Does the NIH have a process in place to ‘take down’ studies, papers, or people that go against the NIH’s financial interests? Is a member of the NIH who works on a US Army Base colluding with researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Apparently, yes. Read on to find out what we’ve uncovered so far in our developing NIHgate series.
In 2021 a paper was written by two scientific researchers in Sweden, Hui Jiang and Ya-Fang Mei. Their paper was published in a journal called “MDPI Viruses” in October 2021.
Titled “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro” the paper revealed how mRNA vaccines could massively impact ovarian and breast cancer risk. You can download the original paper here.
The next month, Eric O. Freed from the NIH’s National Cancer’s Institute located at Fort Detrick in Fredrick Maryland and Oliver Schildgen wrote an ‘expression of concern’ comment regarding the paper. For those that don’t know, ‘expression of concerns’ are designed to initiate a retraction or force additional scrutiny to a published paper. Eric is also Editor-in-Chief of MDPI Viruses and Oliver is also connected to many government agencies including:
Eric’s workplace at the National Cancer Institute facility in Fort Detrick is interesting for many reasons. Fort Detrick is a United States Army Medical Command installation located in Frederick, Maryland. The facility is home to a number of government laboratories that conduct research into infectious diseases and biodefense.
Fort Detrick is a U.S. Army installation located in Frederick, Maryland – that has played a significant role in the country’s biological and chemical defense programs since World War II. Today, it houses several biomedical research laboratories, including the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and the National Cancer Institute’s Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR). However, Fort Detrick’s history is also intertwined with controversial black projects, including the CIA’s mind control experiments under the MK-Ultra program of the 1950s and 60s. THe program involved the administering of LSD and other mind-altering drugs to human subjects, without their knowledge or consent. The use of Fort Detrick for such programs has contributed to its reputation as a secretive and highly guarded military installation.
According to the book “Pandora’s Gamble”, in 2018 Fort Detrick was implicated in a potential lab leak. At issue were 2 -3,000 gallons of wastewater potentially containing anthrax, Ebola and other deadly pathogens. In 2016, outraged citizens claimed that over 1100 cases of cancer were caused by poor quality control of toxic chemicals. Many of the victims in this cancer cluster lived close to Eric O. Freed who researches cancer just blocks away.
It took several months of hidden communications between Eric Freed and unknown entities, but finally in May of 2022 MDPI Viruses retracted Jiang and Mei’s paper in a very odd and political fashion. There are many educated and reasoned details about why this paper was so damning to public science and research institutions – and their heavily funded support of MRNA technology. Jiang and Mei’s paper exposed that much of what we were told about the vaccines was false, as best explained in this expose by Dr. Ah Khan Syed (pseudonym) here.
As a non-scientist, I defer to the research in the article posted above. If you question why the article author would use a pseudonym, look at what happened to Jiang and Mei. Jiang no longer works at Stockholm University where he apparently had a permanent position and neither author wishes to speak publicly about the situation. It’s quite confusing and leads to more questions. Namely:
- Why would Jiang and Mei remain silent about their paper?
- How often do important scientists affiliated with US and EU governments go after relatively unheard of researchers?
- Did both authors approve the retraction or was it just one?
- Was the retraction and the process to conduct it even legal?
In order to figure out what motivated Eric and Oliver to work for months to take down this paper, I submitted a freedom of information act request to the NIH for all of Eric’s emails regarding this paper and the authors. My specific requests were for:
(1) All email communications between Eric O Freed and Oliver Schildgen for the time period 20th August 2021 to 31st May 2022.
(2) All email communications from/to Eric O. Freed containing the phrase “expression of concern” or the name “Jiang” in the body of the email.
In an email dated on 8/31/22, you amended and perfected item (2) to “any emails containing the word “Jiang” and any of the words “paper,” “expression,” “concern,” “retract,” or “retraction”.
The FOIA request was escalated and then disappeared for 8 months. Finally, on Friday 4/14/23 I received a whopper of an email from the NIH. The NIH had found an incredible 490 pages of communications regarding the request above. The next paragraph was amazing:
Exemption 4 protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential. The records withheld are communications about the review process and content is confidential.
Here is the rejected FOIA request.NIH FOIA 58915 Davidson_Complete Response Letter_REDACTED
I promptly shared the rejection of my FOIA request on twitter. While I wasn’t terribly surprised by this blanket rejection, others were. One medical professional who operates under the pseudonym ‘Jikkyleaks” shared my tweet. Other advocates for transparency in research like Steve Kirsch also shared and began asking his own questions. The result was the story went somewhat viral, with over a million views and counting.
Why would Steve, Jikkyleaks and so many others be so up in arms? Every good criminal investigator will tell you that crime has three parts – means, motive, and opportunity.
- Why are editors of a paper working to retract a study those same editors published not long before?
- Why would the NIH and National Cancer Institute wish to conceal the risk of cancers created by the vaccine they helped developed and possibly receive royalties for?
The answers to these questions could be considered motive.
There are very few reasons I can imagine as to why Eric O. Freed, a paid government employee, would have his scientific arguments to retract a paper hidden from taxpayers. If his scientific arguments had merit then he should want them public.
We should also remember that in October of 2020 NAIAD head Anthony Fauci and NIH head Francis Collins worked to silence anyone who spoke out against their lockdown policies and the vaccine push. In fact, Francis Collins demanded a ‘quick and devastating published take down’ of the Great Barrington Declaration’s entire premise opposing lockdowns. A premise that has proven to be the correct one. Had Fauci, Collins, and whatever hordes of science suppressors like Eric Freed had listened to opposing viewpoints, how many might be alive today, and how many trillions of dollars would not have been paid into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and research institutions.
Of note – the current director of the NIH, Lawrence Tabak, was CC’d on this email with Fauci and Collins. Dr. Tabak confirmed to lawmakers last year that the NIH concealed from the public early genomic sequences of COVID-19 at the request of Chinese officials. Why on Earth would we do that?
Another doctor on the email chain with Fauci and Collins is H. Clifford Lane, NIAID Deputy Director, Clinical Research and Special Projects. H. Cliff Lane went to China in Feb of 2020 and came back recommending the lockdowns that the Great Barrington Declaration tried to prevent. As we learned from the Wizard of Oz, sometimes it helps to ID the man behind the curtain.
The ability to silence, ’takedown’ or conceal dissenting views or unfavorable information that contradicts public policy is the means in our criminal triangle. Clearly, our NIH has means to do this in spades.
We are filing an appeal to get the full redacted records from Eric O. Freed. If the NIH has committed acts of fraud and malfeasance, they must be exposed for the good of science, medicine, and confidence in our federal institutions. These 490 records could very well prove Freed, Oliver and others took advantage of the opportunity to commit research fraud.
In the meantime, this should be alarming to all scientists of integrity. Perhaps all researchers should boycott the MDPI Viruses journal and anyone on the editorial board should resign or come forward with information about why this paper was retracted. With the health of so many billions of women at potential risk from horrible cancers created by these vaccines, we cannot afford to look the other way any longer.
All of the editorial board members of the MDPI Viruses “SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19” section should demand these communications be made public or for Oliver and Eric to resign their positions if they refuse.
Here are the members of the editorial board. Can you spot any conflicts of interest?
One of the members of the board, at the very very bottom, is Dr. Peng Zhou from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in Wuhan China. His interests are “Bat Virus infection and immunity: virus host interaction; SARS-CoV.
Why would our NIH work in tandem with Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers to suppress information about what increasingly appears to be a biological attack on the world originating in China? Eric Freed works in a US Army base. How is this not a massive conflict of interest at the national security level? Where is the NSA or US Army OIG? They should have access to these emails and immediately investigate.
As one doctor said to us off the record: “It’s all a massive cartel. This is how they silence doctors.”
A new photo has appeared from April 2019, in Wuhan China, featuring Eric O. Freed with the Wuhan Institute of Virology managing director Xi Zhou, and Shi Zhengli, the notorious ‘Boatwoman’ involved in Chinese research. Just a month earlier Shi published an article titled “Bat Coronaviruses in China” in Eric Freed’s MDPI Viruses journal in which she and her co-authors warned that it is “highly likely that a future SARS or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China.”
