Right on Point

Ep. 33 - Dr. Brian Hooker discussing retractions of science papers

July 06, 2021 Wayne Rohde
Right on Point
Ep. 33 - Dr. Brian Hooker discussing retractions of science papers
Show Notes Transcript

Dr. Brian Hooker stops by to discuss the politics of how science papers are peer reviewed and the retraction process. Also a brief discussion of his recordings with Dr. William Thompson of the CDC and how the CDC tried to destroy  vaccine-autism study documents

Support the show

Dr. Brian Hooker interview by Wayne Rohde

Wed, 7/7 12:06PM • 50:08


Wayne Rohde, Dr. Brian Hooker, CHD Sponsor


CHD Sponsor  00:10

Children's Health defense is proud to be a sponsor of the right onpoint podcast, a weekly discussion of legal issues and initiatives to protect our most cherished resource our children, hosted by Wayne Rohde.


Wayne Rohde  00:26

Welcome to the Right on Point podcast everyone. It's time again to join the most intriguing podcast on the airwaves. Bass listeners put on their critical thinking caps to ask questions to ask why. I want to thank our sponsor for this week's podcast, Children's Health Defense. You can follow along this discussion and previous discussions on our website Right on Point dot online. And if you'd like to donate to ensure future discussions and interviews are what mainstream media considers untouchable, or charged topics, please do so. 

 I'm your host, Wayne Rohde. We're broadcasting from the Great White North in Minnesota. And I got a question to all my listeners, actually a couple questions. How many of us have heard about the Vaccine Safety DataLink? Now, how many of us know what's contained in the Vaccine Safety DataLink, known as the VSD? Or why is it so secretive and why we cannot access it? My next question is how many of us have published medical studies and know the politics? So what happens when policy instead of science determines the outcome? My next guest is here to help us answer these questions. Plus, inform the listeners on a few other nuggets. What is happening in the field of medical science? It's going to be a fun discussion, I promise you and very educational. 

 Welcome to the Right on Point podcast, Sir, Dr. Brian Hooker, how you doing today?


Dr. Brian Hooker - 01:55 

I'm doing well. It is an honor to be on your podcast. This is a new podcast for Wayne and I we've known each other for many, many years. But it's nice to be able to join you and your relatively new venture and join this podcast. And like I said, it's just an honor to be here. And we're gonna have a great discussion today.


Wayne Rohde  02:16

Well, thank you. Yes, it's gonna be the 33rd weekly version of this podcast. And you're right, we've known each other for quite some time. And where it began, I believe is that I became a fan of listening to you speak at Autism One conferences and some other things regarding your FOIA activity with the CDC. And I really started to dig into that. And that really helped me with my work when I was researching for my first book, The Vaccine Court. And by the way, listeners, my second book, Vaccine Court 2.0 comes out on the 29th of June. So make sure you get a copy of it. But you train right and you train me well on the do's and don'ts and what to look for in the FOIA world. And it's remarkable what our government hides or tries to hide from the public. And it's insane. So first off, we got some good news here some breaking news regarding a new paper that you're publishing, so take it away, tell everybody this is first time you've mentioned it to the public. So what is it?


Dr. Brian Hooker - 03:23

Well, thank you very much for the introduction. Um, I have just this week coming out is a new paper. This is a study that I completed with Neil Miller, and this is the analysis of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And this paper is being published in a journal called the Journal of Translational Science. I'm going to pull it up on my computer actually. So I can read the actual title “Health effects of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children with covariance for breastfeeding status and type of birth. And like I said, Neil Miller, and I published this. This is a paper based on three medical practices in the United States. And in these medical practices, we had parents of children actually fill out surveys. So there's a survey instrument, and the results of these analyses are based on the results of the surveys that the parents did for their children. When we combined the medical records for these three practices, we ended up with approximately 1500 children. And we looked at their vaccination status in light of diagnoses of autism, add ADHD, allergies, severe allergies, asthma, recurring ear infections in gastrointestinal issues. And then of course, we did a control diagnosis of chickenpox and we also show that vaccines prevent chickenpox. Imagine that


Wayne Rohde  04:58

For our listeners. Don't worry about the paper, I'm going to put a link up to it when this podcast is released. There'll be a few days after you actually officially releasing it. So listeners will be able to get a copy of it, if you don't mind. can read it, and it'll be ready probably in another week or so. So we're good there. So what did you conclude from the study here?


