Scandal over Stockholm University for a “Banned” Study on Turbo-Cancer linked to Covid Vaccines
In the cover image the paper retracted by Stockholm University and the researcher Dr Ya-Fang Mei
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Forced retraction of Covid vaccine cancer-risk study, scientist alleges
Originally published by Rebekah Barnet on her Substack
All links to Gospa News articles have been added in the aftermath, due to the ties with the highlighted topics
(This is a long one. I promise it’s worth it. Boil the kettle, get comfy. Here it is…)
In October 2021, an important scientific paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal, MDPI Viruses,1 highlighting that the spike protein from both the SARS-Cov-2 virus and the associated vaccines* damages key DNA repair pathways.
The paper, titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro’ was authored by Dr Hui Jiang of Stockholm University and Dr Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University.
In an email exchange, Mei informed me that Stockholm University pressured Jiang to request retraction of the paper, and that she never consented to the retraction.
The study generated a lot of publicity due to its implications for immune suppression and cancers arising from repeat exposure to Covid infections and vaccination. The authors’ findings have since been confirmed in other peer-reviewed scientific studies, but in the highly-politicised environment at the time, they were new and controversial.
The study was then swiftly retracted under strange circumstances, with the first author requesting the retraction of his own paper. Stranger still, the same editor who approved the paper for publication then did a 180 and approved its retraction. Some speculated that Jiang had been pressured to request the retraction in a politically-motivated effort to bury evidence of Covid vaccine harms.
BMJ Study Links Excess Deaths and Covid Vaccines – Telegraph Makes it Front Page News
Now, one of the authors of the study alleges that this was indeed the case.
“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics.” – Dr Ya-Fang Mei
“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” she 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.”
Emails released to me under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from Stockholm University show that Mei very clearly opposed the retraction.
“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction.” – Dr Ya-Fang Mei
“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote in an email to her co-author on 1 February 2022, just days before Jiang formally lodged his request for retraction with the journal.
Mei stands by her study’s findings and hoped they could be used to produce better, safer vaccines. “We demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein manifests some disadvantages that must be solved before it becomes a vaccine,” she said.
A retraction notice published in May 2022 cited concerns about the construction of the spike plasmid and the use of a GFP reporter system, rendering the paper unreliable to scientists or commentators wishing to reference or build upon Jiang and Mei’s findings.
However, Mei strongly refutes these concerns, telling me that they are “unfounded and the retraction is unjustified.”
“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.” For this reason, said Mei, “I never signed the retraction notice.”
Emails between the authors, Stockholm University and MDPI reveal that this was a highly unusual retraction, pushed through in a climate of intense public pressure and with scant scientific justification.
‘Not clear if public pressure or scientific faults’ led to retraction
The email records show that first author Hui Jiang initially requested the retraction of his paper, in a ‘generic’ letter emailed to MDPI on 9 November 2021.
However, the journal pushed back due to lack of evidence of scientific error in the study, and questions over whether the retraction request was motivated by public pressure.
“We have checked your retraction request… and feel the information provided is insufficient,” wrote MDPI Publishing Manager Donna Virlan on 22 November.
MDPI Assistant Editor Gloria Gao reiterated the lack of scientific justification. “At the moment, the Committee and editors have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity,” she wrote on 24 November.
“[We] have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity.” – MDPI Assistant Editor, Gloria Gao
In the same thread, Academic Editor, Dr Oliver Schildgen, who initially approved Jiang and Mei’s paper for publication, described the retraction letter as “rather generic.”
“For me it was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the requests,” he said, but “we have to be neutral as scientists.”
Pressure from academic activism and ‘fact checkers’
“I do not care about Twitter shitstorms,” wrote Schildgen, above. Others, like German scientist Dr Götz Schuck, cared a lot.
“The publicity surrounding this publication is unusually high,” and “is instrumentalized as a source of misinformation,” complained Schuck in the first of multiple emails to the journal. He states that he separately contacted Umeå University with his complaints.
He urged the journal to bypass normal retraction processes and immediately withdraw the paper because “unusual times call for unusual measures.”
In a follow up email the next day, this time with Stockholm University included, Schuck catastrophised over the “scientific scandal” of the paper remaining online with nearly half a million downloads, urging the journal to “remove the article in question as quickly as possible.”
“You can’t just rely on a scientific investigation of the case. Every day they hesitate enables further dissemination of misinformation related to this publication,” wrote Schuck on 23 November 2022.
Schildgen replied assuring that correct procedures were being followed, and recommending that any further issues be raised with the Chief Editor (NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed), to whom he formally handed over the case.
“You can’t just rely on a scientific investigation of the case… This publication was hacked by anti-vaccinationists, that’s what it looks like.” – Scientist, Dr Götz Schuck.
Originally published by Rebekah Barnet on her Substack
Rebekah Barnet is Independent journalist reporting from Western Australia. BA Communications, Hons, University of Western Australia.
All links to Gospa News articles have been added in the aftermath, due to the ties with the highlighted topics
MAIN SOURCES
GOSPA NEWS – TURBO-CANCER & VACCINES – ALL STUDIES
GOSPA NEWS – COVID-19, VACCINES & BIG PHARMA DOSSIER
GOSPA NEWS – WUHAN-GATES INVESTIGATIONS
Increased Mortality in Cancer Related to SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein mRNA Injections: Japan Study
