Covid Vaccines Defended by Junk Science
Atheists Pg > Marxism, Communism, and Socialism
By Stephen Michael Lininger
Decembr 12, 2022
Raymond D. Palmer Journal Article
The latest attempt to debunk the vaccine-clots linkage comes from Raymond D. Palmer. Before critiquing his article, it should be noted that his background is somewhat questionable. So much so, his history leads to serious questions about his article’s legitimacy. This article will not address the details of his background, but the following linked articles will. These articles can be found here, here, here, and here.
Palmer’s article can be read here.
Let’s begin by addressing Palmer’s use of the word, misinformation within his article. The use of this word immediately reveals his biased view, which is the foundation of the topic about which he writes. The term is Orwellian “newspeak” for Truth that contradicts an agenda and, therefore, must be censored — at all costs. The recent release of the “Twitter Files” is a prime example of how the media and the socials are substituting the word “Truth” with the word “misinformation.”
Another term that needs to be clarified is vaccination and immunity. Why the clarification? Because the definitions have been changed since the introduction of the new mRNA vaccinations. Looking at a 2018 archived page of the CDC’s website, we see the original definition of “vaccine” was, “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Furthermore, the definition of immunity” was “Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” In 2021, the CDC removed the word “immunity” from the definition. Why? Because the new vaccines were not designed to prevent transmission of Covid. They were only intended to lessen the severity of its consequences. The CDC’s statements directly contradict all of the previous misinformation we were told about the efficacy of the vaccines. The CDC is directly responsible for censoring the truth about the damage the vaccines cause.
The above provides an example of bait-and-switch tactics utilized in Palmer’s article. He writes, “Vaccines include antigens that produce an immune response which is adept at providing protection from disease.” Palmer’s comment contradicts the CDC’s new definition of vaccines. The Covid vaccines did not protect us from the disease. It only mitigates the symptoms of the disease — a big difference. Of twenty-five citations in Palmer’s article, only four (six if you factor in the 2020 introduction of mRNA gene therapies employed as vaccines) were written since the CDC changed the definition of vaccines. Consequently, Palmer may be conflating studies involving old vaccines with the new vaccines/gene therapies.
In his article, Palmer writes: “Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups.”[1] Could it be? Sure! And Santa Clause could also deliver all his gifts to the world’s children in one night. Unfortunately, Mr. Palmer provides zero research to support his causation hypothesis. Instead, he tries to hide that he is simply expressing an opinion. To make it sound authoritarian, he uses terms such as: “most likely cause;” “most likely be attributed to;” “it is highly probable;” and “highly likely.” All of these phrases are empty words. He is telling us: Don’t look behind that curtain Dorothy (in The Wizard of Oz). Nothing there to see.
The only statistically significant research he cites shows that stress can lead to “vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels” and the potential formation of blood clots. This assertion is common scientific knowledge. Research shows that stress affects every aspect of human biological function. However, he then makes a massive leap of logic by saying that these sudden deaths are “highly likely” to have been caused by anti-vaxxer “terrorism.” Unfortunately (for him), his opinions concerning the linkage are not supported by any research. In other words, Palmer is proffering an article based on junk science — his own unsubstantiated beliefs.
Palmer ignores other logical problems that affect the validity of his opinion. For example, some studies have shown that the risk of developing heart inflammation is two to three times higher with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine when compared to Pfizer.[2] According to Daniel Otis of CTV News:
The study tracked people 18 years or older who received a second dose of either the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna Spikevax COVID-19 vaccines in British Columbia between Jan. 1, 2021 and Sept. 9, 2021. In total, more than 2.2 million second Pfizer doses were administered in B.C. during that period, plus 870,000 Moderna doses.Within 21 days of a second dose, there were 59 myocarditis cases (28 Pfizer and 31 Moderna) and 41 pericarditis cases (21 Pfizer and 20 Moderna). Researchers then calculated the rate of heart inflammation, and found there were 35.6 cases per million for Moderna and 12.6 per million for Pfizer – a nearly threefold difference.
The above study contradicts Palmer’s hypothesis. In the real world, the level of stress among the vaccine recipients should generally be the same, regardless of which vaccine they received. However, this is not borne out by research. The results of one study indicate that individual vaccines (and not stress) produce different rates of myocarditis and pericarditis. Therefore, Palmer would have us believe that those receiving the Moderna vaccine were three times more stressed than the Pfizer recipients. Huh??? That is ridiculous. In other words, Palmer is peddling junk science. Does Palmer make the scientific case that anti-vaxxer misinformation may contribute to sudden death among young people? No. He is opining, employing bait-and-switch tactics; Palmer wants us to associate thinly-related studies to his unsubstantiated opinions concerning the “most likely cause” of myocarditis among the vaccinated. The American College of Cardiology [2-A] study debunks his opinion.