Dr. Brian Hooker - 05:21

What we concluded was that vaccinated children and what you would consider fully vaccinated children and partially vaccinated children are much more likely to have these diagnoses than their unvaccinated counterparts. It turns out that in terms of autism, children who were fully and partially vaccinated were five times more likely to get an autism diagnosis. Compared to their unvaccinated counterparts. It was much higher for a DD and ADHD I'm actually pulling down the paper so I can read these directly. For allergies, it was four times more likely for gastrointestinal issues 13.8 times more likely for asthma 17.6 times more likely for ATD ADHD 20.8 times more likely, for chronic ear infections, 27.8 times more likely. And then, for chickenpox, children who were fully vaccinated only had about a 10% chance of getting chickenpox as compared to the unvaccinated children. So chickenpox we wanted to do, that's what we call our positive control diagnoses. We want to make sure that, you know, we know the varicella vaccine does prevent chickenpox. And so we want to make sure that that was in line with what medical research has already proven. But what was astounding was these high odds ratios are these high relative risks of having these other chronic disorders. When we looked at fully and partially vaccinated children upwards to you know, add ADHD, which was 25 to 20.8 times more likely in ear infections, this would the way that we define these were recurrent ear infections, so at least three in ear infections per year, over a long period of time. And that was 27.8 times more likely. So it was very astounding. It also answered some questions that I had, from a previous paper that I published with Neil Miller back in May of 2020. And we want specifically to look at diagnose the diagnosis of autism and see if there were more autistic cases in the vaccinated cohort compared to the unvaccinated cohort


Wayne Rohde  07:48

Was breastfeeding or not breastfeeding ever looked at? Is there any difference between that in regards to medical outcomes?


Dr. Brian Hooker - 07:56

We considered breastfeeding in our comprehensive model. So our model took into account vaccination status, breastfeeding status, and then type of birth, whether it was a Cesarean section or a normal vaginal delivery. And all of that is included within the model, the things that were significant for breastfeeding alone. And again, I'm reading off of the paper, right, it actually turned out that the group or the cohort, that was the healthiest compared to the other cohorts. And looking specifically at these diagnoses, if you looked at unvaccinated children who are breastfed for at least six months, that was our cutoff for breastfeeding, you know, it wasn't just one time, they had to have been breastfed for a continuous period sometime in their infancy for six months. And then those that were born vaginally and not necessary in section, they were by far the most healthy children. And we looked at the combination of those particular effects. And then in addition, when it came to just breastfeeding alone, with breastfeeding alone, I believe we saw less diagnoses of allergies, less diagnoses of asthma, and less diagnoses of gastrointestinal issues. And then in terms of type of birth, vaginally versus cesarean section, we saw that that was significant for allergies, and especially food allergies.


Wayne Rohde  09:32

What about gestation? I mean, is there any significance in premature between the difference between a premature child say at 28 or 30 weeks versus full term? Was? Did you even look into that or is it not suggestion?


Dr. Brian Hooker 09:48

In our particular survey? Well, you know what the gestational age that's a good, you know, these questions come up and I have to sit back and say, Gosh, why didn't we do that? That would have been a really simple question. Just as the gestational age, but you know who did that that study and who didn't account for gestational age was a researcher by the name of Tony Mawson. And Tony Mawson did a very similar study to this back in 2017. And he showed that gestational age the combination of gestational age, and vaccination actually increased significantly, the odds of getting an autism diagnosis or diagnosis is any neurologically developed neurological developmental disorder. So yes, you know, premature infants, if you compound vaccination on top of that, that drastically increases the likelihood of some type of diagnosis.


