How Elsevier manipulates peer-reviewed science to match the narrative

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.

Another Elsevier example

This review, written by Baruch Vainshelboim showing face masks don’t work, was retracted by the Editor. Why wasn’t it corrected? Here’s the notice.

Now if this paper were aligned with the narrative, it wouldn’t be retracted.

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.

It basically says that myocarditis is caused by the vaccines, it isn’t rare, and it doesn’t just affect kids.

But they don’t want anyone to know any of this.

The paper on Jessica’s substack has only 37 likes so far.

Good job Elsevier. You have successfully censored peer-reviewed science that doesn’t match your belief system.

By Steve Kirsch Via