A Call for Retraction of the New “Peer-reviewed” Article “mRNA-based vaccines for rapid response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks

Has it been published in a classical predatory journal, or is there more to it?

In recent weeks, I have been working on a project that I regard as rather important. It turned out to be a bit more complicated, as raising some concerns and getting them published is not rather straightforward (LOL).

Today, ResearchGate made me aware of a recent publication that cited my book. This triggered my curiosity. The article, written by Banji et al., is titled “mRNA-based vaccines for rapid response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks,” and was published as a Review article in the International Journal of Frontiers in Medicine and Surgery Research, “An International, Peer reviewed, Open access Journal” on 17 November 2024.

The authors claim no conflict of interest. Yet, reading their article raises serious issues. It is not merely about maintaining a narrative alone. What equally concerns me is ethical considerations. It doesn’t just seem to be a mere continuation of the “success of the mRNA vaccine” story.

The authors did reference critical literature but portrayed all these published findings in the exact opposite way.

It’s somewhat impressive that numerous counterarguments and compelling evidence can be portrayed as if they are saying the reverse, as done here. Does this indicate intentionality, scientific misconduct, and fraud? Is it all a genuine misunderstanding, or just a predatory journal publication?

Serious scientific gaps and flaws

In the article, one of the summaries of the mRNA injections is the following:

“The success of these vaccines, which demonstrated high efficacy in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death, was largely due to the adaptability of mRNA technology. Once the virus’s genetic code was mapped, scientists could design a vaccine by synthesizing a strand of mRNA that coded for the virus’s spike protein, which the immune system could then recognize and attack in future infections (Anand & Stahel, 2021).”

Note the single reference to these key points. Meanwhile, 3 years have passed, and each and every counterargument to them is ignored.

The praise continues:

“The future potential of mRNA vaccines lies in their flexibility to address a broad spectrum of infectious diseases and their versatility for diverse applications within public health and personalized medicine.”

Ironically, the authors do not seem to be bothered by their own admission that you cannot draw the line between these products acting as “vaccines” or as medicinal products. Indeed, they highlight their great potential against cancers (boldface throughout mine).

“Recent advancements in mRNA technology have opened up possibilities for developing vaccines that go beyond broad population immunization. One of the most promising areas is the creation of personalized mRNA vaccines, particularly in cancer treatment. In cancer, mRNA vaccines can be tailored to individual patients by incorporating genetic information specific to their tumor cells, which could stimulate an immune response targeted directly at their cancer. This personalized approach is particularly useful for cancers that exhibit unique genetic markers in each patient. Clinical trials are underway to assess the efficacy of these personalized cancer vaccines, which, if successful, could mark a significant leap forward in both cancer treatment and personalized medicine more broadly (Kelvin-Agwu, Adelodun, Igwama, & Anyanwu, 2024a; Usuemerai et al., 2024).”

Why do they not straight out say these technologies are gene therapies? Rather, their next paragraph paints a rosy picture of these products being adapted to simultaneously target multiple different pathogens (i.e., emphasizing the antigen route).

“In addition to personalized vaccines, there is ongoing research into multivalent mRNA vaccines—those that can simultaneously protect against multiple strains or types of a pathogen. Traditional multivalent vaccines, such as those used for influenza, are formulated to target several virus strains expected to circulate in a given season. However, these formulations are limited by the need to grow each virus strain individually, a time-consuming process. In contrast, mRNA multivalent vaccines can potentially include mRNA sequences for multiple antigens in a single shot, protecting against multiple strains or even different viruses altogether. This approach could streamline vaccine administration, improve immunity coverage, and reduce the frequency of booster doses required.”

I am curious. Why did they not mention that the very first attempts to do this failed? After a lot of hype earlier this year, we finally learned that the Pfizer/BioNTech combined mRNA influenza and Covid vaccine generated a disappointing immune response.

Also, thanks to the modifications done to the RNA, we already have an entire mess of protein products generated from these technologies. It’s horrifying to imagine the scaling and multiplicative adverse events that would result from combining them to target several different pathogens at once. That is purely from a safety perspective alone. But safety is not being discussed in the article.

The article does appear to discuss both positive and negative aspects. The positive ones are first summarized in the section “Mechanism and Advantages of mRNA Vaccines,” where the authors conclude that

“In conclusion, mRNA vaccines represent a groundbreaking approach in immunization, with significant advantages over traditional vaccine platforms. Their unique mechanism of action enables the body’s own cells to produce antigens, thereby generating an immune response. This approach eliminates the need to cultivate viral particles, enabling rapid vaccine development. Additionally, the adaptability and ease of manufacturing make mRNA vaccines ideal for responding to emerging infectious diseases, allowing for quick modifications in response to mutations”

Wow. And this is published in 2024. No mention that neither of these old narrative points has proven true.