Were emails to/from Shi part of the retracted emails that the NIH refuses to release?
Eric O. Freed in WuhanAt the time of this photo, the United States was undergoing a massive investigation where China was linked to NIH research fraud with over a hundred investigations within the NIH. Some members of this group were part of the research team that tried to tell the world that Chloroquine worked better than remdesivir against COVID in this 2/4/2020 Nature letter to the editor. What it does indicate is that there is significant intertwining of NIH and Chinese researchers, which wouldn’t be an issue if China were a free country. The issue is that China is NOT a free country and we must assume their researchers are compromised, even if they do not know it.
Group photo of the scientists attending the 1st SKLV and NIH Joint Symposium of Virology. Front Row (L to R):
Mingzhou Chen (Wuhan University),
Zhengli Shi (Wuhan Institute of Virology). (AKA BATWOMAN!)
Back row (L to R):
Yu Liu (Wuhan University),
The NIH has a huge problem with Chinese influence and research fraud. And they want to hide emails between Eric O. Freed and others taking down a paper linking the Covid Vaccine to cancer. Eric was in Wuhan in April 2019.
Fox Business Story from Jan 29, 2020 pic.twitter.com/4WyjlrDnnc
— Broken Truth (@BrokenTruthTV) May 15, 2023
UPDATE 4/30/23 4pm
We found a retractionwatch post with a partial statement from Ya-Fang Mei in regards to the retraction. Ya-Fang states that:
“…due to false information in the reasons for retraction. In our original article, 6-Histaged Spike at nucleus and cytoplasm and nucleoprotein at cytoplasm. If 6-histag affect the localization, the nucleoprotein should be also in nucleus. Consequently, 6-histag don’t affect the nuclear localization.“.
“If the 6-His tag would cause nuclear localisation, hundreds of papers would be wrong on protein biology, and they would be retracted before our article. Thus, this retraction reason is indeed ridiculous. I am expecting the reviewers in Editorial board will be getting stronger in their perspectives and knowledge.”
The implication is that Eric Freed and Oliver Shildgen used a technicality to have a paper pulled that made their bosses look bad. In 2017 Francis Collins bragged about the different ways he could bend researchers to his will at the American Society of Human Genetics 2017 Annual Meeting.
Q. What do you foresee as being the next big thing to change this field?
Bill Gates: “This will show my bias as a software person is to think of DNA as much more of a program than as a set of constants.”
Francis Collins: “We have become a major producer of large data sets that are going to be of incredible value for understanding how life works and how disease occurs. And we should not limit our perspective about that just to germline genome sequences. All of these things which not only you would want to sample once you’d want to sample those repeatedly and follow over the course of time. What’s happening to an individual as a window into their biology and perhaps into whether they’re at risk for something or even starting to develop an illness. Those are going to be phenomenal opportunities and we need to be sure that we are not missing the chance as those data sets are collected to put them in a place where lots of researchers can learn from them. Compute on them. And those are going to be data sets that are much too big to sit in anybody’s server. So it’s not going to be on your server or mine it’s going to have to be in a place where it can can be accessed and that’s going to have to be in the cloud. And that means we’re going to really have to retool ourselves in terms of how we do those analyses. And the era where it is okay to basically sit on your own data set for many years trying to mine it and then remine it and remine it again? That era is over. And I’m certainly speaking as the NIH director here, we now have quite a lot of ways to encourage good behavior in this regard. Some of which are in fact less pleasant. Some of which are just that we’ve tried to provide appropriate incentives. I’ve often said that trying to manage the research Community many people have concluded is really like herding cats and it is like herding cats. But guess what? I’ve got a big bag of cat food it’s called the NIH budget and if it’s appropriately applied it can actually encourage some pretty good things to happen.”
Statement available in the tweet video below.
NIH Flashback: "We now have quite a lot of ways to
encourage good behavior in this regard
some of which are in fact less pleasant" Francis Collins, 10/24/17, American Society of Human Genetics 2017 Annual Meeting. #NIHgate
Updated story at https://t.co/ZlSA05eShH pic.twitter.com/EFdKMqQtJT
— Broken Truth (@BrokenTruthTV) May 1, 2023