Journal of Independent Medicine
RNA:DNA Hybrids are DNaseI resistant.
Our paper on RNA:DNA hybrids is now peer reviewed.
This weekend I zipped out to Park City Utah to catch up with some friends and family and fortunately Jess already covered this topic so this will be brief.
I thought I’d share a few of the low wattage responses to the paper. Note the Jab, Mask and Ukraine flag in Bio helping to virtue signal this persons “in-tribe”.
When they exhaust their Appeal to Authority arguments, they send in the real piconeurons to deliver additional Associative Fallacies.
When associate fallacies are expired, toss in some receipt-less ad-hominems to see if those stick.
I’m getting the sense, we’re down to the 3rd string bench members from team mutton.
We are 5 years into this and we have MDs who still rely on “Journal prestige” Appeals to Authority to spoon feed them the truth. They still have not learned their lesson from Proximal Origins (Nature), Surgisphere (Lancet), and Bangledesh mask studies (Science) that claimed effectiveness when the P values for the color of mask was more significant than for those who wore them. All “top tier” Journals with top tier fraud left spotless from the PubSmear mob,
Put aside the 3 logical fallacies, read the paper and decide for yourself. The failure for doctors like this to actually have an ounce of intellectual self reliance is what led to the COVID disaster. They are great at reciting what they are told to memorize but never once question the hierarchy they paid a 1/3rd of their life praying to.
One of the reasons for this Journal selection is that the editors are very familiar with the games being played by PubSmear and we wanted to demonstrate to the world how quickly the process would proceed if we were not faced with Gatekeeping from Journals that have Pharma funding.
Recall Speicher et al was desk rejected 5 times and there was nearly a 2 year gap from experiment to final appearance in Autoimmunity. It kills me to think of how many people were injected in this time frame having heard the DNA story was anti-vax fake news that wasn’t peer reviewed.
We started the experiments for the RNA:DNA hybrid paper on Veterans Day in November of 2025.
We submitted this to JIM over Thanksgiving and a few days later we got permission from JIM to put it on BioRXIV who proceeded to sit on it for 8 days only to censor it.
Ironically, we got our acceptance at JIM (with edits) on the same day, woke BioRxiv censored it.
This likely would have been published over Christmas if it were not for everyones Holiday travel schedule but here it is in mid January.
So when Science is not being reviewed by wing nut reviewers like the one you see below, It can proceed at a rapid pace.
And the reason you are seeing logical fallacies as the only retort is that the paper actually agrees with BioNtechs own paper on the topic (Lenk et al) and Moderna’s patent estate. To attack the conclusions of the paper will lead them to taking down their holy vaccine manufacturers work. That is correct. Lenk et al from BioNtech published that RNA:DNA hybrids reduce DNaseI activity 100 fold citing a paper from 1997 (Sutton et al). This is exactly what we see.
For some reason Taylor and Francis thought this person (Rolf) would make a great reviewer for the Speicher paper? They didn’t see issue with his DFG funding? They didn’t recognize that our paper directly critiqued his work and he should have recused himself from trying to bury a paper that highlights his own flaws through an anonymous curtain.
They didn’t recognize that Rolf exhibited the same backhanded behavior with Konig et al.
When he gets called out for a fair and open debate, he cheats and runs.
He’s not very IT savvy. In his review, he complained about not being able to unzip the VAERs file!
And when he tried to leak his Review of our paper to Retraction Watch, he only leaked his side of the argument and omitted our responses which traversed his critiques and satisfied the Journal. Unfortunately, for IT illiterate Rolf, he didn’t realize the author (him) of the ‘leaked anon review’ was recorded in the PDF metadata and he got exposed. So his violation of the Journals confidentiality agreement and COPE guidelines was now pinned on him.
This was reported to his university and I’m sure they are thrilled for him as they certainly don’t want to stop the flow of vax money into their institution.
He also managed to get Retraction Watch to publish a false headline. Retraction Watch claims he rejected the paper and in their own article (that leads with such a false title) it has a quote from the Journals Editor refuting this statement. Rolf approved the manuscript with edits and they have that on record. The curtains don’t match the rug. Their headline should be retracted as their own article refutes it.
More sober minds on the problem below.
