Scientific censorship (in all its myriad forms) is a threat to free-speech, free-thought and for our ability to apply the scientific method to understand our world. 

Two of the greatest tools that humanity has developed (telecommunications and the scientific method) are now being manipulated to suppress "inconvenient" data and shape a narrative that does not serve our quest for objective fact finding and truth.  Anonymous targeting of high-impact studies to produce retractions is censorship - and is a backdoor method by publishers to control information and provide a veneer of legitimacy to their actions.

A peer-reviewed study by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas (doi:10.3390/ijerph18157754) was retracted by the editors at the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH).  The article had passed extensive, blinded peer-review and was retracted 1-month post publication.  A single reader's comment led to the journal's retraction of the paper, even when the reader's comments had been addressed during peer-review. 

A follow-up publication, in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research (https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.59 that looked at the potential role of excess diagnosis of illness in the vaccinated population as a biasing condition (the cited reason for the editors to unilaterally withdraw the publication in IJERPH), demonstrated that correcting for the bias weighted the analysis in the positive direction - that is, towards increasing the association. The signal for an effect was strong enough even when the bias was present that it demonstrated statistical significance and was stronger when it was corrected! IJERPH has not removed the retraction of the paper, even when made aware of this new analysis.  This goes against the ethical principles of scientific publishing and the correction of the published record.

Integrity, transparency and self-correction are at the heart of ethical and moral publishing (in all forms), but it is vital and central to science, medicine and engineering publications.  If we let one type of censorship blossom in our publication system without calling out the perpetrators, we are allowing for the wholesale control and debasement of a critical tool that provides objective facts to a wider community.  Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, vaccine-injury and many other studies have been blocked, censored, or retracted via non-transparent and questionable methods in journals.  

Dr James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas are not the only authors to experience such censorship.  Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Jessica Rose have also experienced this form of censorship (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267?via%3Dihub in their “temporarily removed” article, with the promise of:

“A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.”

We are asking the public and our medical and scientific community to sign this petition for the re-instatement of the original paper by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas.  We will work towards pushing back on all the papers that have been censored by publisher and editors and demand that they defend and demonstrate valid technical, ethical and logical reasons for the retractions, withdrawals and censoring they have undertaken.

Petition – 8/20/2023

We, the undersigned, are writing to the editors of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) to remove the retraction of the paper by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas (doi:10.3390/ijerph18157754).

We, the undersigned, are concerned that a peer-reviewed publication can be withdrawn after a single, unsupported comment from an anonymous writer by the editorial board.  No evidence has been presented by the editors of IJERPH to support the withdrawal decision, only a statement declaring that methodological flaws were found.  

The correct and honorable process towards the authors would be to allow for an erratum, addendum, supplement or letter to the editor be added to the paper.  Retraction or withdrawal is perceived as a serious deficiency or fraudulent act in scientific publications.  Neither is applicable in the case of this paper.

At a minimum, we demand that the paper retraction be removed and the editorial board present the evidence they claim to have uncovered to their readership.

 

Signed,