In an interview with Palmer by journalist Rebekah Barnett, Palmer launched into a monologue during which he described himself as a data-driven scientist. Is that so??? There was a long pause after Barnett asked him for the data he used to justify his claim that the stress of anti-vaxxer misinformation caused the vaccine side effects. Then he replied, “The literature hasn’t been written yet.” Allow me to translate: There is no data. I’m just guessing to further an agenda!!!
A statistically significant study (p-value <0.05) requires a null hypothesis that can be tested. I’ll make a prediction. There is no statistically significant study in which the null hypothesis says that stress resulting from anti-vaxxer misinformation and tactics of terror are causing sudden deaths among those vaccinated for Covid. For Palmer’s study to be trusted, multiple alternative hypotheses would have to be tested.
For example: 1) Almost all major media outlets and social media heavily censor those opposed to the Covid vaccines. Again, this is proven through the release of the so-called Twitter Files. Does it have an impact on the null hypothesis: 2) Could the immense pressure put upon employees by their employers and by the government to get vaccinated also cause the same side effects of the jab; 3) Could the intense peer pressure manifested through hatred, shaming, and personal attacks, upon those wishing to avoid the unsafe vaccines, produce sudden death? I could go on. Despite his objections, my son, a Physician’s Assistant, was forced to get vaccinated to keep his hospital privileges and income.
Palmer claims he is a scientist. Actual scientists are required to be objective, to go where objective science leads them. In Palmer’s article, it becomes clear that he is not an objective observer and scientist. For example, in his article, he writes:
1). “Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise [sic] people into staying unvaccinated.” Does that sound like objectivity to you?2). “The science for the vaccines causing blood clots has not been found.” This claim is patently false. Here are just a few studies Palmer thinks don’t exist:
3). “Other causes for this cascade from vaccines to blood clotting events may be found in existing medical literature.” The problem with this statement is this: as described above, chemical analysis of the large “clots” taken from the deceased in the video, Died Suddenly, are not blood clots. Instead, as Dr. Warrick said above, they are fibrous Emboli. Consequently, any studies that Palmer cites to support his blood clot theory are not even pertinent to his hypothesis.4). “The science discussed here clearly establishes that anxiety and fear causes vasoconstriction disorders, and that a particular movement that is trying to save people with a profound lack of scientific and medical training (the anti-vaccination movement) from vaccine side effects may actually be the entity causing the majority of side effects.” The only thing clear in this statement is Palmer’s disdain for, and bias against, those who disagree with his opinion, as evidenced by his blanket statement referring to the population as possessing a “profound lack of scientific and medical training.”
Speaking of biases and agendas relative to scientific studies, let us tackle the ugly reality of the current crisis of irreproducibility in the scientific literature. Since Palmer’s article is peer-reviewed, we need to address that process.
The Crisis of Irreproducibility; the Unreliability of the Peer-Review Process
According to Professor John Ioannidis, most (or even the vast majority) of all modern published research contains false findings.[3] Unfortunately, false results lead to incorrect conclusions that can radically affect our beliefs and actions. One of the significant factors cited by Ioannidis for these research errors is research bias and/or poorly designed research modeling.[4] False assumptions would fit into this category. Unfortunately, this lack of reliability is also true of the gold standard of research, i.e., peer-reviewed studies. The reliability problems with peer review are seen in the following cited sources.[5][6][7]
Principia Scientific International
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. It is a “Community Interest Company” [similar to a 501(c)(3) in the U.S.] overseen and regulated by the UK Government’s Companies House. According to their website, they: "Serve the public interest in providing educational resources freely in the fields of scientific inquiry. Principia Scientific International CIC is about transparency and truth; the only publishing international science association shunning political advocacy and defending the traditional scientific method."
PSI’s review process, i.e., ‘PROM’ (short for: ‘peer-review in open media’) works by PSI inviting and engaging independent third-party input in the peer-review process.