Similarly, the section section on their future potential ignores any existing problems that are now widely known. For example,

“In the context of emerging infectious diseases, the speed and flexibility of mRNA vaccine technology are significant advantages. Once the genetic sequence of a pathogen is identified, scientists can quickly synthesize an mRNA sequence encoding one or more of the pathogen’s key antigens. [...] This “plug-and-play” adaptability means that, in theory, mRNA vaccines could be developed for a wide variety of viral families and even potentially for bacterial and parasitic pathogens, expanding the scope of disease prevention and control (Kowalzik et al., 2021).”

No mention that the “plug-and-play” notion does not apply to a gene-therapy drug.

And what are the challenges that are discussed? According to the authors, these are:

• Technical, Logistical, and Regulatory Challenges in mRNA Vaccine Development

• Issues Related to Storage, Distribution, and Cold Chain Requirements

• Public Trust, Misinformation, and Acceptance

As summarized by the authors,

“Despite their success, mRNA vaccines face challenges in development and distribution, particularly around storage, transportation, and public acceptance. One of the primary logistical barriers is the need for ultra-cold storage, which limits accessibility, particularly in resource-poor regions.”

Attacking misinformation while spreading misinformation

The authors are adamant about several things. For example,

“... addressing public trust is essential to improving mRNA vaccine uptake. The rapid pace of mRNA vaccine deployment has led to some public hesitancy, fueled by misinformation and skepticism. Governments and public health organizations should invest in clear, evidence-based communication strategies to educate the public on mRNA vaccine safety, efficacy, and benefits. Transparent communication about vaccine development processes and addressing concerns directly can build confidence and enhance acceptance. Initiatives to train local healthcare workers in vaccine handling, administration, and outreach could also foster trust and encourage communities to engage with mRNA vaccination programs.”

And what are the authors doing? Sure, they are demonstrating what is meant by clear, evidence-based, and transparent communication, don’t they? How about the misinformation they are concerned about?

Truly, when reading how they cite existing work that raises serious issues with the injections, does not instill trust.

Ironically, the paper includes some published work that demonstrates critical concerns, notably the following citations:

• [27] Malhotra, A. (2022). Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Through Real Evidence-Based Medicine. Journal of Insulin.

• [29] Mueller, S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi, 10, 978-973.

• [39] Seneff, S., & Nigh, G. (2021). Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 2(1), 38-79.

No idea how it was possible to come up with such a doi for ref 29 – the actual identifier is https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18903-6. More importantly, I am very familiar with these three references, having written one of them and having carefully studied the other two. Thus, reading how these references are used in the article is beyond me. Some may call this scientific fraud. Indeed:

Ref 27 is described in this context:

“Providing clear, accessible, and accurate information about how mRNA vaccines work and their safety profiles is essential to fostering public trust. Collaborating with trusted community leaders, healthcare providers, and public figures can help counteract misinformation and encourage vaccine uptake (Malhotra, 2022).”

No, Malhotra’s paper is not to help encourage vaccine uptake. Neither is it written to counter the “misinformation,” as utilized here in this very context:

“Misinformation, particularly on social media platforms, has further exacerbated public distrust of mRNA vaccines. Myths and misconceptions about the technology, such as unfounded claims that mRNA vaccines alter human DNA or cause long-term health issues, continue to spread despite being scientifically debunked (Orsini, Bianucci, Galassi, Lippi, & Martini, 2022).”

How my book is referenced is also beyond me:

“Public trust issues are also intertwined with concerns about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines. Although short-term clinical trials and initial deployment have shown favorable safety profiles, some individuals remain concerned about potential adverse effects that might emerge over time. Ongoing long-term studies and transparent reporting of vaccine safety data are necessary to address these concerns. Continuous monitoring of vaccinated populations for potential side effects and regular updates on the findings will help reassure the public and strengthen confidence in the safety of mRNA vaccines (Mueller, 2023).”

Indeed, I spent essentially 2.5 years writing the book. It is well over 400 pages and, among others, gives a clear historical account of the many problems that were already known very early on, as well as many other troubles with the injections.

Ref 39 is equally depicted in a very distorted manner:

“mRNA technology holds promise for influenza vaccination because it allows for rapid updates to the vaccine formulation in response to the virus’s frequent mutations (Seneff & Nigh, 2021).”