Wayne Rohde  10:45

Well, the reason I'm going with that one, personally, I have a, you know, my, my sons were born at 28 and 30 weeks, neck being at 30 weeks, it was later diagnosed with severe regressive autism. But his twin brother, Austin was not, he was born at 28 and a half weeks. But the other thing is, I'm starting to notice premature deliveries are starting to be associated with women who were vaccinated with the COVID vaccine. And now we're having so I think, logically, I think your study is the next step. And then we need to take it a little bit further and start looking at, you know, things like that. But this is a great paper, and to everybody, I'm going to have a link put out on the website under the show notes. So you can actually download it, it's like 11 pages, it's very extensive, very informative. For me, I'll have to read it four or five times to understand the whole thing. I mean, it's I can ever reading comprehension the first time looking through a study. Speaking of that, when you look at studies, how do you break it down to look at how to read one? You know, we've talked briefly previously about the first person mentioned as the lead author and stuff like this. But right when people read these studies, and there's some really bad ones being put out there today, regarding, you know, the safety of COVID vaccine for pregnant women, it's just garbage. Exactly. Next week, I've got a guest coming on, we're gonna break down this placenta study, that's horrible and in, and some of these other pregnant women studies safety for COVID, which is it's ridiculous, but how do you look at a study and actually, it takes a lot of skill to understand the design, you know, look at the conclusions and then go from there, right?


Dr. Brian Hooker 12:35

I'm right. Not only am I a researcher, but I'm also the parent of a special needs child, which means I don't have a lot of time. And, you know, so sitting down, and actually, with a good research study by the fireplace, you know, in my in my professor uniform, you know, the jacket with the patches on the sleeves, it doesn't happen. You know, it's, I'm usually looking at studies on the fly. And most people in this position, a lot of people in the they are going to be listening to this podcast, are going to be in a similar position where they don't have that they don't have the time to sit down and digest a lot of the fluff that is put in research studies. And you need to get down to brass tacks. So the first thing I do is I read the abstracts of the study. The abstract is basically the summary of the study. And then I'll take a pen and paper, and I'll write down what are the salient points, you know, what, what are their conclusions? And what results do they have? And all this will be in the abstract? What results do they have that will lead them to those particular conclusions? Saying that maybe x vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnancy? Well, how did they draw that conclusion? What results are you know, are they looking at gestational age of children who are born to mothers who got the COVID vaccine? Are they looking at some type of developmental outcomes? Are they looking at some type of pregnancy markers or something of that nature? And then I'll look at those particular results from the abstract. And then the next thing I'll dive into? Yes, you do want to read the introduction? Yes, you do want to read the Methods section. But the next section that is the most important section is the results section. What are the results that they have gotten in and sometimes I'll even skip reading the introduction and skip reading the methods and go directly to the results. What are the results that they obtained? And then after I read that particular section, and I affirm x result, y result z result, then I'll go back to the Methods section and, and I'll look at the methods that they use to get those particular results. Now you may not be able to pick out logical errors and logical flaws. But what you need to do is when you're comparing the results section in the method section is give it a smell, check and write down does this. Does this make sense? Does this smell correct? And if something doesn't make sense, please don't make the assumption that oh, well, it's just beyond me. Because I'm not a scientist. I'm not a researcher. If something doesn't make sense, and figure out articulate even write down a note, why doesn't that make sense to you? Okay. And then work your way in that particular fashion. I always read the abstract first, read the results section second, and then on those salient results, go back to the Methods section and look at the methods that they use to get those particular results. I, you know, I break it down in that order. To me, one of the worst things that you can do is try to understand a paper by reading it from beginning to end. Right? Okay. Usually, there's, there's so much that's packed into the introduction, that may be irrelevant, and probably is not necessarily worth your time to look at or the discussion section. That, you know, the discussion section usually brings in other literature, it's more of a literature review, and in what literature may affirm or even contradict the results of the paper. And so I use that formula instead. And whenever you sit down with a technical paper, have a notepad, have a pan, take down notes, and summarize the paper in your notes summarize the most salient results, and then see, do those results Make sense? Based on the methods that they used?


Wayne Rohde  16:53

Around Mother's Day, there was a research paper published, saying that they examine placentas of vaccinated women for COVID and unvaccinated women. And they didn't see any difference in the placentas? Well, I looked at it, it was kind of a short study, but I figured out one, it's showing up in all these different media organizations. So I said, Okay, this is a coordinated event, to it only had 200 study participants. So my conclusion, right there was, is so if there is a problem, in one out of 500, or one out of 1000 women, the study probably missed it, because they're only looking at one out of 200. And they're splitting that up between, you know, 100 here for who are vaccinated 100 were not vaccinated, and they concluded that it was safe. Based on that 100 sample. You gotta be kidding me. So the study design was poor, you can just see it there just wasn't broad enough. Now you're looking at 1500 1800 people in your study, which is a fairly decent amount. These studies are they can be deceiving. So that's why we have to look at them be careful about you know, what they're saying and actually is the conclusion is the results matching what they intended the study to be or the talking about?


