pubpeer's Kevin Patrick wants to help make science better

Ah, the irony of deception, the agony of defeat

This article will be an update on the intentioned attempts to put our latest peer reviewed published paper through an unnecessary and unrequested post-peer review process by presumably non-credentialed ‘reviewers’. For the most part, and certainly in this particular case, the uninvited post-”peer review” came from a person hiding behind a pseudonym (until prompted to name himself, ahem) so as to make it impossible to identify credentials and to have a professional and well-intentioned exchange. Here’s my article on the events so far:

I don’t attend to pubpeer as it is clearly a smearing platform designed to waste our time, and I believe it would indeed be a waste of my time to comb through the pages of nitpickings, especially considering that there are no points of complaint that stand on scientific merit that change the conclusion of this paper. I also don’t appreciate having to go through the peer review process (multiple times in this case!) only to be ambushed by these pseudonymed post-peer-review lurkers. What is peer review for if not to suss out problems in submitted articles?

A message to pubpeer: We do not have to answer to you - none of us do. We already went through peer review.

But something has come to my attention today that is quite important to address as it pertains specifically to our paper and its appointed pubpeer-post-peer-reviewer, Kevin Patrick, aka: Actinopolyspora biskrensis.

First, a word on pseudonym use. I appreciate the need for pseudonym use in the case where innocent people use them for protection: to prevent losing employment or being identified for the purposes of being doxxed. This is especially important when people have families to protect. In the case of academics and scientists, publishing results that challenge big pharma mantras can put you in a hot seat, to say the least. Those who know, know. But nonetheless, we persist with benevolent intentions: to do good science and to have the results and findings from scientific studies publicly disclosed in an attempt to make progress in science itself and in this particular case, to help people. We play in the sandbox of the status quo and go through the peer review process which is an exceedingly difficult task, especially when your work challenges “big” narratives.

But in the case of pubpeer, pseudonyms are not only not necessary or warranted, they indeed identify an intention to hide - not for protection - but out of cowardice. If a professional exchange is the intention, then actual names are preferred - at least from professionals.

As part of my first and only response to the pubpeer complaint made by Mr. Patrick on pubpeer on the subject matter of VAERS SAE rates I indeed wrote the following:

And please use your real name when commenting on peer-reviewed published studies. To do otherwise does not allow for serious and honest exchange.

In response, Mr Patrick wrote the following:

In any case, my name is Kevin Patrick and I have no conflicts of interest related to this paper, the subject matter, or the authors. To be explicit: I have no financial conflicts of interest.

Wow, no conflicts of interest. Twice repeated, no less.

He went on to write:

Lastly, in response to “Prediction: They will try to retract”:

You are correct that I (and other commenters above) have identified what we believe to be flaws in the paper. My goal is to help improve scientific accuracy, which is especially important in safety-related research like this. If the journal shares the concerns I’ve expressed above, the authors may wish to provide substantive responses here or directly with the journal.

Here’s a screenshot:

Well done on revealing your “real name”, Mr. Patrick. So very brave of you.

At this point I would like to focus on Mr. Patrick’s statement:

My goal is to help improve scientific accuracy, which is especially important in safety-related research like this.

Keep these words in mind.

It was noted by VaccineMole on X at 10:56 PM on Sep 27, 2025 that one of the many ‘criticisms’ of our paper made by Mr. Patrick is, in fact, a completely fabricated quote.

I checked, and the Moley Mole is correct. Let’s break it down with a visual aid, shall we?

Mr. Patrick, for reasons inexplicable to me, wrote a made-up quote (shown highlighted in yellow) in his criticism of our paper where we reference Klinman et al. in their claim that small sections of DNA (7 kp) can affect integration and recombination rates on the subject matter of risks of integration when DNA is involved in vaccines.¹²³ This is not simply a slip and in fact, to insert the word “theoretically” into the misquote is more than what I would call a mistake.

The Klinman el al. paper as shown above underlined in gold, clearly makes the following statement:

In this context, sections of DNA as short as 7 bp can affect rates of integration or recombination.

