MP and pandemic investigator Peter Kotlár (source: Jakub Kotian)
Flaunted for months by the government investigator into Slovakia's pandemic response, the mRNA vaccine analysis published last week failed to reveal anything groundbreaking, as many had anticipated. Rather than confirming conspiracy theories about the alleged harmfulness of the vaccines, it actually refuted them. Moreover, the paper did not meet the high standards expected of scientific publishing and appeared in what is known as a predatory journal.
This is a summary of a paper authored by a trio: Richard M. Fleming, a doctor with a questionable reputation; Peter Kotlár, an orthopaedic specialist; and Soňa Peková, a Czech molecular biologist who has publicly expressed belief in extraterrestrial civilisations.
The daily Sme asked experts to comment on the study. They criticised both its execution and the manner of its publication.
This article examines some of the key concerns raised by experts in detail. Other issues are mentioned only briefly or omitted altogether due to their sheer number.
In this article, you will learn:
what is problematic about the dubious journal in which the paper appeared;
about the paper's formatting and methodological shortcomings;
what its results confirmed or refuted, and how reliable they are;
whether vaccine manufacturers really concealed DNA content from regulatory bodies;
how the authors addressed potential conflicts of interest;
what was stated about the paper’s funding.
No shortage of self-confidence
Until last Tuesday, only a brief presentation of the analysis results had been made public. Even this presentation displayed serious shortcomings, including potentially incorrect interpretations of the findings. The published study merely confirmed these concerns.
Nonetheless, Peter Kotlár remains entirely confident in the results and their conclusions, which advocate a complete ban on mRNA vaccines.
On Tuesday, Sme highlighted the publication of the paper. Kotlár also sent an email to media outlets containing a photo and accompanying text, urging them to publish it in full.
"Peer-reviewed, published, foreign. There is nothing any scientist can object to. The Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV), doctors, and scientists – please follow scientific principles and procedures, and refrain from spreading disinformation and misinformation," his brief statement read.
However, it is not only the team behind the study that raises concerns – so too does the journal in which it was published.
A scientific predator
The study was published on the website of Herald Scholarly Open Access, a publisher responsible for dozens of scientific journals. It appeared in the Journal of Angiology & Vascular Surgery.
Although the publisher lists a US address on its website, it actually operates out of India and has previously been labelled as predatory.
Predatory publishers exploit the open access model, whereby authors pay to publish their work. These publishers often solicit manuscripts proactively and claim peer review, as did both Kotlár and the journal, yet frequently fail to uphold legitimate academic standards.
"It's all a worthless scam. These journals send solicitations to authors from reputable journals and deceitfully acquire manuscripts. No reputable scientist would submit anything to them. Peková must have known this, and this speaks to her cognitive decline and the severity of her mental deterioration," says gynaecologist Jozef Záhumenský, commenting on the journal.
