Dear Readers,

The editorial board recently made a decision to retract the following article that was published by one of the most reputable publishers of the most important scientific findings:

Skidmore, M. The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population. BMC Infect Dis 23, 51(2023). https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-07998-3

This article was published on January 24, 2023, after succeeding through the peer-review process. News of the article went viral on social media, reaching up to 17 million Twitter followers in spite of near zero exposure on Facebook. Some people who were angered by the study complained to the editor of the publication and the university where the author is employed. Who are the people who complained? Are they politicians instead of scientists, and is that the reason why they cannot be named? As a result of criticism of the scientific findings by an unknown (to the public) number of unknown (to the public) people, the editorial board conducted a re-review of the manuscript, which ended with the retraction decision. Aren’t you curious to at least know the education and profession of the critics and also how many there were? They are influencing science in the USA. Such lack of transparency is not consistent or compatible with science or the truth, especially when it comes to matters of life and death that affect all of us. Lack of transparency is a sign of corruption. We know well from personal experience how evidence is suppressed when it contradicts the assertion that gene therapy is safe. We believe the article is being retracted because it offers evidence to contradict the assertion by government officials that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe. That safety assertion seems to contradict the government’s own action to remove the vaccine liability from the manufacturers. Without that blanket protection for the vaccine manufacturers, there would be little to no production of vaccines. That is because, as the government and the vaccine manufacturers know, there are risks and they are unwilling to fully compensate adults for any injuries or deaths.

The editorial review board required more information that requires further investigation, which in turn requires a lot of funding. A main point by the author is that the results that were published justify further investigation. Ironically, though, further investigation justified by the scientific findings will be severely hindered by the retraction. This is because publication of preliminary findings is necessary to justify funding for the type of research studies that the editorial board is demanding. The retracted article most likely can’t be published elsewhere since it stays in the publication, but marked as retracted. With this kind of editorial board, we wouldn’t know the dangers of tobacco, DDT, asbestos, x-rays, hormones, steroids, opioids, etc. So now the editorial board has at least hindered, if not prevented, what they themselves decided was needed to prevent the retraction. That is not science and it is not honest, noble or transparent as it purports to be and on which its reputation depends. Therefore, we are sending the following letter to the author and to the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group (ethics.reporting@springernature.com). Springer Nature is one of the leading publishers of peer-reviewed science in the world. Imagine how the organization with both family and business ties to Nazi Germany will feel about being seen as a propaganda tool once again for profit under an oppressive government. For more about the Nazi history of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group that controls Springer Nature, see Wikipedia contributors. (2023, April 5). Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:22, April 12, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group&oldid=1148358480.

To the author and the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group,

We are writing in response to the decision to retract the following publication:

Skidmore, M. The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population. BMC Infect Dis 23, 51(2023). https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-07998-3

There is nothing in the re-review questions to suggest that the publication meets Springer Nature’s stated retraction policy: “An article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis, and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction.” Furthermore, the retraction notice does not justify the retraction. Proving causal inference of mortality is not a standard for retraction. Which limitations of the study were not adequately described? In addition, the author is clearly willing to make changes. In fact, none of the issues stated in the retraction notice seem to fulfill the retraction criteria. The retraction has not been justified in a scientific manner. Just stating issues as facts does not make them so, especially since the author so thoughtfully addressed the re-review questions and the editorial board refuses to share its responses.

The author’s responses to the re-review questions from the editorial board of BMC Infectious Diseases are valid, and there is no reason to retract the publication. Furthermore, there is reason not to retract the publication based on the fact that risks of blood clots, stroke, and heart attack are consistent with FDA and Pfizer documentation, as the author has noted. Since the magnitude of adverse events is debated, further study is warranted as noted in the publication.

Ironically, the retraction will help to deny funding for studies that the editorial board is calling for in their reasons for retraction. In the interest of a transparent evidence-based scientific discussion, the author has made public his responses to the re-review questions so that interested readers can decide for themselves. In contrast, BMC Infectious Diseases does not provide any documents relating to the re-review process, even though it has a policy of making referee comments and author responses of published manuscripts available to the public. This behavior is not scientific or transparent. Such behavior can ruin public trust and credibility of a journal and can help people to view the journal more as a political tool of propaganda than a leading publisher of peer-reviewed new knowledge.

We find it particularly disturbing that the retraction has been brought about by unidentified people who complained to the editor of the publication and the university where the author works. At a minimum, the conflicts of interest, including investments in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, should be disclosed for anyone who has any influence on this review. This includes, but is not limited to, editors, the Springer Nature Integrity Group, the Management and Supervisory Board of Springer Nature, and the people who complained about the scientific findings. Why is Springer Nature keeping the re-review process secret? Such lack of transparency is a sign of corruption.

The unconvincing and non-transparent reasons to retract the publication exemplify the hijacking of science and truth by politics and corruption. This results in oppression of further investigation justified by the scientific findings that affect us all, now and in the future.

As scientists, we have stood up for the truth and been severely punished for it, in spite of our accomplishments and successes. We both have correctly predicted technology and/or leadership failures, many times, in the USA and Switzerland, in academia and industry. We have experienced suppression of the truth throughout our scientific careers, especially when those truths contradict those who are in power. We earned our PhD degrees, Michael in Physiology and Marie in Microbiology and Immunology, at Indiana University School of Medicine. We worked at Eli Lilly & Co., F. Hoffman-La Roche, Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota. Marie’s doctoral work was in the field of human gene therapy. She left a postdoctoral position at the University of Pennsylvania because she predicted the first gene therapy death in the USA. Within a few years, her prediction came true. Michael’s doctoral work during the 1990’s was on heart cells differentiated from embryonic stem cells. Michael’s publication was the first in the world to show that heart cells that were differentiated from embryonic stem cells could form stable grafts in adult hearts. Michael also found that differentiated stem cell-based therapies can cause life-threatening tumors, but his PhD advisor knew that publishing that fact would interfere with future funding of the entire field of stem cell-based therapies. Being honest about the tumors during his presentations cut Michael’s career prospects. In support of our views on this retraction, the editor for Michael’s publication in a highly reputable journal overlooked the fact that the grafts could form life-threatening tumors when enough cells were injected. He overlooked this adverse effect even though he was a leading cardiovascular researcher in the embryonic stem cell field. That editor became one of the main investors in Moderna, which is one of the first three COVID-19 vaccine makers for the USA.

Now we can see the results of the hijacking of science and the truth by politics, money, narcissism, corruption and greed: a failing global economy. Being now on the brink of war is the ultimate evidence of failure at the highest levels. Retraction of the publication is an example of oppression of the facts, scientific findings and the truth that has brought us to this point.

Finally, we would like the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group to send the following two questions to Dr. Stefan von Holtzbrinck, Chair of Springer Nature’s Supervisory Board that oversees the Management Board:

(1) Are you trying to increase your fortunes similar to the way Georg von Holtzbrinck went from being a door-to-door bookseller to a member of the Nazi party who published and spread their propaganda during Nazi Germany?

(2) Since you are the chair of Springer Nature’s Supervisory Board that oversees the management, and since you earned your PhD in Media Law, have you considered the legal liabilities across all countries in the world for your publication’s oppression of scientific findings that affect us all, now and in the future? This is especially important given the negative impact of this retraction on the future funding into COVID-19 vaccine adverse events that are well justified in the retracted publication and not weakened by any of the re-review questions or the unjustified statements given in the retraction notice.

We will publicly admit that we were wrong and apologize once we are convinced that the retraction meets Springer Nature’s retraction criteria and that there are no conflicts of interest at any level.

Sincerely,

Michael Klug, PhD and Marie Kube, PhD