Source:Rounding The Earth Author: Mathew Crawford

In a letter dated the 23rd of April, 2021, four Guest Editors publicly resigned from the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. Professor Maria Cristina Albertini, Professor Piero Sestili, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Howard Haimes stepped down in protest over executive decisions not to publish two papers showing positive results of various agents in protecting against or treating COVID-19.

In early March, the ivermectin paper, authored by members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), was “taken down” after “editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies”, which sounds a lot like the language used by social media sites censoring science that does not fit the approved narrative these days. Reported at The Scientist:

After being contacted by The Scientist, the journal posted a statement from Frontiers’s chief executive editor, Frederick Fenter, saying that “Frontiers takes no position on the efficacy of ivermectin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19, however, we do take a very firm stance against unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions.”

That statement was entirely vague about the reasons for the paper’s rejection.

Apparently, the manager assigned to support the guest editors disappeared when the questions came rolling in about these rejections.

blank

According to the paper’s lead author, Dr. Pierre Kory, communication about any problems by Frontiers was entirely lacking:

Responding to the Frontiers statement’s invitation to the authors to submit a revised version of the paper, Kory says that while he would have been open to removing mentions of his own team’s treatment protocol, he doesn’t want to work with the journal again. “There was no communication with us, no telling us of their concerns, no discussion” during this process, he says. “The idea that I would resubmit to that journal is fairly preposterous, don’t you think?”

The claims made by the resigning guest editors suggest that Frontiers Chief Executive Editor Dr. Frederick Fenter slowed the publication process and tried to steer the ivermectin research into something like “the ghetto of the journal”.

blank

It is noteworthy that Frontiers has had adversarial relationships with editors in the past. Those doing the work of reviewing papers in Frontiershave long complained over having little to no control over actual publication decisions, regardless of their opinions about the research. This and other problems eventually led to a 2015 “Manifesto of Editorial Independence of Editors of Frontiers Medical Journals“. Dr. Fenter fired all 31 signatory editors at the time.

It might be said that unilateral power over publishing decisions in science represents a critical moral hazard. Such a singular point of failure might even lend itself to something like a “crime of the century“.





The Chloroquine Wars Part VIII – Hydroxychloroquine’s Safety Profile and a Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Chloroquine Wars Part IX – How Research Can be Rigged by Statistically Stacking the Deck (A Simpson’s Paradox Tale)

The Chloroquine Wars Part X – A Discussion of the Insanity of the Chloroquine Wars

The Chloroquine Wars Part XI – See No Good, Hear No Good, Speak No Good

The Chloroquine Wars Part XII – Manufactured Fear During Hydroxychloroquine’s Trump Moment

The Chloroquine Wars Part XIII -A Clockwork Orange Man

The Chloroquine Wars Part XIV – How to Rig Research: Surgisphere Part I

The Chloroquine Wars Part XVII – Why the Story About India’s April COVID-19 Spike is All Wrong

The Chloroquine Wars Part XV – How to Rig Research: Surgisphere Part II

The Chloroquine Wars Part XIX – Historical Failures of Public Health Authorities

The Chloroquine Wars Part XX – Why The Early Treatment Data is Better Than Anyone Imagines

The Chloroquine Wars Part XXI

Doctor Didier Raoult Part I: Where We Are Now -The Chloroquine Wars Part XXV

Everything Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, and Pierre Kory Missed About “The Crime of the Century” The Chloroquine Wars Part XXVI

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Stark madness to ban ivermectin

Buried in the note is the real reason for making ivermectin inaccessible – the fear that persons taking it ‘may elect not to be vaccinated as part of the national Covid-19 vaccination program’. This is outrageous. When someone is infected with Covid, it is too late to bother with vaccination. They need early treatment. To deny it to coerce them into accepting a vaccine, one of whose side-effects is death, is immoral.

Read More »

Australia’s TGA Bans GPs from Prescribing Ivermectin

Australia’s medicine and therapeutic regulatory, the Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) recently took the gloves off with Ivermectin, the economical anti-parasitic drug associated with at least 63 completed clinical trials involving SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Now TGA formally places a national prohibition on off-label prescribing of ivermectin to all general practitioners. A comparable move as to what TGA did with hydroxychloroquine in 2020. Clearly further evidence of tightening encroachment of the critically important doctor-patient treatment relationship allowing consent to medical treatment using off-label medications. Of course, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum—it’s part of an unfolding, integrated and what have the signs of a coordinated and orchestrated government action to stop any and all treatments other than those the government declares acceptable.

Read More »