How Elsevier Manipulates Peer-Reviewed Science to Match the Narrative

(from Steve Kirsch Substack) Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough wrote a paper on myocarditis rates caused by the vaccine. It was published in the journal “Current Problems in Cardiology.”

And then, for no reason at all, the publisher of the Journal, Elsevier, caused it to just “disappear” for no reason.

Here is the PubMed link.

Here’s the paper in the journal which makes it look like it was never published. It was. It was unethically removed by the publisher.

Is the scientific community complaining about this? Sure, a few of the good guys and a bunch of us on the outside like myself, Mathew Crawford, and others. There are a few good guys left.

This paper is a litmus test for scientific integrity.

Jessica wrote about the withdrawal on her substack. She is still clueless why her paper was removed. Not her fault. No reason was given.

One of the commenters wrote:

And those criminals with their foot on the gas headed for the wall are terrified of non-purchased, intelligent researchers like you pulling back the curtain and opening their kimono.

This is not science

We are living in a world where scientific integrity is quickly disappearing along with our freedoms (like to not be injected).

You can find the full paper on Jessica’s substack.

How Elsevier manipulates peer-reviewed science to match the narrative (substack.com)

Published by markskidmore

Mark Skidmore is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy. His research focuses on topics in public finance, regional economics, and the economics of natural disasters. Mark created the Lighthouse Economics website and blog to share economic research and information relevant for navigating tumultuous times.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: