New Oncotarget review links COVID-19 vaccination to cancer signals. Dr. Paul Marik breaks down the findings—and the cyberattack that tried to suppress them.
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices.
Sounds like a winner to me when the "experts" say it sux. Rock on Oncotarget, we love your study and know it is rock solid when they are trying to bury it. So Henry, not interested in your comment and don't believe it. You are most likely one of them and so you know, we detest them. And based on this, Prof Emeritus, biomedical scientist, progressive-I know I am right. You are a liar and traitor.
I’m a retired biomedical scientist with no financial interest in vaccines. Your disrespect for experts suggests a lack of understanding and a great amount of ignorance about science. I pity you and suggest you give up any electronic devices including lights in your home, stop using any means of transportation with an engine, stop drinking pasteurized milk, and go live in a cabin in the wilderness or you’ll be a hipocrite. Of course, I expect some crude or unintelligent response. Prove me right!
"crude or unintelligent response" - a high horse to sit on for your displayed problems with logic, including false equivalences.
You did not catch the "" around experts (and the genral drift), denoting certain types of (esp. publicly visible mouthpieces) presented-as-experts, more present than ever during the past years, and jump into writing lots of irrelevant nonsense / red herring.
That is a sign of either actual information processing problems _or_ habitual deception like the referred to "Experts"(TM) would display.
The zero real info content paragraph you are spamming comment sections with paints the same picture of a "Expert"(TM) smear peddler.
Either you are someone like that, or living in the fantasy world of what people 50 years ago commonly believed, i.e. rosy ideals one was once taught, vs. how "science" actually works in practise.
Consuming _non-pasteurized_ dairy [which you likely attempted to refer to] is _relatively_ common in Europe, wheras the American fear-mongering fails to produce the ill results with any significance (compared to the E.coli warnings every few years mostly w.r.t. meats or veggies). Maybe USA are bad at less crude hygiene measures than "kill all that lives".
Will pass around. We all know people with turbo cancers after getting C-jabbed! Many are too fearful to admit the cause! But this poison is still on the market! 😡
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices.
We just never know what the truth is. Just because there’s pushback, the reason may be trying to hide truths. Many times when money is involved, it’s simply that. Profit over good health and the truth!
Certainly, there are major problems with pharmacy companies but there are also people who publish controversial and unverifiable research in order to promote their interests. I am a retired biomedical scientist who is trying to inform people. My interests are purely in informing the public on issues that I have expertise. Unfortunately, some people lack critical thinking skills, believe in conspiracy theories and are resentful of expertise. I couldn't care less about their opinion of me.
Thank you for highlighting this fine paper in Oncotarget, a respected journal widely indexed in PubMed, including a 2026 paper by one of the authors (El-Deiry WS.) of the present paper you are discussing, Dr. Marik. I've read many of your own papers in various journals over the years and have especially appreciated your research on vitamin C.
Nothing published in Oncotarget can be considered as reliably peer-reviewed. That’s why it has been removed from Medline. Proving a negative is not possible. But the burden of convincing scientists is publication in a reliably peer-reviewed journal and verification by others. That particular paper lacks both.
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices. Science is about testable hypotheses and reproducible data. Publications in Oncotarget often lack scientific integrity.
Henry, do you have any examples? Everyone faces criticism at one time or another. Are you refuting the claims in this study, or are you just saying the publication has issues generally? Repeating that assertion several times does not make it true, so please provide receipts and we'd be more than happy to review.
Damning paper! Way to go Oncotarget! I have sent that paper to all I know and then some:}.
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices.
Sounds like a winner to me when the "experts" say it sux. Rock on Oncotarget, we love your study and know it is rock solid when they are trying to bury it. So Henry, not interested in your comment and don't believe it. You are most likely one of them and so you know, we detest them. And based on this, Prof Emeritus, biomedical scientist, progressive-I know I am right. You are a liar and traitor.
I’m a retired biomedical scientist with no financial interest in vaccines. Your disrespect for experts suggests a lack of understanding and a great amount of ignorance about science. I pity you and suggest you give up any electronic devices including lights in your home, stop using any means of transportation with an engine, stop drinking pasteurized milk, and go live in a cabin in the wilderness or you’ll be a hipocrite. Of course, I expect some crude or unintelligent response. Prove me right!
Next. You are a big harma shill and demonic. Get away from me.
In specifically the pharmaceutical industry, so-called 'experts' are no better than bought and paid for drug pushers.
Oh and big man, you spelled hypocrite wrong. Who is the one that is ignorant? LOL.
"crude or unintelligent response" - a high horse to sit on for your displayed problems with logic, including false equivalences.
You did not catch the "" around experts (and the genral drift), denoting certain types of (esp. publicly visible mouthpieces) presented-as-experts, more present than ever during the past years, and jump into writing lots of irrelevant nonsense / red herring.
That is a sign of either actual information processing problems _or_ habitual deception like the referred to "Experts"(TM) would display.
The zero real info content paragraph you are spamming comment sections with paints the same picture of a "Expert"(TM) smear peddler.
Either you are someone like that, or living in the fantasy world of what people 50 years ago commonly believed, i.e. rosy ideals one was once taught, vs. how "science" actually works in practise.
Consuming _non-pasteurized_ dairy [which you likely attempted to refer to] is _relatively_ common in Europe, wheras the American fear-mongering fails to produce the ill results with any significance (compared to the E.coli warnings every few years mostly w.r.t. meats or veggies). Maybe USA are bad at less crude hygiene measures than "kill all that lives".
Good for Dr El-Diery. Big Pharma at work!
Respect for exposing this bravely!
Will pass around. We all know people with turbo cancers after getting C-jabbed! Many are too fearful to admit the cause! But this poison is still on the market! 😡
Thank you, for this information.
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices.
We just never know what the truth is. Just because there’s pushback, the reason may be trying to hide truths. Many times when money is involved, it’s simply that. Profit over good health and the truth!
That’s just plain slander.
Certainly, there are major problems with pharmacy companies but there are also people who publish controversial and unverifiable research in order to promote their interests. I am a retired biomedical scientist who is trying to inform people. My interests are purely in informing the public on issues that I have expertise. Unfortunately, some people lack critical thinking skills, believe in conspiracy theories and are resentful of expertise. I couldn't care less about their opinion of me.
Thank you for highlighting this fine paper in Oncotarget, a respected journal widely indexed in PubMed, including a 2026 paper by one of the authors (El-Deiry WS.) of the present paper you are discussing, Dr. Marik. I've read many of your own papers in various journals over the years and have especially appreciated your research on vitamin C.
Nothing published in Oncotarget can be considered as reliably peer-reviewed. That’s why it has been removed from Medline. Proving a negative is not possible. But the burden of convincing scientists is publication in a reliably peer-reviewed journal and verification by others. That particular paper lacks both.
Oncotarget has faced criticism for its peer review process and has been labeled as a potentially predatory journal by some experts. It was also delisted from major research databases like Medline due to concerns about its publishing standards and practices. Science is about testable hypotheses and reproducible data. Publications in Oncotarget often lack scientific integrity.
Henry, do you have any examples? Everyone faces criticism at one time or another. Are you refuting the claims in this study, or are you just saying the publication has issues generally? Repeating that assertion several times does not make it true, so please provide receipts and we'd be more than happy to review.