Dr. Brian Hooker 18:19

Can and then also stepping back and having a logic check like, okay, it's nice that they looked at the placentas. But the actual proof of the pudding is going to be what happens with the live birth? Right. So you know, it seems like to me a study on placentas a study on pregnancy outcomes. There was another study that came out, I believe it was in the Journal of the American Medical Association on pregnancy outcomes and COVID vaccines. And only, you know, it was about 800 women, and only a small fraction of the women had actually given birth. Okay, and so they had very, very few live births and that study, but since there were you know, and all the births involved, mothers who were vaccinated in the third trimester, there was no, absolutely no data for the first trimester of pregnancy in the COVID vaccine. And that's perhaps when the developing child is going to be the most vulnerable, and is going through such a rapid stage of development. And so a lot of times you have to ask yourself, what's the point of the paper? Is this us, like you said, there was a coordinated media effort. Perhaps this paper is being used to mullet manipulate me, rather than to inform me.


Wayne Rohde  19:36

Many people know you for something different and that is I've got to know you from the foil stuff. And since then, and we've talked about this paper, but a lot of people didn't hear your name until we heard Thompson, William Thompson and the breakout of his recordings. real briefly, give us an overview. How you two got connected? And do you guys talk anymore now? Or what was the what do you think is the conclusion of what he was trying to say?


Dr. Brian Hooker 20:10

It's a very interesting story. I mean, I could I could discuss it at length and probably bore you with some details over a period of three or four hours if we had it.


Wayne Rohde  20:22

Well, there's a book written about you too. 


Dr. Brian Hooker - 20:24

Anyway, so it was sure, yeah, that was a surprise. William Thompson and I actually when I first contacted the CDC, when I was concerned about vaccine safety after my son's Vaccine Injury, this was around 2001. The first person that I was referred to was William Thompson. And another researcher who was working with his with him and his name was David is David Shea. I had several phone calls with Thompson very early on. Those phone conversations were a blood abruptly curtailed in 2004, when the CDC found out that I was participating in my family was participating in a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. And that's one of the reasons why I started submitting FOIA requests as the CDC, basically no longer, Thompson stopped returning my phone calls in 2004. But yet, low and behold, I received a phone call from him out of the blue in 2013. It was a very different phone call. You know, the Thompson that I knew between 2001 and 2004 was following the CDC party line saying no, there is no relationship between vaccines and autism. No, thimerosal containing vaccines are completely safe. And then a different Bill Thompson is the same person. But somebody with a very different attitude, called me out of the blue, in 2013, in started confessing all these moral lapses, all these moral failures on behalf of himself and his colleagues in the CDC. And so he he broke down the incidence of fraud, specifically around autism and the timing of the MMR vaccine, and also autism and other neurological disorders in relationship to the dose of the Marisol containing vaccines. Okay, we never talked about the vaccine schedule in general, although we did talk about the fact that the CDC has never really studied that. And we talked to him even laughed about the fact that the CDC has basically studied one vaccine and one vaccine component, and therefore been able to absorb the entire vaccination schedule for any culpability in the autism epidemic. Okay, he saw that that was ludicrous. And he pointed out the specific instances of fraud. They also very, very quickly and very diligently, was able to obtain data for me through official channels. So I could redo the analyses that the CDC did to basically indemnified vaccines from the autism epidemic. Okay. And that's, that was, that was our purpose. We shared very close quarters, over a period of nine months, have many, many phone conversations exchanged hundreds of emails, and then I recorded for phone conversations towards the end of you know, before this type of story actually went public. And those four recorded phone conversations, you can still obtain those on the web. I'm not exactly sure the best website to do that. But those are in the public domain.


Wayne Rohde  23:43

Now everything that he shared with you in regards to data sets, documents and everything. Is that in that still in the hands of Congress? Congressman Posey maybe some other people's hands?


Dr. Brian Hooker - 23:59

That was all given to congressman Posey. And that was all turned over to the government oversight committee in the House of Representatives. So everything that Thompson gave to me, he actually directly gave to Congress. Okay.


