Questions that need answers given the potential harm done to families across America by the Journal’s retraction of this paper.

Retraction of safety signal paper on multiple vaccination Uptake - with IJERPH

A letter to the Editor in Chief for the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) about the withdrawal of an important peer reviewed paper

Contribution: The Watchful Eye.

Attn: Prof. Dr. Paul B. Tchounwou

You are listed as the Editor in Chief for the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH)
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/editors

I would like to investigation the retraction of a Paper by IJERPH that may be responsible for reducing the ability of parents to have a more informed consent process when considering the extend of their children’s uptake for multiple available vaccines.

The Paper:
Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination
Received: 23 October 2020 / Revised: 14 November 2020 / Accepted: 18 November 2020 / Published: 22 November 2020

I understand for the paper to be accepted by your Journal it must pass Peer Review and that there was a vigorous peer review process on this paper “that took months”

Thanks to web archives this paper can still be found.

According to this url https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7754

There was a retraction of this paper even though it appeared to show clear and significant safety signals that went hand in hand with increased vaccination uptake of children.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157754

Submission received: 14 July 2021 / Accepted: 16 July 2021 / Published: 22 July 2021

“The journal retracts the article “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination” cited above [1]. Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions of the published research.

Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data. The article is therefore retracted.

This retraction is approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

The authors did not agree to this retraction.”

Potential consequences of the retraction
Had this paper remained available for parents and Doctors to review this paper may have prevented the suffering and illness in Millions of Americans by providing a more informed choice as to the possible consequences for increased uptake of multiple vaccines for which no cumulative multiple vaccine uptake safety studies have been done.

Had this paper remained available it may also have severely impacted on the sales and income of very large and powerful pharmaceutical companies and the income of medical centres across the Country that inject children with multiple and different vaccines.

Questions that need answers given the potential harm done to families across America by the Journal’s retraction of this paper.

1.0 Who was the editor in Chief who approved the retraction ; was it you - Prof. Dr. Paul B. Tchounwou ?.

2.0 Can you make available the identities of the parties that lodged complaints against this article

3.0 Can you identify potential conflicts of interests of the parties that lodged complaints against this article – for example complainants that received sums of money for various activities related to vaccine stakeholders.

4.0 Can you make available the details of the complaints and the specific “methodological issues” raised.
5.0 Was there any peer review of the complaints lodged

6.0 Can you specify which conclusions were not satisfied by strong scientific data

7.0 Can you make reference to the scientific data not considered strong enough and help guide the reader as to why the data was not considered strong scientific data.

8.0 Were the Authors provided an opportunity to respond to the complaints lodged

9.0 What complaint process is available to authors and Readers of your Journal to re-instate papers of this nature that can provide more informed decision making of parents, patients and Doctors across America

I copy just one table in this paper and I find it astounding that IJERPH would be complicit in keeping this data from the public’s view.
Note the table

RIOV = Relative Incidence of Office Visit
DOC = Days of Care

Bear in mind this table does not look at the extent of the vaccine uptake of the vaccinated children, however figure 4 in the paper does and it shows a very clear correlation across the board of increased vaccine take up leading to increased RIOV = Relative Incidence of Office Visit
Safety signals like these should only be removed from the publics view if and only if you are ABSOLUTLY SURE the Data is erroneous

Your Sincerely
Concerned Parent
One that does not want to see peer reviewed life-saving and life changing papers retracted due to economic or pathological commercial reasons.

P.S. This paper and its retraction was covered in an interview of one of the Authors seen by Millions of viewers and came as a timely reminder of the measures taken to hide informed consent and potential dangers of Vaccines
See what appears to be a copy of this interview on YouTube