The predator is back...
And she/her has back-up...
I think it’s really important for me to share what is happening on the side to me and all of my colleagues. We are incessantly attacked in every way you can be attacked.
I know this might sound weird but I saw a clip of Nikki Minaj calling this issue out the other day to a panel of ‘enquirists’. I find her to be, an interesting anomaly. She was quite volatile, and was vocal about the fact that responding to media propagated lies really DOES matter. This would be in contrast to letting them be, and resting in silence. I agreed with her, to some degree. Mostly from the point of view of TRUTH. Man, I really cannot stand untruths. It detracts from progress. In all things.
I wrote a Substack a while ago on the content of an email in my inbox from one incentivized strange person. I had hoped that she would go away following my clear and polite response. Well, she/her’s back. And she brought one of the classic hit-men on the data scene. I think if you look at data, he’s probably taken a crack at you at some point during the COVID-19 saga. You will all be exposed by the end of this … saga.
So here’s the new email from “she/her”:
Dear Dr. Rose,
Thank you for answering previous comments put forward by Insider about an investigation I am preparing.
As a reminder, I am writing an investigation about academic articles that could be used to promote misinformation about vaccines that have been published by peer-reviewed journals, which critics say shows serious flaws in the system of peer review.
One of the papers used as an example is:
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Current Problems in Cardiology, 2021.We have now edited the manuscript further and intend to report the following. Would you like to comment?
Providing an overview of our findings, we argue that anti-vaccine advocates and anti-vaxxers used the flaws in the peer-review system to publish dangerously incorrect studies in respected journals, which journals subsequently retracted, withdrew, or otherwise distanced themselves from.
With regards to your paper specifically:
We report a finding from your paper that myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart, increased 19-fold in children aged 12 to 15 after vaccines were rolled out to that age group.
We say that you suggested the shots had caused the rate to increase.
We relate the approach taken in this paper to another paper we mention in our article called “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693” from Walach and al, saying the case reports were taken at face value.
We say that _ _, _ _, reviewed the paper and said its methods fall short of the acceptable threshold to demonstrate a link between the vaccine and myocarditis and has several statements with an anti-vaccine slant.
With regards to the decision to withdraw the paper, we report these statements from _ _:
"I don't think this paper should have gotten published, but then I think if they were going to retract it, they should have provided more reason for it,”
"Otherwise, it raises unanswered questions of: 'why it was removed?' and there could be allegations of bias or other nefarious motives given to the journal."
Providing an overview of your profile, we say that you are a self-professed “dissident surfer and scientist.”
We say you were financed by IPAK for this paper.
We say that IPAK is a not-for-profit that supports research critical of vaccines.
We say IPAK publishes Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.
We say Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law republished the Vaccines article, which had been retracted after its publication (“The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693”).
Please feel free to comment on the above by email, or let us know if you would rather not. We intend to publish next week and ask that you respond by 2 pm GMT on Wednesday, March 23, 2022. Please let us know if you would like more time and we can consider that.
To summarize, they name-call and then conclude what we did - that kids are getting myocarditis at higher rates above background. They confirmed that their opinion guy agrees that a reason for the withdrawal of our paper should have been given. I agree. A reason should have been given. And yes! Because a reason was not given, it does raise the question: “Why was it removed?” They make false claims about ‘IPAK’, and they seem to have a problem with me being a surfer. And yes she/her, when it comes to exposing liars and cowards, I am a dissident.
This is me going on record.