Wayne Rohde  24:18

I gave a copy of it. You didn't give it to you and then you forwarded on he sent it directly right.


Dr. Brian Hooker 24:22

Now, we were very clear in our in our relationship and our conversations that I was not going to be as garbage go between when he went to Congress, he went to Congress directly. In fact, he had private meetings with Bill Posey and several other congressional officials that I knew nothing about. Okay.


Wayne Rohde  24:43

And that's just sitting there and I'm Posey can't get a hearing on this stuff.


Dr. Brian Hooker 24:49

Now apart Posey is not a committee chair, or a subcommittee chair. So he just doesn't have the authority or the seniority in Congress to be able to subpoena Bill Thompson, you know, and oddly enough, after the story went public, and the story was brought public by the autism media channel and Andy Wakefield in August of 2014. And you know, it's the basis for the movie VAXXED. There's also a book called Vaccine Whistleblower that has the transcripts of the phone conversations with commentary. It was written by Kevin Berry. And so there's a lot of information on that. But interestingly enough, since September of 2014, I have not talked directly with Thompson. And I have been told that he, under no circumstances, and I and I believe that there, there are some efforts of the CDC to keep us from talking together, there are some efforts, you know, there are some personal issues in his own family in his own marriage that keep him from talking to me. I don't believe his wife was really for him talking to me in the first place. And so we have had virtually no contact since September of 2014.

A now a message from our sponsor, Children’s Health Defense.

CHD Sponsor  26:14

Our families are counting on us to stand up to state governments, pharmaceutical companies, corporations, and captured regulatory agencies, who are advancing practices and policies that harm our children's health.


Wayne Rohde  26:33

Okay, vaccine safety DataLink. I know little bit about it. I know that you and I think is the gyres, were able to get into part of it. tell everybody what the vaccine safety DataLink is, what was its purpose and where we sit with it right now.


Dr. Brian Hooker - 26:51

Okay, the vaccine safety data link is medical records, comprehensive medical records for 9 million American adults and children. Okay, approximately 2 million of that population is children. And these are the medical comprehensive medical records that are captured by nine participating Health Maintenance Organizations. So there are nine Health Maintenance Organizations that get funding from the federal government in order to maintain this database, and to the total of about 30 million tax payer dollars every year. And this has been invested in the vaccine safety data link since it started. And it started in 1990. Okay, so there are these comprehensive records for 9 million Americans starting in 1990, all the way to the present all the way including the COVID era. And if you are a CDC epidemiologist or a CDC official, then you'll get an update of the vaccine safety data link this large data repository, every year they get a new update of the vaccine safety data link. And they have new individuals will come into the HMOs old individuals will leave these HMOs. And they can actually build conflict comprehensive medical records, including all the vaccines they received as a child, infant, child, adolescent, and adult. All these records are available. And they're even, you know, daresay unvaccinated children because these are HMO records. They're not just vaccination records. So there are unvaccinated children and adults in these medical records. And since 1990, it has been a yearly investment of at least 30 million taxpayer dollars in order to have this database. But the public has kept out. And I was very briefly allowed into the vaccine safety data link. Because of my relationship with my heroes, Dr. Mark and David Guyer. And I served as their programmer they use a statistical software package that I'm familiar with. So I did this statistical programming. And in two separate occasions, we would go on site to the CDC, we were put in an air conditioned room, and we were given eight hour sessions, four hours in the morning, four hours in the afternoon. And we would sit and program and glean results from the vaccine safety data link. And we would just work like mad men, because we only have we would have 16 hours at a time. And for that access, then we weren't we actually had to pay the CDC 1000s of dollars to be able to have the right to access that information.


Wayne Rohde  29:47

Do they allow anybody else access other than CDC people?


Dr. Brian Hooker 29:52

Not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge, to my knowledge, the only individuals who have applied for the vaccine Safety Data Link and successfully gotten in. And then ultimately, unfortunately, were kicked out. We, Mark and David Guyer.


Wayne Rohde  30:07

Wouldn't that be remarkable if we ever had access to it again, and they probably don't want anyone to have access to prove them prove themselves wrong.


