From Autism Action Network: US Take Action: NY County banning un-vaxxed kids is a threat to all of us
DeVos Wants To Cut What?

Elsevier "Withdraws" Spanish Sheep Veterinary Study: By Celeste McGovern

Elsevier
"Non Solus" except "Scholar" has been replaced by "Pharma."

Thank you Celeste McGovern for allowing us to excerpt and link her article. I took Latin in high school, and am always interested in mottoes. Non Solus as the motto for publisher Elsevier described the symbiotic relationship between publisher and scholar. Alas, scholar has been replaced by pharma.

###

Elsevier’s “withdrawal” of a small veterinary study breaks all the rules of scientific publishing. The biggest name in scientific literature has produced fake medical journals for Merck’s advertisers before, so yanking a study that doesn’t pass the vaccine industry’s sniff test would be nothing. Celeste McGovern looks at a case study of how Pharma is killing science.

It’s not often that veterinary research is so controversial that it falls into the jaws of censorship zealots. That is exactly what happened recently, however, when editors at a science journal suddenly turned on a small Spanish sheep study which they had already peer-reviewed and published and stamped it: “WITHDRAWN” — the equivalent of a scarlet letter “A” in the science publishing world.  This was not about shoddy science or ethical breaches; an editor tried to soothe the outraged veterinary professor at the head of the research. But the focus was “delicate” and “controversial” and someone — some anonymous letter-writer – had wanted the study removed, and the journal acquiesced.

Dear Dr. Luján,

“I wanted to step in here to say that your manuscript is not being retracted – which implies wrongdoing and could damage your professional reputation,” Anne-Marie Pordon, publisher of Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences titles for Elsevier journals interjected in a heated e-mail exchange between the lead researcher and various editors.  “We are withdrawing the paper, which does not imply misconduct in any way. There will be simply a statement that says “This paper has been withdrawn at the request of the _____” (Authors or Editors in the blank.)”   Pick your poison. You remove it, or we remove it.

Mercky past

Elsevier journals are described as “one of the world’s major providers of science, technical and medical information.”  They also have a skeleton or two in the closet. A decade ago, they were exposed in a private injury case for being paid by Merck to manufacture and distribute two completely fake journals to market Merck’s drugs. They looked like authentic, peer-reviewed science journals, but they contained only favourable studies about the use of Merck’s deadly Vioxx and another drug with potentially fatal side effects. Nowhere did they disclose that they were paid advertising for Merck.  Four more fake Elsevier journals were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies.

“I’ve seen no shortage of creativity emanating from the marketing departments of drug companies,” consumer advocate Peter Lurie of the non-profit Public Citizen told The Scientist after he reviewed Elsevier’s fake science journals. “But even for someone as jaded as me, this is a new wrinkle.”

An Elsevier press release said the company regretted the “unacceptable practice” of its Australian office. The scandal evoked a flurry of news stories and then it disappeared. Elsevier never revealed the sum they received from Merck or the names of the other pharmaceutical firms that had bought fake science from them. There was no penalty. And there was no authority or oversight agency willing or able to keep Elsevier from doing it, or something similar, again.

Secret critic

Fast forward to 2019.  There was no doubt by any party in the email exchange between Elsevier’s editors and Lluís Luján, the professor of veterinary pathology at the University of Zaragoza, Spain, and lead author of the “controversial” sheep study, that this was highly unusual publishing practice.

Luján was obviously livid with a request that he withdraw his own study which had already been peer-reviewed and published online by Elsevier’s journal Pharmacological Research.  He flatly refused. It’s hard to imagine a scientist who believes in the integrity of his research doing otherwise. “Withdrawn,” unlike what Pordon tried to claim, is virtually synonymous with “retracted” in the science world and everybody knows it. It is a death sentence for a paper.

Pharmacological Research’s editor-in-chief, Emilio Clementi, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan presented Luján with “concerns from the readership” – a list of accusations of flaws with his methodology to respond to.  Later in correspondence, “concerns from the readership” morphed into “a signed note of concern from a reader” but the letter writer’s identity was kept secret – a big red flag that something foul was afoot.

