I did.

“They will try to retract our work.”

Right on time, isn’t it? This, my friends, is an incentivized playbook. People are being paid to act this way toward good and ethical scientists and doctors that inevitably this affects every member of the public. This MUST end here.

The whining concerns about the paper from p-seudonym p-kevin p-atrick included a questioning of the use of VAERS data and in fact, “misrepresenting VAERS data” as reported by Retraction Watch.

In subsequent comments, Patrick (pubpeer) also questioned the authors’ use of data from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.

Here’s the “complaint” from p-seudonym p-kevin p-atrick from the pubpeer website:

As I state clearly in the study, I did not calculate incidence: I calculated percentages. If this ‘person’ had a clue what he was trying to speak on, he would understand that there are no claims or interpretations of the data and thus no misrepresentations: it is presentation of RAW DATA and percentages. The number of SAE “incidents” per 100 AEs is a proportion without a time component. He doesn't understand what a rate is.

I wrote this in response on pubpeer:

I thought I was excessively polite.

We also went one step further in anticipation of ‘moves’ like this by writing a passage in the discussion section of the paper of the limitations of using VAERS data where we included that this is an exploratory and preliminary analysis that requires follow-up and confirmation in order for anyone to even think about dose-response curve generation.

Our exploratory analysis of the relationship between the residual DNA content and SAEs reported to VAERS is preliminary and limited in sample size but warrants confirmation by examining many more lots and vials. This preliminary analysis appears to show a correlation between the adverse events reported for each lot and the levels of DNA, especially in the context of the ori. More testing of vials from other independent laboratories, including prospective long-term monitoring, is required to confirm our results and confirm whether a correlation exists.

VAERS primarily captures short-term AEs and may underreport long-term effects. Further vial testing is needed to establish a dose-response curve using VAERS data.

So this is where we’re at. I am awaiting the next email but I really thought you all - including the journal who had the scientific integrity to publish our work - should know what’s going on behind the scenes.

None of this is by accident and none of this is how science works.

Science is how we make progress, and even publishing mistakes allows us as a collective group of minds to right these mistakes and to move forward toward something better for all us.

FOR ALL OF US.

Here’s an addendum report from Rebel News’ Tamara Ugolini.