In Response...

I am posting this because it appears a legitimate response to my previous post. I am aware of the identity of the person (strictly via the internets) who forwarded the comment and am content on letting the reader decide. Note: He describes himself as "a peer-reviewer for three medical journals... familiar with the process and its limitations." And I'm happy to take that on faith. He submits the following comment made by a Bianca White on a Quora forum who has "ten years experience in medical academic writing."

It is interesting to note however that the commentary does not criticize the scientists involved in the actual study, their methodology, or their results. From practical experience, I know full well that sometimes you have to go with the means available to get certain information public when swimming upstream. So, it would seem that one could very reasonably interpret this as attacking the messenger, rather than the message. Nevertheless, I think it worthy of note; hopefully, there will be further actual scientific inquiry and investigation into the veracity and conclusions of the study itself.

Obviously this is a quack journal. In addition to the excellent points others have made, look at the editorial board, the supposed experts who direct this publication:

Editor-in-chief: John W. Oller, Jr., PhD in General Linguistics from the University of Rochester in New York, now a professor at ipaknowledge.org and consultant to Veritas International University… A professor of linguistics, now working at a website and as a “consultant:” how is he a vaccine expert?

Senior editor: Christopher A. Shaw, PhD, Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia… A real college at least, but again, wrong area of study.

But here’s the real kickers in the associate editors list:

Mary S. Holland, MA, JD, General Counsel for Children's Health Defense 2019-present; formerly Director Graduate Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law 2004-2019; expertise in children's health and litigation concerning vaccines; renowned author of works in that area. A lot of “former” here, an anti-vaccine litigation professional, and “renowned” author of unlisted “works;” no real journal uses a fluff word like “renowned” in describing its editors.

Robert J. Krakow, JD, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, Representing the Vaccine Injured in All 50 States. All credibility is now gone. This man has a vested interest in seeking or manufacturing evidence against vaccines.

Always check out a journal’s background and board as well as its content. Lawyers don’t belong on the editorial board of a medical journal.

Addendum:  Anonymous Comment: Could you please post the link to the actual article? 

My response: Love to, but I was very much getting the "this is so beneath me vibe," so I probably won't pursue. And it is curious that instead of supplying info as to why and how the study was so critically flawed scientifically, I got a statement attacking the messenger- knowing full well that no established medical journal would ever contemplate publishing a peer review that in any way challenged or questioned Big Pharma, a worldwide $4.1 TRILLION industry, whose purse strings from drug profits rule supreme as far as research funding- bet the house not one of their red cents went to the study in question.

Honestly, this issue is not the hill I wanna die on (metaphorically speaking)- but when you can't even question (let alone sue) a vaccine that was rushed to market (no question there) and which such a sizable amount of the public has grave concerns about- that is exactly the kind of policy that invites and encourages conspiracy! I'd simply like to see some more independent peer reviews on the subject at hand- let the chips fall where they may...