Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
madtop
En icke publicerad "paper" som innehåller misstag och som inte är vetenskaplig är självklart inte att anse som vetenskaplig. Utan det handlar i stället om pseudovetenskap och opinionsbildning.
Var och en kan själv läsa Herndons intressanta svar. Del 1 av 2 följer:
September 24, 2015
Public Notice of the Author’s Rejection of the Retraction of the Peer- - Reviewed and Published Scientific Article “ Evidence of Coal- - Fly- - Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” by the MDPI journal, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (hereafter IJERPH).
In the instant matter, singly and/or the collectively, IJERPH Editor Dr. Paul B. Tchunwou, MDPI Chief Science Officer Dr. Franck Vazquez, and MDPI Principal Dr. Shu-Kun Lin (hereafter MDPI AG) the author alleges:
o Acted in blatant disregard of long standing scientific and ethical principles based upon an appeal to truth
o Acted in blatant disregard of MDPI’s published “strict ethical policies and standards”
o Allowed MDPI AG to be deceived and/or coerced and/or co-opted into acting in such a manner as to deceive the public about evidence of a grave, pervasive, and widespread public health threat
o Required the author to sign a statement of no conflict of interest, but did not require same for individual(s) making critical statements upon which said retraction was based
o Required the author to submit to peer-review but did not submit to peer-review said critical comments upon which retraction was based
o Failed to provide verbatim critical comments to the author for written response and publication
o Based said retraction upon false critical statements
o Published false, misleading and/or pejorative statements as the basis for said retraction
o Published false, misleading and/or pejorative statements libelous to the author and failed to remove same even after being advised on September 5, 2015 of the false nature of same
o Aided and abetted an organized disinformation campaign whose actions are aimed at deceiving the public about an on-going program of spraying of toxic substances into the air over inhabited areas
As described in detail below, there is no demonstrated legitimate basis for MDPI AG to have retracted said article; MDPI AG should promptly republish it with the author’s corrections as presented here.
Key Links:
- Retracted Article
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/pdf
- Editor’s Basis for Retraction Statements
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941/htm
- Retracted Article as Originally Published
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-original.pdf
- Author’s Revision to Retracted Article
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-error_corrected.pdf
- Author’s Letter Dated September 5, 2015
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/email-Sept5.pdf
- Author’s Letter Dated September 21, 2015
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/email-Sept21.pdf
- Author’s Record of Important Scientific Advances
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.html
Immediately after the author published the first article in Current Science providing evidence that the particulate matter being sprayed into the air over inhabited areas is most likely toxic coal combustion ash, the Editor received a lengthy list of complaints about the article and a demand for retraction. The Current Science Editor responded by sending verbatim comments to the author and requested point-by-point responses in writing. The comments were false, misleading and/or pejorative. The following example from the author’s response to Current Science includes a few of the comments made and is revealing as to their origin:
“
The attack on my scientific ethics, capability, and intent is inexplicable from the standpoint of academic debate, but may be understandable in light of a 1967 United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) dispatch marked ‘psych’ for ‘psychological operations’ or disinformation and ‘CS’ for the CIA’s ‘Clandestine Services’. The dispatch employed the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ and stated in part: ‘The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims … To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics…. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.’ The criticisms made by the individual to which this response is addressed appear to be crafted in accordance with that CIA dispatch, including but not limited to the following remarks: ‘The general tone of the article is just strange, and inadequate in a scientific journal….The article uses very low quality, unscientific references such as various conspiracy theorist web sites and their unreliable data…. Reading the entire paper, it is clear that Dr. Herndon's goal is to spread a known conspiracy
theory called the ‘chemtrail conspiracy theory’, while providing completely invalid and unscientific evidence for it. This conspiracy theory has no scientific basis, and it is pure fabrication’.”
The fact that criticism of both papers, Current Science and IJERPH , is posted on the well-known disinformation website
http://metabunk.org is evidence that the source of the criticisms comes from an organization that consistently misleads the public with false information about a covert program involved in spraying toxic substances into the air over inhabited areas.
MDPI AG erred by failing to provide the author with verbatim comments for his response and possible publication. The journal website
http://mdpi.com publically states: “ MDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). MDPI takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication”. Retracting a peer-reviewed paper written by a senior, internationally recognized scientist, without full disclosure and independent adjudication, on the basis of false, misleading and/or pejorative remarks by one or more persons allegedly associated with an organization that misleads the public about serious health related matters stands in stark contradiction to said “ strict ethical policies and standards ”. Such behavior is an abomination, a perversion of long-established scientific principles.
MDPI AG published three bulleted “ concerns ” as justification for said retraction:
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/10941/htm It is obvious that those remarks were parroted from statements made by one or more experts at deception whose aim was to have said paper retracted. In the following, the author proceeds line by line to demonstrate the distortions and misrepresentations. Red are MDPI AG quotes under Editor Tchunwou’s name; blue are the author’s
responses to same.
"The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect."
Herndons svar: Not true. The incorrect data was not for the average leachate concentration, but for the average un- - leached coal fly ash composition. The incorrect data was only used to normalize the data presented in Figures 4 and 5, not in Figures 2 and 3.
The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the unleached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al . [2]) is 140,000,000 µg/kg.
Herndons svar: Those criticizing my paper make it look like a huge error, and the half-truth makes it seem so. What should have been stated is that the un-leached column heading was mistyped as µg/kg, but should have read µg/g; the data were tabulated as µg/g. The error was in listing the aluminum value as 70,000 µg/g when it should have been 140,000 µg/g, a factor of two. In scientific literature, this is the kind of error that is usually allowed to be corrected as it should have
been in the present instance.
This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.
Herndons svar: No, it does not. In the worst case, if uncorrected, it might invalidate the data shown in Figures 4 and 5, but the conclusions of the article are derived from Figures 2 and 3 which are not affected by the error. Moreover, Figures 4 and 5, when normalized to another element, for example, barium are not invalidated.
The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources.
Herndons svar: Not true. I stated that there were no sources of industrial pollution in the area,
and provided reason why coal fly ash from China was unlikely.
Länk:
www.nuclearplanet.com/public_rejection.pdf
