The journal Cureus retracted a peer-reviewed paper that called for the halt of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Why?
The editors say that they “found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the concerns with the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.”
One of the paper’s authors, Steve Kirsch, published the concerns that the paper sent them. It is odd because these concerns were peer-reviewed and validated prior to publication. It is not standard to come up with these concerns post-publication and my read of this paper is that these concerns WERE sufficiently addressed.
Nathaniel Mead, one of the lead authors, was on Redacted recently and he revealed that other journals had rejected this study due to the political nature of the Covid vaccine. The Cureus publication had over 330,000 views, which is extraordinary when you consider that an average publication gets around 2,700. It had also received some of the highest ratings ever for a Cureus paper, with a Scholarship Impact Quotient or SIQ score of 9.3 (scale of 1 to 10).
Clearly, this is not science. It is politics.
Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, says that “the authors will proceed with publication in an alternate journal.”
