Censorious Cureus
Ban Hammer strikes again
Just after a great podcast with
, the Miki Gibo paper was nuked from Zenodo by their Admins. I did not think Zenodo censored PrePrints. I think some Jaboholics must have complained to Zenodo about the Gibo paper in Cureus being retracted and Zenodo didn’t do any homework to diff the old version with the version most recently posted in Feb 2025. So Zenodo pulls the retracted paper not realizing the author adjusted the language to soften it for the Journal environment of today.
I have mirrored a copy of it here.
The authors don’t agree with the retraction and have written a complaint to the censorious Cureus journal.
They rightfully point out the retraction cited a Reuters Fact Check.
We have witnessed this behavior from Cureus before. They cite fact checkers instead of doing their own job as informed Editors. Most fact checkers have no credentials in the space. To see Cureus outsource their Microcephaly implies their Editors are either less competent than the fact checkers to or just plain lazy.
The authors point out the conflict of interest present and their failure to follow COPE guidelines. The Reuters CEO is on Pfizers BOD and Fact Checkers have now been revealed by DOGE to be a one big Large Scale Social Deception program.
This looks like an ideal place for
to investigate for RICO charges against Journals. This is not Cureus’ first choke. They retracted a paper and played word salad games when they refused to send the DNA contamination paper out for review.
Prior not so curious Cureus encounter.
So download the paper and send it far and wide. They really don’t like the fact that the Jabs killed more people than Hiroshima or the Tsunami.
It wont be long before ScrewTube takes down the TFTC podcast. Watch it while its still live.
Was just saying to my husband, "I hope Kevin has a copy of that paper." Lol, and sure enough, you do!
The new journal, The Journal of Independent Medicine, needs a section called "Uncensored", where they publish good papers that have been removed by the legacy journals.
No surprises eh? A few days ago, a judge in a case in California adjourned a Gardasil case until September the night before a key witness was about to take the stand to present factual information that Merck don't want known.
Rhetorical question. Why would a judge do that?