View this post on the web at [link removed]

By James Lyons-Weiler and John Klar, The MAHA Report
For far too long, powerful interests have influenced what science gets published, what data can be seen, and whose voices are silenced. What should be a transparent, method-driven system of discovery has been twisted into a gatekeeping regime where scientific journals act less like curators of knowledge and more like enforcers of political and corporate narratives.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
At the center of this crisis lies scientific fraud on the safety of vaccines, drugs, and medical devices. What should be an emergency brake applied only in rare cases of fraud or proven error has become a blunt instrument used to erase dissent.
In October, in a closed-door session with the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), the current Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. confirmed that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had sent him a list of medical journals and summaries of articles believed to have been wrongfully retracted. The list was compiled by the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) and forwarded to Secretary Kennedy, who is taking concrete steps to stop the corruption of scientific literature.
This follows Secretary Kennedy’s decision to cut government contracts with certain journals, ending taxpayer support for those who violate scientific integrity. The message is clear: if you act as a political tool rather than a scientific forum, you will no longer receive public funds.
The MAHA Institute Round Table
On October 21, 2025, the MAHA Institute hosted the “Weaponization of Science [ [link removed] ]“ Round Table at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC. Panelists included Dr. Mark Skidmore, Dr. Maryanne Demasi, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, investigative journalist Paul Thacker, Dr. Jason Locasale, and Dr. Chris Masterjohn.
Together, these panelists shared their firsthand experience of how the CDC cloistered childhood vaccine safety science into silos they could, and did control, and how the journal ecosystem has been hijacked by ideological and corporate capture. Several of the panelists have had their work retracted not for misconduct, but for publishing data that dared to challenge powerful narratives.
Dr. Masterjohn related how studies are often designed to reach preconceived conclusions. Using examples from Covid-19 vaccine trials, he demonstrated that some studies were deliberately crafted to “ask the wrong questions” to deceive the American public, concluding that society needs to pressure scientific journals to enforce greater integrity.
Dr. Mark Skidmore’s opening comments dovetailed with the other speakers in calling for greater transparency. Dr. Skidmore is a highly credentialed expert who was discredited by an article retraction that, as he explained, is commonly used to destroy the careers of whistleblowers and truthtellers. This weaponization of scientific journals chills doctors from doing intensive studies and bravely disseminating their findings, which is precisely the goal of industry profiteers. Dr. Skidmore closed with a powerful quote from Fiodor Dostoevsky: “Nothing in this world is harder than seeing the truth.”
Award-winning journalist Paul Thacker told the audience about the importance of ferreting out conflicts of interest in the scientific community, including researchers and the many journals that report their findings. Thacker described widespread institutional corruption about which he has reported for decades, including the Vioxx and OxyContin scandals. He called for a radical transformation of the regulatory process, especially to ensure data transparency across all government agencies and strong disclosure requirements for the financial support of researchers.
Dr. Maryanne Demasi discussed her research on statins and the flawed conclusions on their safety and efficacy. She charged that the entire regulatory system is “built on the commercial interest.” She closed by calling for strict criminal penalties for corporate executives proven to know that the drugs they approve and sell cause harm. In a follow-up Substack article [ [link removed] ], Dr. Demasi discussed additional examples of conflicts of interest in corrupted research relating to Vioxx, Paxil and many cancer drugs, stating: “It’s the perfect illustration of regulatory capture — an agency funded by industry fees and pressured by politics, approving drugs of uncertain benefit while calling itself the ‘gold standard.’”
Dr. Brian Hooker of Children’s Health Defense told a story of his search to find the causes of his son’s vaccine injury and the ordeal he undertook to get answers from adversarial federal agencies tasked with protecting American children. Through the whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, he eventually obtained concealed data that allowed him to prove that the CDC was aware that African American boys face increased risk of getting autism following receiving Merck’s measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Thompson says the company actively and knowingly concealed this fact from the Institutes of Medicine and the public.