What? These claims are utterly fabricated and flawed promises that are counteracted by every single word in the paper by Seneff & Nigh.

Who are the authors?

It’s incomprehensible to grasp the actual qualifications of the authors who are making such strong statements and misrepresenting published facts.

An internet search for Adeola Feyisitan Banji does not seem to provide any results about this person’s qualifications and education even though Semantic Scholar lists three publications , including the present one, under this name, that all appeared between November 21-30, 2024. Neither of those contains his contact or affiliation details. I was able to find Adeola Banji on Facebook where he describes himself as having studied at the Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA) in Nigeria. No idea if this is the same person, who, according to Linkedin, introduces himself as

“a software engineer with experience across various industries and with different organisations. I express my creativity and solution driven mind through my code. I have helped many startups build amazing products, and I look forward to joining organisations that would employ my services in driving innovations.”

Adeleke Damilola Adekola presents himself as follows:

“As a Full-Time MBA student at Syracuse University Whitman School of Management, I aim to enhance my skills and knowledge in product management, market analysis, analytics, digital marketing, global commercial operations, and strategy. My goal is to use data-driven insights to solve complex problems in strategic business environments and create value for customers and stakeholders.

I bring over six years of experience in the healthcare industry in emerging markets, where I worked as a Product Consultant at Boehringer Ingelheim and a Key Account/Market access Executive at Swiss Pharma Nigeria. I successfully launched and grew key products, managed and retained key accounts, and engaged with diverse stakeholders. I also demonstrated strong analytical, communication, and leadership skills, as well as a passion for community service and social impact. I hold a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree from University of Jos.”

Unfortunately, he does not say what his experience in the healthcare industry is. Is it primarily marketing, communicating, and engaging with “various stakeholders?”

Likewise, I was unable to identify Samuel Ajibola Dada through an internet search. However, there exists a LinkedIn profile for Samuel Dada which only says

“MBA Candidate at Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University ||Business Analytics||Supply Chain Managements||Marketing.”

I cannot automatically conclude the article was ghostwritten by conflicted individuals. Yet, the article has no “Author Contribution” section. Even if these were the actual people who wrote the article, then what was their motivation for doing so? And what made them and the reviewers/editors think they possess the required expertise for writing a review article?

Conclusion

I doubt that any of us have previously heard about the Journal of Frontiers in Medicine and Surgery Research. Is it just a predatory journal – in the classical sense of an exploitative business where publishers are ready to publish any article for payment? A few indicators suggest not only that but there may be more to it.

• Given that neither of the declared authors has any scientific expertise in medicine, biology, or the life sciences, it is difficult to imagine how they compiled such a list of arguments about the injections. Their summary is not an overall mess of incoherent statements. Rather, by listing several key storylines, it carefully promotes only one narrative. Would non-specialists even have the vocabulary to write such a coherent story?

• Secondly, it is unclear if the names of the authors demonstrate those beings who actually wrote the article, or if their names were used without their knowledge. The observation that one of the authors only has three publications that very recently, within the time-frame of just over a week appeared almost simultaneously, raises suspicion.

• Third, my book has not been widely appreciated or circulated. I would be shocked if non-matter experts were able to dig out this work from among the many thousands of publications on the injections. Last year, several of us tried to make Pfizer and Moderna aware of my book. I find it rather plausible that they are familiar with it. However, rather than much of other profound and important work that has been withdrawn from major journals when it exposed the truth, a book is, and remains, out there. Since it is published by a reputable publisher (Springer), there are only two ways to limit its effect: hide it (which has been happening) or try to portray it as something else.

Either way, I find it difficult to believe that the authors just acted out of ignorance.

If they are indeed responsible for the content, do they want this to stay on record?

Unfortunately, they made it impossible to be contacted. In the article, the author to whom correspondence should be directed is Adeola Feyisitan Banji. However, other than the name and status as Independent Researcher, no contact information is provided. Otherwise, I would have been able to reach out to them. While I emailed the Editor-in-Chief, that person cannot be found on the Internet either, other than as a purported editor of several mysterious journals. I will let everyone know if I get a response.

Because of the serious flaws and misleading statements, I am calling on those who wrote the article to withdraw this work.

Four years into the Covid-19 debacle, we are finally seeing massive allegations of orchestrated crimes at the highest levels and open calls for transparency and accountability. Even the most high-ranked politicians, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's integrity, are now publicly challenged in an investigation into systemic corruption at the heart of European governance.

Likewise, the distortion and whitewashing of critical literature cannot remain hidden and obscured. And one day, it will be clear that it is influencers behind the Banji et al. article and related ones that are the greatest spreaders of misinformation.