It is more than odd that Mr. Patrick even states that Klinman et al. “actually write” the following:

Klinman et al. (2010) actually write:

“While it is theoretically possible for homologous recombination to occur at very short stretches of identity (as small as 7 bp), the frequency of such events in mammalian cells is extremely low, and multiple studies have failed to detect integration of plasmid DNA into host chromosomes above background levels following immunization with DNA vaccines.” Link.

It is bizarre that he did this, ackchyually. In fact, it is deception. And extremely ironic.

So where do that leave us? Well, apparently with lawyers involved.

Kevin McKernan also wrote up his version of these events that you can read here.

PubSmear fabricates data in effort to retract DNA contam paper

There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of the pubpeer platform is to attempt to discredit and smear good scientists whose work challenges doctrine and norms.

The entire purpose of anything designed with progress in mind is precisely to challenge doctrine.

Enrolled agents whose job or desire it is to suppress the challenging of doctrine should not be allowed to do this primarily because it is an assault (and insult) on everyone involved in the peer review process - from the authors to the editor - and especially on the journal itself. It is the journal’s call to publish, and it is their call to retract. But a retraction call must be made on retractable grounds such as the following:

1. Plagiarism: The most common reason for retraction, encompassing self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and copying others’ work without proper attribution.

2. Scientific Misconduct: Includes fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation, which are significant drivers of retractions, particularly in high-impact journals.

3. Honest Errors: Such as laboratory errors (e.g., contamination), analytical errors, and irreproducible results, which are frequently cited in retraction notices.

4. Authorship and Ethical Issues: Unethical authorship claims, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and failure to obtain ethical approval for human or animal studies can lead to retraction.

5. Peer Review and Copyright Issues: Peer review fraud and copyright infringement, such as unauthorized use of figures, are also recognized causes.

One of the other statements that Mr. Patrick made as noted above was:

If the journal shares the concerns I’ve expressed above, the authors may wish to provide substantive responses here or directly with the journal.

The journal certainly could not share the claim above as a concern as it was completely fabricated, and it would not be in their best interest to do so. I am not sure if this comment would classify as a fraudulent claim - suggesting a fraudulent comment - but I do know that no journal would “share your concern” on this, and likely on any other comment you’ve made, Mr. Patrick.

By the way, your claim about our misquoting the Moderna patent number is also flat-out false.

We cite patent US10898574B2 where Moderna write the following:

which entirely backs up our concerns expressed in our paper.

Also, cited correctly:

Is this really where we are: In a place where scientists have to be subjected to this kind of time-wasting nitpicking where, in some cases, we are forced into responding to these nonsense claims and in extreme cases, have our work retracted?

I think it’s about time that not only the people know what is going on behind the scenes with regard to peer review and unethical retraction (and retraction attempts), but for the HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, incumbent FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, and President Donald J. Trump to know as well.

FYI: Retraction rates have been steadily going up since 2020: the likes that we’ve never seen before. It was quite steady from 2015-2019. I believe quite firmly that it is based on incentivization to censor good work that challenges or even counters big narratives that might risk profit agendas from persisting or expanding.

If you think censorship and unlawful retraction is bad, please do share this article. If you think we need a better way forward, such as an Uberized version of peer review, with true transparency and competition brought back to science, please do look into this for future solutions and options.

1. Klinman DM, Klaschik S, Tross D, Shirota H, Steinhagen F. FDA guidance on prophylactic DNA vaccines: analysis and recommendations. Vaccine. 2010 Apr 1;28(16):2801-5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.025. Epub 2009 Nov 24. PMID: 19941989; PMCID: PMC2847045

2. Ledwith BJ, Manam S, Troilo PJ, Barnum AB, Pauley CJ, Nichols WW. Plasmid DNa vaccines: Assay for integration into host genomic DNA. Dev Biol. 2000;104:33–43

3. Smith HA. Regulation and Review of DNA Vaccine Products. Dev Biol. 2000;104:57–62