Below is an article that demonstrates the necessity of scientific organizations such as PSI. One Biomedical Scientist wrote:
Biomedical research papers are being published in which the abstract, the discussion section, and even the title contradict the content within the paper.This is unlikely to be happening because the authors don’t understand their own data. It’s more likely that the authors are being pressured by their financial backers and the editorial staff of journals to reach conclusions that advance the prevailing narrative.It’s a well thought out deception that uses seemingly intellectual analysis to lead the undiscerning reader into believing the wrong conclusion. Skewing statistics is easy to accomplish simply by using the wrong statistical test, using a weak test when a stronger one should apply, or just about any other trick to misrepresent the data.Medical journals have become financially dependent on their advertisers, which are almost exclusively the big pharmaceutical companies. With enough money, they can buy a scientific study that says what they want it to say.Sometimes these studies are “ghost” written by people working for industry with credentialed unscrupulous scientists and doctors names misattributed as authors when in fact they did none of the writing.The pharmaceutical industry uses its profits to control biomedical Science at every level, from researchers to journal editors, to government regulatory agencies, and to the media who are supposed to interpret Science for the public.[8]
In the U.S. alone, Big Pharma contributed to the 2020 campaigns of: 1) around 2,400 state lawmakers; 2) 72 members of the U.S. Senate, and; 3) 302 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In aggregate, 66% of the U.S. Congress received contributions from Big Pharma.[9]Pressure is being placed on independent researchers by the journal editors and peer reviewers, many of whom have ties to Big Pharma. Valid studies, honestly reported, can be rejected for publication if they convey a message that threatens corporate profits. Many scientific authors know how difficult it is to get a paper through peer review at most “reputable” medical journals when the results are not in line with the official narrative.Many biomedical scientists have become shills for the pharmaceutical companies. Rigging clinical trials the old-fashioned way is expensive, time-consuming, uncertain, and recent legislation makes it more difficult. Sometimes the truth emerges even if a study is designed to hide it. Even a study that is designed to fail might succeed when the inconvenient truths are stubborn enough.It’s easier to report the actual results and then tack on an abstract and a discussion section that convey the right message, regardless of the data in the main body of the article. This can then be used in the “citation bluff” fraud, that depends on people not carefully reading supposed supportive evidence, to perpetuate the false narrative.Often the cited evidence in support of a particular narrative doesn’t really support the narrative being advanced. In fact, the supposed supportive evidence can sometimes even completely contradict the narrative being pushed.This is something to bear in mind the next time you get into an argument with someone demanding to see peer-reviewed evidence and rejecting any evidence that has not been peer-reviewed regardless of its merits.Journals and the peer review process have been corrupted by powerful vested interests.[10]
The Existence of Agenda-driven Science Across Many Disciplines
The American Journal of Psychiatry has been forced to announce a significant correction to one of its published articles. This correction is one example of intellectual, biological, and psychological damage done through agenda-based science:
The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,”[11] have retracted its primary conclusion. … The Bränström study reanalysis demonstrated that neither “gender-affirming hormone treatment” nor “gender-affirming surgery” reduced the need of transgender-identifying people for mental health services. Fad medicine [emphasis SML] is bad medicine, and gender-anxious people deserve better.[12] … [Andre Van Mol et al.], concluded our letter by comparing [The Bränström] study to the one we consider perhaps the best of its kind, also from Sweden, the 2011 Dhejne study.[13] The Dhejne team made extensive use of numerous, specified Swedish registries and examined data from 324 patients in Sweden over thirty years who underwent sex reassignment. They used population controls matched by birth year, birth sex, and reassigned sex. When followed out beyond ten years, the sex-reassigned group had nineteen times the rate of completed suicides and nearly three times the rate of all-cause mortality and inpatient psychiatric care, compared to the general population.[14]
Is this “bad” study an anomaly? By no means. Let’s look at the crisis of irreproducibility in Science:
It has been an open secret for some time that there is a crisis of irreproducibility of scientific studies in medicine and other fields. No less a figure than the [former] Director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote that, “the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled. This has compromised the ability of today’s researchers to reproduce others’ findings.” For example, the National Association of Scholars reports, “In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 ‘landmark’ studies in hematology and oncology, but could only replicate 6 (11%).”[15] In 2015, an article was published in Science in which there was an attempt to replicate 100 studies from three well-known psychology journals [emphasis SML] in 2008.[16] In the original studies, nearly all had produced statistically significant results, whereas in the study replications, only a little over a third produced similar significant results.[17]
Traditionally, when the results of a study were sent to a scientific journal for publication, it would have to pass a scientific peer review. Among other steps, this review involved a team of scientists performing the same study using the same protocols as the original study. The object was to verify whether the reviewers could obtain the same results as the original researchers. If they did, the submission was accepted and published. For several reasons, that practice is no longer followed. Instead, the journals now ask a small number of scientists (some with conflicts of interest with the study author) to examine the protocols used visually. If they looked acceptable, they would approve the submission. In these instances, there is no attempt to replicate the study results.