Ordinarily, if someone has objections to the methodology in a published science paper, they send a letter to the editors. It is difficult to think of any circumstance that the identity of the letter-writer would be hidden.  The only reason someone might want to hide their identity is if they had a conflict of interest – like, they worked promoting a relevant pharmaceutical, for example. In any case, letters to the editors are posted on “Letters to the Editors” pages and rebutted by authors there. Read more at GhostShip Media.com

Comments

Benedetta

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0300985818809142?journalCode=vetb

But still, there is no going back that it has been found that at the vaccine injection site the skins taken after death of the sheep have granulomas .

Is it really that 40 percent of the people have some kind of mitochondria problems, and they can't do aluminum, mercury and what ever else is in vaccines, or --- there maybe so many different problems with these vaccines that well there is the aborted fetal stem cells ; just so much is wrong with them. How on earth did they get this much stuff in vaccines to begin with?

Fairly tales in schools says it is just a weaken or dead microbe and that is it, and then we keep finding out more and more and more and more stuff has been added.

Hans Litten

Everything Celeste McGovern writes is excellent.
Thank you Celeste.

Angus Files

I got chased by a sheep 2 years ago -so embarrassed about it, I never told my wife for a few weeks.

Killer sheep not rams ewes

Explains a lot the Al

And the same has happened with the Coo`s not the Bulls but Coos..

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Kyles mom

I have wondered if certain dog breeds are susceptible to adjuvant caused aggression.

ItsTheAluminum

Its the Aluminum...!

It only took 7 injections of nothing more than Aluminium adjuvenant (Al-hydroxide, brand name Alhydrogel) to induce behavioral changes on the sheep.

One brick at a time the wall comes down.

The last great battle was about removal of the mercury.

The next one is going to be about recognizing the toxicity and getting the Aluminum out.

Montana NAR

Excellent, in-depth article at Ghost Ship Media.

Del Bigtree's interview on The Highwire is the Dec 06, 2018 show. The interview with Lluís Luján, the professor of veterinary pathology at the University of Zaragoza, Spain, starts at approximately 50:00 minutes into the program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS4UkVpYkdo

Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

The full text of the article in question is here:

Twenty-one lambs were assigned to three groups (n = 7 each): A (Control), B (Adjuvant-only), C (Vaccine). Group C was inoculated with commercial Al-containing vaccines; Group B received theequivalent dose of Al only (Alhydrogel®) and Group A received PBS. Sixteen inoculations were administeredwithin a 349-day period. Ethologic changes were studied in late summer (7 inoculations) and mid-winter (16inoculations). Animals in groups B and C exhibited behavioral changes: affiliative interactions were significantlyreduced and aggressive interactions and stereotypies increased significantly. They also exhibited a significantincrease in excitatory behavior and compulsive eating. In general, changes were more pronounced in the Vaccinegroup than they were in the Adjuvant-only group.

http://www.ghostshipmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Asin-et-al-Pharm-Res-Behavior-in-vaccinated-sheep-full-paper-with-Suppl-material-1-1.pdf

Benedetta

Wow, we really have people that have gotten away with lying for so long in this world that they really think the truth is just inconvenient and can be shut down.
Well for a while I suppose.

The American Public is sure getting their eyes filled up this past week.

Justine

Bon- I just clicked on the link for more info....the full background story is explained why this vet walked into the cross hairs of vaccines and autism.

Justine

Hi Bob, Del Bigtree on his show High Wire had interviewed the author when he attended a conference in Lisbon on autoimmunity and there were scientists like Chris Exeley also interviewed. Anyway, I recall this veterinary scientist investigated the effet of multiple vaccines received by sheep as there was an outbreak of a disease and sheep farmers were told to heavily vaccinate their sheep...but the sheep developed odd aggressive and antisocial behaviours. His research scientific demonstrated the same findings. (I think the High Wire show was in April 2018).

Bob Moffit

It may have helped me understand this article if I knew what this "small veterinary study" was about? What did it show? Did I miss it?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)