Dr. Brian Hooker 30:20

It's very odd. The Guyer’s have published probably over 10 papers on the results of their trips to the vaccine safety data link. And what they show is very, very different than what the CDC shows as their results. Okay, so there's a disconnect there. When I was there, we focus specifically on thimerosal dosage that, you know, the mercury containing preservative that was in the majority of vaccines in the 1990s and early 2000s. We looked at the thimerosal dosage, and we saw relationships between the ADHD, obesity, and other neurological disorders that are through the programming that I did, and through the results that we gained. And I believe that scared, you know, scared the CDC that they were actually publishing papers, in the peer reviewed literature, these are peer reviewed journals that are in the National Library of Medicine, you know, very abruptly, then in 2000, I believe it was 2014 or 15, in the CDC cut off all access to the Guyers and, you know, sort of a final motion, they said, you know, we're not gonna let you back in, we're not going to allow you to ever access the vaccine safety data link again, and they've shut it up like a fortress, despite the fact that it's taxpayer funded money is taxpayer funded. It's a taxpayer funded project and as a taxpayer funded database,


Wayne Rohde  31:50

has there been any efforts to go to court to gain access, you know, getting a court to allow to rule to allow a certain group or an individual to have access,


Dr. Brian Hooker 32:00

not to my knowledge on anybody else's behalf. I know the gyres were in and out of court, in order to gain access to the vaccine safety data link. And they also were using any type of string that they could pull through the former congressman Dave Weldon, and then also congressman bill Posey, in order to get you know, have congressional leverage for them to get access. It is on my bucket list, to get back into the vs VSD. But you know, it's one of those things that it's a tough, tough road, you know, and it cost 1000s and 1000s of dollars, even into embark on that effort, which I believe, you know, you said in court efforts, I believe it's going to involve litigation, I believe the CDC is going to have to be sued, in order to release this information, they're just not going to release it willingly.


Wayne Rohde  32:53

Last year and a half has been pretty rough on everybody, this lockdown, and then. And then as we emerge out of it, there's a lot of people talking about certain types of studies and, and there's a lot of people throwing around the terms peer reviewed. And now currently preprint explained peer reviewed to the listener, so they understand what that means. So let's talk about your review.


Dr. Brian Hooker 33:19

When I publish a scientific study, it has to before the appears in print in a reputable scientific or medical journal, it has to undergo a rigorous peer review. And so my manuscript is submitted directly to the journal, it's all done online now. And then three or four of my scientific peers, people that are in similar areas of research as the subject of the paper, people that have established research track records, and people that do not have conflicts of interest, then, you know, supposedly, sometimes that's very difficult to do, but three or four peers will anonymously review that paper, I will never know their name. In some journals, they will never know my name, it really depends on the journal, but they will blind themselves to the author of that particular paper. And then they will look at the scientific method in detail, and they will come up with a detailed critique for that particular paper. Now, after that critique is done, and this is usually done by three or four peers, so I'll have three or four separate individuals reviewing that paper, then the journal will decide, do we want to move forward with publishing this paper? Does the paper need corrections if it is indeed published? Are we undecided at this point? And are we going to ask that particular author to resubmit the paper or are they going to reject the paper outright? so you know, they could publish it without comment, they could publish it with changes, they could reconsider it. Or they could dismiss the paper and say, we're not going to publish it at all. And so then you go through the peer review process. And, and as an author or a researcher, then I modify or adapt my paper to address the peer review comments. And then I make sure that, you know, I've got the most rigorous design and I actually defend my paper a second time, and that paper may go through a second round of peer review, it may go through a third round of peer review, where the same reviewers will look at the revisions that I make based on their comments. And then ultimately, you know, if I'm successful, it will be published in a reputable journal. Some journals that are top tier journals, you know, may have 10 papers apply, and only one get accepted. Other journals may have 10, papers apply, and five will be accepted. But each will have to undergo a rigorous peer review, before it actually appears in print in that particular journal. Okay. And that is to safeguard research in safeguard science to make sure that it's done in the most rigorous fashion.


Wayne Rohde  36:18

Okay, so that's the end result, the purpose is peer reviews to make sure whatever's being forwarded is genuine. And it does go with sciences, methodologies, okay. There's a new term popping up, basically, with COVID, a lot more than normal. And that's because we're still in the infancy of looking and studying COVID, the disease, the treatments and comparison of different Vax versus on Vax people and stuff like this. It's called pre-print, what is that? Exactly? And is there any significance? It doesn't hold any water? or What is it?