Consequently, there are numerous reasons why studies are published, yet they lack actual/true statistical significance (p=<0.05. Some fields require a p-value of <0.01). Whatever the cause of the discrepancy, it contributes to the irreproducibility crisis. The high percentage of occurrences of these discrepancies is why Dr. Francis Collins said above, “the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled.” The loss of scientific fidelity encompasses all labeled “peer-reviewed.”
One of the world’s largest open-access peer-reviewed journal publishers has investigated articles classified as peer-reviewed. The publisher is Willey & Sons, the parent company of Hindawi journals. As a result of this investigation, five-hundred-eleven articles published since August of 2022 are being retracted from sixteen different journals. Three of those sixteen journals are Advances in Agriculture, the Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, and the Journal of Nanotechnology.[18] Further retractions are expected as the investigation proceeds.
This avalanche of fraud stems from coordinated peer-review rings. The more I learn about Raymond Palmer, his Curriculum Vitae, and his professional history, the greater my suspicion that he might be a shill. I suspect he might be a pawn used by others to author a study containing such flimsy assertions that reputable scientists would not want their names associated with it. There is some indication of tactics being employed to give the illusion of Palmer earning his scientific bona fides. This tactic is so that his article would pass peer review. I am not making accusations; simply stating suspicions.
Incidentally, I find the wording at the bottom of Palmer’s article very interesting. His article appears in the journal BioMedicine, published in Taipei. The following words are at the bottom of the article: “Articles from BioMedicine are provided here courtesy of China Medical University.” According to an article published in Lancet, “Medical research ethics has been a growing issue in China over the past two decades.”[19] China hasn’t exactly been forthright in telling the truth about Covid matters. What a coincidence that Palmer’s article is published in a Chinese-based journal. As I said, I’m merely suggesting that there is at least some indication that I might be on the right track.
No doubt, pride, agenda-driven bias, and greed are playing a massive part in this effort. Furthermore, peer-reviewed fraud is increasing in frequency and intensity.
According to a report in Retraction Watch:
Other publishers have announced large batches of retractions recently. IOP Publishing [Parent company is Institute of Physics] earlier this month said it planned to retract nearly 500 articles likely from paper mills, and PLOS in August announced it would retract over 100 papers from its flagship journal over manipulated peer review. [19-A]
Perhaps nowhere in the medical and psychological sciences is this irreproducibility problem worse than in studies of people who claim to have a mismatch between their sex and their internal sense of being male or female.[20]
The temptation to “modernize” concerns in a particular way the sphere of sexual identity. It is forgotten, however, that the state of scientific knowledge changes frequently and sometimes dramatically, e.g., due to paradigm shifts. Changeability is inherent in the very nature of Science [e.g., the Science of epigenetic plasticity, also covered below AND in Scripture — SML], which has only a fragment of all possible knowledge. Discovering errors and analyzing them is the driving force of progress in Science.
However, some scientific errors have had dramatic consequences. Just think of scientific theories such as racism and eugenics. Based on the most recent scientific advances, the U.S. Congress passed the National Origin Act in 1924, imposing restrictive migration quotas on people from Southern and Central Europe and banning almost entirely Asian immigration. The main reason was the belief that peoples such as Italians and Poles, for example, were racially inferior. On the other hand, based on knowledge of eugenics, an estimated 70,000 women belonging to ethnic minorities were forcibly sterilized in the United States in the 20th century (cf. G. Consolmagno, “Covid, fede e fallibilità della scienza,” La Civiltà Cattolica 4118, pp. 105-119). In this case and in others, we speak of so-called “scientific errors.” Alongside these, however, there are also “ideological fallacies.” These underlie, for example, the change in attitudes toward sexuality that is now being observed[21][22]
Scientism is the belief that all truth about the material world comes through scientific research and discovery — and only through Science. Adherents of Scientism believe religion has no part in determining the truth.[23] Most adherents are atheists or agnostics. If there is a conflict between scientific theory and Scripture, they believe Scripture is de facto wrong. That belief is gravely dangerous for our spiritual souls.
