SPECIAL REPORT: DETROIT MONEY GRAB premieres Thursday, Oct. 21, during Church Militant Catholic Info Hour at 7 pm ET
VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) - Partisan scientists who refuse to recognize vaccine-related deaths have forced a prestigious medical journal to retract a peer-reviewed article that contends that the COVID-19 jabs are killing two people for every three lives saved.
Fanatical pro-vaccine academics incited the scientists by launching a concerted social media attack on the article's authors using the f-word and calling for a retraction.
Church Militant cited the study on July 2 at a Vatican press conference on vaccine hesitancy, in a question to pro-vaccine scientists Dr. Ramin Parsa-Parsi (German Medical Association) and Prof. Frank Ulrich Montgomery (World Medical Association chair of council).
"Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths," the study concluded after using an Israeli field study involving approximately a million persons in addition to the most prominent trial data from regulatory phase three trials.
Vaccines officially retracted the article titled "The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations — We Should Rethink the Policy" the same day. The study is co-authored by scientists Prof. Harald Walach, Dr. Rainer J. Klement and Wouter Aukema.
Speaking to Church Militant, Walach said he had received many supportive letters from fellow scientists and that "one of the journal editors of Vaccines wrote to us that he is dismayed about the pressure that was raised and the consequences the journal took."
Walach, professor at Poznan University of the Medical Sciences, Poland, explained how "some of the editors that pressured the journal into retraction were heavily conflicted."
Among the conflicted editors who resigned is virologist Florian Krammer from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and immunologist Katie Ewer from Oxford University's Jenner Institute. The scientists also caved in under pressure from social media assaults.
Krammer responded to a fellow scientist who tweeted: "Hey @florian_krammer, how in the f**k did this piece of sh*t get past the editorial staff? ... It's being used in anti-vaxx propaganda." (The vulgar words were spelled out in full in the original tweet.)
The Mount Sinai professor wrote back saying that he had "sent an email to the editorial staff with exactly your question and then resigned from [his] role at the journal."
Ewer similarly responded to Dutch mathematician Pepijn van Erp, who tweeted: "The latest article that is promoted by corona skeptics is published by @MDPIOpenAccess, where someone must have fu*ked up really bad." (The vulgar word was spelled out in full in the original tweet.)
The Oxford scientist, who describes herself on her Twitter bio as a "vax pimp," told van Erp she has resigned from the editorial board of Vaccines because the article "is grossly negligent and [she] can't believe it passed peer-review."
"To all the people replying saying that I should have sent a letter to the editor ... rather than resigning — you are missing the point. My issue is with the journal whose policies and staff allowed a paper with such huge consequences through the net," she later tweeted.
Walach pointed Church Militant to the pro-vaccine scientists' conflicts of interests: "Katie Ewer was part of the team in Oxford that had developed the vector vaccine. Florian Krammer had received a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), as had Paul Licciardi."
"The publisher of the journal Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) has a framework grant from BMGF that allows all authors sponsored by BMGF to publish for free and allows BMGF to access the online submission system. Thus, apparently, they can know who is submitting what," Walach emphasized.
Church Militant confirmed independently that Krammer received a "Grand Challenge for Universal Influenza Vaccine Development grant." The grant is part of a $12 million initiative funded by BMGF and Flu Lab.
Beginning 2019, the group was given up to $2 million over two years for research to help develop a flu vaccine protecting against different strains of the virus.
Oxford University's Jenner Institute where Ewer conducts research is also heavily funded by at least 12 international pro-vaccine bodies, including BMGF, the European Commission and the Wellcome Trust.
The Wellcome Trust, a major funder of health research, "stands to gain financially from the pandemic, raising questions about transparency and accountability," notes the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The BMJ also notes that the Gates Foundation is "positioned to potentially benefit financially from its leading role in the pandemic response" as Gates had more than $250 million invested in companies working on COVID-19.
"Yet charities such as Gates and Wellcome — and even drug companies — have generally been praised in the news media ... for their efforts to solve the public health crisis, with relatively little attention paid to their financial interests and with few checks and balances put on their work," the BMJ remarks.
Other scientists on the editorial board of Vaccines who resigned include vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris from the Vaccine Datalink and Research Group at the University of Auckland and epidemiologist Diane Harper at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Petousis-Harris dismissed the paper as "a case of 'garbage in, garbage out.'"
Other resignations were from immunologist Paul Licciardi from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Parkville, Australia and Andrew Pekosz, a respiratory virologist at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
In comments to Church Militant, Walach also noted that "the publisher of Vaccines had violated the code of ethics of publishing to which he subscribes," which "makes clear when a retraction is warranted."
Articles are only retracted when data are fabricated, when an analysis is wrong, or in a case of plagiarism or self-plagiarism, the scientist said, maintaining that the article did not implicate any of the three conditions for retraction.
"Abiding by the code of ethics would have resulted in a request by the journal to us to change the wording and possibly the interpretation of our findings towards a more careful reading, which we would have done, had the request reached us," he added.
The peer-review conducted by the article's first reviewer stressed that Walach and his co-authors' "analysis is performed responsibly and without methodological flaws, and the results are interpreted with the necessary caveats."
The second reviewer wrote: "The manuscript by Walach et al. is very important and should be published urgently." The third reviewer noted that "the manuscript is well-written and due to the current pandemic, it is of certain interest."
Revisions suggested by the reviewers were incorporated by Walach and his co-scientists into the final publication.
On July 5, Poznan University of Medical Sciences issued a press statement against Walach "emphasizing most strongly that the article does not express the views of our university."
"Vaccinations are the most important weapon in the fight against the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic," it stated.
"If you guys cancel scientists for not adhering to the 'preferred narrative,' it's time to cancel back. I intend to refrain from any forms of collaboration with the Poznan University of Medical Sciences, both individually and within any institutional framework," scientist Tajemniczy don Pedro shot back at the university.