Jason Lacosale expounded on large-scale, collaborative deception orchestrated by universities, non-profits, and public agencies which have used taxpayer dollars to bankroll shady medical research. He stated that roughly $50 billion is annually distributed by the National Institute of Health to universities and other institutions in a scheme that favors cronyism over merit and integrity.
Discussion turned to how to de-weaponize science, with some panelists offering specific solutions and policy plays that HHS. might put into place to prevent, for future generations, regulatory and epistemic capture. These included the demarcation of science from fraud. Panelists also explored ideas such as financial firewalls between those who analyze data from clinical trials and those who profit from it.
Dr. Lyons-Weiler argued that retraction can and must be de-weaponized due to the degrading effect on people’s careers, on the safety of patients, and the health of the public.
Dr. Hooker’s reanalysis of CDC [ [link removed] ] vaccine data was retracted following public and media pressure. Hooker, with colleagues, had previously assessed CDC’s studies on vaccines and autism and, in a review article [ [link removed] ], showed evidence of malfeasance and flawed methodological approaches. Similarly, Dr. Demasi, a seasoned medical journalist, was fired from her position [ [link removed] ] at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for creating a documentary challenging the role of cholesterol in heart disease and the overprescription of statins.
One recurring theme was the call for independent organizations to take on an elevated role in chartering the path of science and the processes involved in community activities around science, such as IPAK, the MAHA Institute, and others.
What’s at Stake
The panelists agreed that these are not merely academic issues. False data on the safety of vaccines, drugs and devices harm and kill people. Retractions are not mere corrections; they are career-ending events. Scientists who step outside the approved narrative find themselves de-platformed, discredited, and demonized. Science becomes biased so systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which form the golden “scientific consensus,” are all skewed. The public never sees the data. Policies are made without the full picture. And lives are affected by a body of literature that has been aggressively pruned to fit political comfort.
That pruning is not an editorial accident. It follows money, contracts, and professional survival. Major journals sit inside a revenue lattice funded by pharmaceutical and medical device companies, hospital systems, and captured agencies. Editors depend on industry advertising, sponsored supplements, reprint orders, and privileged access to clinical trials. When a paper threatens a profitable product or an agency narrative, that lattice tightens. Retraction stops being a remedy for fraud or clear error and becomes a business decision.
The pressure is never transparent. Sponsors and their intermediaries call publishers privately, hint at litigation, threaten withdrawal of future trials, or mobilize orchestrated “letters of concern” from funded academics. Editors get the message: protect the sponsor’s interests or lose revenue, prestige, and access. Valid, peer-reviewed work is then removed under vague language about “methodological concerns,” even as truly flawed but sponsor-friendly papers remain untouched or quietly corrected. The asymmetry reveals motive.
This dynamic squarely intersects with the kind of coordinated concealment that racketeering and fraud statutes were designed to address. When journals knowingly retract solid safety signals after back-channel industry pressure, they help create a false picture of safety that clinicians, patients, and policymakers rely upon. The fraud begins not at the FDA, but in editorial offices that erase risk to preserve revenue and protect corporate partners.
The real evidence lies in emails, meeting notes, and contract communications. A bit of research reveals that whoever raised the first “concern,” which is usually a fellow named “anonymous,” was likely central to coordinated suppression.
The public must stop treating retraction as a scientific verdict and start asking a simpler question: Would this paper have been retracted if its conclusions had benefited the sponsor? Retraction has become a tool of concealment, used to silence unwelcome findings, distort systematic reviews, and manufacture “consensus.” This is not housekeeping. It is the core mechanism by which scientific fraud is laundered through the journal system itself.
Before the panel discussions wrapped, The MAHA Institute issued calls for a permanent reform of scientific publishing and an overhaul of financial incentives. Peer review must be about method and merit, not message. Retractions must follow documented procedures. Journals must be held accountable for bias, censorship, and conflicts of interest.
The era of unaccountable editorial power is ending. A new culture of radical transparency is on the rise. Scientists who were once silenced are finding their voice. And institutions that have lost the public’s trust are being forced to earn it back.
De-weaponizing science is not just possible. It has already begun.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?