Their intellect has become self-imprisoned within a box labeled, “Big Bang and its By-Products Only: God NOT Allowed.” This self-imposed intellectual imprisonment does not allow them to consider God’s intervention into, and supremacy over, all that exists. True Science is never an enemy of God. However, in today’s anti-God climate, scientists with biases and agendas frequently are enemies of God. Sometimes, extreme enemies of God, e.g., the scientists who developed artificial birth control (ABC) methods.
In today’s shoddy, biased, and irreproducible Science, it is negligent for the Church to fail to subject scientific studies to a reliable, independent peer review. The peer-review process used to be called the gold standard. Unfortunately, the current state of the peer-review process leads us to choose a more appropriate idiom. Shall we call it the rust standard.
Update: 12/10/2022
ENDNOTES:
[1]. Palmer, Raymond D. “Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines.” BioMedicine vol. 12,3 1-4. 1 Sep. 2022, doi:10.37796/2211-8039.1371.
[2]. Naveed Z, Li J, Wilton J, et al. Comparative Risk of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following Second Doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Coronavirus Vaccines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Nov, 80 (20) 1900–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.799.
[2-A]. Naveed Z, Li J, Wilton J, et al. Comparative Risk of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following Second Doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Coronavirus Vaccines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Nov, 80 (20) 1900–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.799.
[3]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Note: John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research & Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.
[4]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
[5]. Richard L. Kravitz, Peter Franks, Mitchell D. Feldman, Martha Gerrity, Cindy Byrne, William M. Tierney, “Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?,” Plos One, Published: April 8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
[6]. Donna Laframboise, “Junk Science Week: You think 'peer review' proves anything about the reliability of science?,” Financial Post, https://financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-you-think-peer-review-proves-anything-about-the-reliability-of-science-think-again, June 19, 2017 (accessed 3/12/2019).
[7]. Smith, R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 12, S13 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742. (Accessed 3/19/2017).
[8]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/, April 16, 2022 (accessed 04/16/2022). Source Cited by PSI: The Expose.
[9]. Lev Facher, “More than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020, new STAT analysis shows,” STAT, https://www.statnews.com/feature/prescription-politics/federal-full-data-set/, June 9, 2021 (accessed 04/16/2022).
[10]. By Biomedical Scientist, “Why Conclusions Sometimes Don’t Match Data In Scientific Papers,” Principia Scientific International, https://principia-scientific.com/why-conclusions-sometimes-dont-match-data-in-scientific-papers/, April 16, 2022 (accessed 04/16/2022). Source Cited by PSI: The Expose.
[11]. Richard Bränström, Ph.D., John E. Pachankis, Ph.D., “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080, Published Online:4 Oct 2019 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[12]. Andre Van Mol, Michael K. Laidlaw, Miriam Grossman, and Paul McHugh, “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[13]. Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, Anna L. V. Johansson, Niklas Långström, Mikael Landén, “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” Plos One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016885, February 22, 2011 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[14]. Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[15]. David Randall and Christopher Welser, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform,” National Association of Scholars, https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility-crisis-of-modern-science/full-report, April 09/2018 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[16]. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” Science: American Association for the Advancement of Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716, Aug. 28, 2015 Vol 349, Issue 6251.
[17] Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[18]. Zachary Stieber, “Major Scientific Publisher Retracts More Than 500 Papers,” The Epoch Times, https://www.theepochtimes.com/major-scientific-publisher-retracting-over-500-papers_4768649.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=gp, October 1, 2022 (accessed 10/08/2022).
[19]. Ruotao Wang, Gail E Henderson, “Medical research ethics in China,” The Lancet, Volume 372, Issue 9653, 2008, Pages 1867-1868, ISSN 0140-6736, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61353-7, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673608613537.
[19-A]. Ellie Kincaid, “Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings,” Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/28/exclusive-hindawi-and-wiley-to-retract-over-500-papers-linked-to-peer-review-rings/, September 28, 2022 (accessed 10/8/2022).
[20]. Andre Van Mol, et al., “Correction: Transgender Surgery Provides No Mental Health Benefit,” Public Disclosure: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/, September 13, 2020 (accessed 03/26/2022).
[21]. J. A. Reisman, E. W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House Publication, Lafayette 1990; J. Colapinto, As Nature Made Him. The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Harper Perennial, New York-London-Toronto-Sydney 2006.
[22]. Exaudi Staff, “Polish episcopate Concerned About German ‘Synodal Path’,” Exaudi Catholic News, https://www.exaudi.org/german-synodal-path/, February 17, 2022 (accessed 03/23/2022).
[23]. Stacy A. Trasancos, Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science (Kindle Locations 588-589). Ave Maria Press. Kindle Edition.