Dr. Brian Hooker 37:02

This is actually a really troubling development to me. And the term preprint is a manuscript prior to going through any type of peer review. Okay, so a scientist can write a manuscript. And now these preprints are actually being published, they're actually being cited by mainstream media as science, right. And but it has not gone through the rigorous peer review process. So nobody has looked at the methods. In order to obtain these results. Nobody has looked at the scientific rigor of the results. Nobody's looked at any other prevailing science that's been peer reviewed and published before in it for a basis of comparison. This is just and this could be and pardon the expression, this could be a scientific researcher simply talking out of their butts. And saying, you know, without any type of definitive proof, you know, you would hope that it was not that, but there's nothing to safeguard anybody from saying anything in a preprint. They are basically, to me, they're worth their weight and toilet paper, they shouldn't be relied upon for any type of conclusions or results. They have not been peer reviewed. So they are not significant science.


Wayne Rohde  38:27

A lot of the other cheerleaders for the pharma manufacturers, the media people out there that are nothing but cheerleaders or stenographers, if you will, our promoting a lot of pre printed articles instead of peer reviewed science now, and it's troubling, because I think it's deceiving. It's misleading the public, because as you said, you know, if one out of 10 papers, makes it through the peer review process, you know, 100% of all pre printed papers are pre printed, or in the pre printed process. It's just whether or not there's any legitimate claims to it is to be seen. So, right, right. It's very concerning. And it's starting to pop up a lot more, I've noticed that and so which leads me to another topic here and that is retraction. People have been noticing that there's papers that have been retracted after they've been published after they've been peer reviewed, published, then they get retracted or whatever. What is going on there is that a more political science advertising? What is the you know,


Dr. Brian Hooker 39:37

I would like to think that the peer review process and even the retraction process of the paper would be pristine, would be ethical, would be moral again, but I would have to say that having had a paper retracted myself. It can be quite political and usually, it is done when a paper that has a not very popular conclusion comes out. And then a chief editor, you know, papers are published usually by associate editors. And when the chief editor gets involved, that's usually when you have some type of retraction. There was a case with a paper that was published in the journal vaccine. And the paper was critical and rightly so critical of the Gardasil vaccine. And it slipped the notice of the chief editor, editor of the journal vaccine, Gregory Poland. And then Gregory Poland actually got involved. And you know, everything started to hit the fan, because this paper that was, you know, in a journal that's essentially underwritten by the vaccine industry was critical of vaccines. And Gregory Poland very quickly had the paper retracted. If you looked at the basis of retraction, it was not a strong basis for retraction. Yes, there were peer review comments, yes, there might have been minor errors in the original paper. But nothing rose to the level of retraction. And so unfortunately, you know, the retraction is, is reserved in science. For a paper where, you know, in a post hoc fashion, you something may arise, that raises suspicion on the scientific methods of the original paper. That is the purpose of retraction. So, if something arises, or maybe there's a whistleblower that comes forward for a particular laboratory and says, you know, they didn't follow the proper protocol, or proper method, then there should be a mechanism white, where papers and print should be retracted. Unfortunately, today, it's more political. And today, it's more a paper that is not popular, in terms of prevailing medical opinion, especially those that are critical of vaccines and other therapeutics. It tends to be much, much more politically driven, and much, much more of a witch hunt. As the case I believe the case in the paper that I had retracted from the journal translational neurodegeneration, the paper that Andy Wakefield had retracted from the journal, the Lancet, you know, these were not popular decisions. It would be all sunshine and roses. If I could say yes, vaccines are perfect, and they have a perfect history and they're not harming anybody. But unfortunately, the data showed otherwise. And brave individuals like Andy Wakefield, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Christopher Shaw, Chris actually have had these papers retracted, and they've there been, there might be minor errors, but nothing raises to the level where you would say they need to be taken down from the scientific literature.


