We publish the appeal letter from Dr Lluís Luján regarding the withdrawal of a scientific publication that went on to study how vaccination with aluminum adjuvant significantly altered a cognitive alteration in sheep. We leave the interpretation to you. Of course at the bottom of the letter we will publish all the links and sources.
Cognitive function and behavior in sheep to which vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants or only aluminum adjuvant have been repeatedly inoculated
By: Asín J, Pascual-Alonso M, Pinczowski P, Gimeno M, Pérez M, Muniesa A, de Pablo L, de Blas I, Lacasta D, Fernández A, de Andrés D, María GA, Reina R, Luján L
Published in: Pharmacological Research, Elsevier (doi: 10.1016 / j.phrs.2018.10.019).
A study accepted by Pharmacological Research (Elsevier) was withdrawn on March 8, 2019 by the director without a single reason, if not for the undeclared conflicts of interest, fear of science and certainly pressure from outside, by unidentified forces . You can read the story in the following emails (in English), and draw your own conclusions. Our study correlates the use of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines with an alteration of behavior in sheep and must have been extremely relevant in the field of vaccine safety if it has pushed them to behave in such an anti-scientific and corrupt way.
The people involved in this scandalous issue are:
Most responsible individuals:
- Emilio Clementi, Director, Pharmacological Research.
Professor at the University of Milan
(already known in the media for the case of an article called "novax" which irritated the professor a lot)
- Anne Marie Pordon, Editor of Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences for Elsevier
Scientific impropriety: both decided to withdraw the study for no scientific reason, before contacting me for the first time (11 January 2019). The reasons for this decision are known only to them. They must provide explanations that have been denied me.
- Elia Biganzoli
Department of Clinical Sciences and Public Health, University of Milan
Scientific incorrectness: A necessary accomplice in a counterfeit, he falsified the statistical data, emphasizing "limitations" that only he can see. He must explain the reasons for his way of acting.
- Pasquale Maffia
University professor in immunology. Glasgow University
- Sonia Radice
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. University of Milan
Scientific incorrectness: Spectators from the beginning of misconduct and do not intervene, therefore agree with it.
Brief summary of the key facts:
A study entitled "Cognitive function and behavior in sheep to which vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants or only aluminum adjuvant have been repeatedly inoculated" of which I am the corresponding author, is presented, reviewed, accepted and published online in Pharmacological Research ( Elsevier) on November 3, 2018.
On 11 January 2019 I receive an e-mail from the same director who had accepted the job (E. Clementi): he is very worried about some anonymous pressure that he received in relation to the published work and requires an urgent response or he will withdraw the publication. In a rather suspicious way, from the beginning, he invites me to withdraw the work myself, which (of course) I cannot agree on and which should be absolutely unacceptable to a scientific director at this point (see page 5 of this document).
The "doubts" (pages 6 and 7) are misleadingly written, so as to give the appearance of "scientific credibility" but totally lack scientific basis.
They are significantly full of slanderous comments and contain many conceptual errors. All these comments have received a prompt reply (see pages 14-21): not a single doubt remains after my revision. After receiving my answer, E. Clementi involves a statistician (Elia Biganzoli), to "analyze the material" (page 22).
However, Biganzoli's answer is to carry out another search without mentioning the previous "doubts" or my answers in the least, thus indicating that all the "doubts" have been unquestionably resolved. Biganzoli begins his verification by saying that "the work deals with a very delicate scientific topic", which makes the idea of the type of prejudices it starts from (page 24). Biganzoli makes some observations ("limitations", he says) and - significantly - mentions a well-known pseudoscientific internet activist (David Hawkes) as if the main problem of our work was the absence of a reference (page 25). Despite these strong preliminary circumstances, he clearly recommends that the study be published as it is (page 24). E. Clementi's answer is to withdraw the work, without any scientific reason, on the basis of some of these "observations" made by E. Biganzoli (page 26), avoiding to consider Biganzoli's main conclusion. At the limits of the offense, Clementi offers me to submit the study again while at the same time withdrawing it: indescribable. I react immediately by showing that not a single observation by E. Biganzoli is scientifically concrete (pages 27-30) and I declare that I will only accept the publication of the study as it is in a magazine issue, since there are no scientific problems . The work is finally withdrawn on 8 March by E. Clementi (page 34), who commits a scientific incorrectness since there is no reason for this behavior. The reasons that led them to so much must be investigated.
The role played by the delegate of Elsevier (AM Pordon) in this affair is equally scandalous. She fully supports scientific impropriety, trying to justify what is unjustifiable (page 31). Note her phrase: "We are withdrawing the work (...)", so she is part of all this and is fully responsible for it. The decision to withdraw the study was made before I contacted the first time. The other actors, Pasquale Maffia and Sonia Radice are guilty of having acted as spectators of a scientific crime, without making any effort to defend science in the face of a terrible injustice: a true scientific abuse.
The truth must be made known. Please read the e-mails below and understand the problem: the science that indicates that vaccine safety is not really as strong as we are told is withdrawn from publication without scientifically founded reasons: they want to prevent people know the truth, they need to keep repeating that there are no published works that indicate the lack of safety of aluminum vaccine adjuvants. This thing has to change as soon as possible. You can do something and I'm asking you to act:
- Write to Elsevier (see Elsevier.com for contacts). Ask them if it is their editorial policy to withdraw scientific studies without any scientific basis, ask who put pressure on them to do so, ask why they tolerate that their employees and directors commit wrongdoing and ask them to republish the withdrawn text immediately, with their apologies.
- Circulate this document as much as possible: to your contacts, institutions, associations ... Publish it on any web page that seems appropriate. Use social media to circulate it. We need a massive response.
- Contact journalists: There must be journalists on this planet willing to denounce the links between pharmaceutical companies, editorial offices and directors who work actively (in an extremely corrupt manner) to prevent the truth about the use of aluminum and the safety of vaccines from circulating freely among people.
Of course, you can refer to me as the person responsible for revealing these conversations via email: I never act anonymously.
Department of Veterinary Pathology
University of Zaragoza, Spain