Wayne Rohde  43:04

Now that we're starting to talk a little bit more of the political science point of view here. last thing I want to talk about, and I breathe, we briefly chatted prior to the program, Emily Tarsal. And company, Mary Holland and several others published a paper I think is really remarkable about the underreporting of serious adverse events of Gardasil vaccine in the VAERS system. So serious event reporting, basically all the serious events, adverse event events associated with the Gardasil vaccine. And the paper came out earlier this year, and I, Emily was a guest of this podcast couple weeks ago, we were talking wonderful. The paper was scheduled to be published in the Indiana Law Review, I believe, as well was, it was all set. And then along comes pharma through using their proxies. And this time, it was Dorit and company, put a lot of pressure on the journal to not publish it, and they back down. I can't believe it, but they truly back down. So the author's went and published it in the IPAK journal the Dr. James Lyons-Weiler's journal there. I guess there was nothing as far as the conclusions that they found out the authors said there was nothing in the conclusions of their paper that forced Indiana Law Review to back down what was kind of you know, lost here trying to figure out why would a prestigious Law Journal say wait a minute, this has been reviewed now we got we're gonna pull it off. We're not going to publish it. What do you make of it?


Dr. Brian Hooker 44:50

Were the similar you know, astroturf crowd. You know, the read rice. More at you know, David Gorski (ORAC) Whomever have complained about those particular papers, and I've had, I've had journal editors, contact me and say people are complaining about your paper, what do I do? And if you know, you have to laugh, and the first my first question was, is this a substantive complaint about this particular paper? Are they complaining and disputing some of my particular research methods? If they are, and if it's rising to a level of concern, why don't you for the correspondence to me, it can be anonymous, you know, you can redact the name of the person who was complaining, I really don't care to, to know even. But I would, I would like the chance to be able to rebut that, and very, very quickly and very, very succinctly quell any type of argument that might lead to a retraction of a paper, or might lead to denial of paper being published in a particular journal. So I think just the nature of somebody on the outside, you know, that might have a title might have an official capacity is enough to shake up some research journals from having them publish something that may be considered unpopular, maybe may lead to other types of criticism. In the case that I was referring to, in my own my own case, it did lead to the paper was not retracted, and the paper was defensible. And the editor of the journal just kind of chilled out. And, you know, and I, you know, commended them for not retracting the paper and said, you might get this level of criticism when you talk when, when you're publishing papers on vaccine safety. You know, it's unfortunate that it has to be that way. But there are just because somebody complains about a paper doesn't mean that they necessarily have a valid point. And open scientific discussion is where these issues can be frittered out, and where the good science can rise to the top. Unfortunately, in the case of the Indiana Law Journal, that hat didn't happen, it just scared them away. Unfortunately, Dori rice is not she's not qualified to, you know, be judging statistics. Now, her her degree is in law. You know, she's a non-practicing, non-licensed attorney, and a university professor, she is not a statistician. He's not an epidemiologist. So, you know, I would contend that she has a very shaky basis for doing what she's doing.


Wayne Rohde  47:33

I don't believe it's just her. I think she's, she's got a team of people behind her, too, because she responds to a lot of things so quickly and so eloquently. Yet I've been in the same room with her at a couple of conferences. I would doubt that some of her responses are actually heard. But she's, she's still smart. I've read some of her papers that she's published on costs and some other things and okay. But it's unfortunate that we cannot have a civil discussion. You know, the paper you just published, even come to a conclusion that the varicella vaccine does prevent chickenpox. But we also know that it does cause some looting in some children, there are some serious reactions to it. Correct? That's an honest approach. Because you're looking at it, you know, all the results were some of these other studies that are used is that hide numbers, they just don't want anything to come up, they want to wash things away. 


Okay, well, we've had the show's been going on for quite some time now. And what we're gonna do is, I'm gonna bring you back on here, maybe in a couple months, because there's gonna be some developments. I got a feeling from one year paper, and some new things that are happening in your life and things have changed. So we could do that. 


So, to all my listeners, you've been listening to the Right on Point podcast, a candid discussion of your civil liberties issues, and your legal rights dealing with your government. We discuss what no one else will, by digging deep into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the prep Act, the countermeasures, Injury Compensation Program, and the legalities of the COVID pandemic. 


This podcast is made possible by the generous contributions of its listeners. I want to thank my guests, Dr. Brian Hooker, and thank the many listeners of this program for today's podcast.


And always as I leave you with the following message, keep learning keep challenging yourself. And always, always question authority. 


Have a good day, everyone.


Voice over  49:57

We hope you enjoyed the podcast and thank you for listening