Response to notice of intent to retract doi:10.7759cureus.57860

Dear Director Parker-Finger,

We have received notification of your decision to retract our paper as of June 22. We are deeply disappointed by this decision, especially given that our paper was accepted and published after rigorous peer review. After careful consideration, all authors unanimously conclude that this action is entirely unjustified and unacceptable. We strongly urge you to withdraw your decision based on the following points:

1.   Peer Review Process: Our paper underwent a thorough peer review process before its acceptance and publication in your esteemed journal. The process of peer review prior to publication is a sincere dialogue between professionals that lies at the heart of scientific progress. Its quality reflects the scientific standards of the journal and is a fundamental source of trust for the scientific community. The fact that our paper successfully passed this rigorous scrutiny should be given crucial weight in any post-publication decisions. The decision to retract our paper not only undermines our specific work but also denies and discredits the peer review process itself. This action is extraordinary and runs counter to the established norms and ethics of scientific societies. Furthermore, it severely undermines the credibility of traditional scientific publishing. As we will elaborate below, the basis for this decision is deeply concerning and sets a dangerous precedent for the integrity of academic publishing. 

2.  Basis for Retraction: We firmly believe the grounds for retraction do not meet the COPE flowchart requirement of "specific and detailed evidence to support the claim" (Ref. 1). The COPE flowcharts are designated for reference by the ICMJE, to which your journal has declared compliance. Based on the email dated June 23, titled "Notice of Issuance of Expression of Concern and Post-Publication Editorial Review," it appears that the Reuters fact-check (  https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-mrna-cancer-explosion-japan-no-national-emergency-declared-2024-05-07/   ) is the primary basis for this decision. This is wholly unacceptable and undermines the scientific process. It is deeply concerning that the authority and credibility of the regular, objective peer review process, which the Cureus Editorial Board typically consults, has been disregarded in favor of comments from an external party with no standing in the scientific community. This action by the Cureus Editorial Board is highly regrettable and sets a dangerous precedent. We must note that Mr. James C. Smith, a former CEO of Thomson Reuters, is currently on Pfizer's Board of Directors (Ref. 2). Given this connection, we are compelled to express our strongest objection to the Cureus Editorial Board's reliance on comments from Thomson Reuters. Now we must demand full transparency regarding any potential conflicts of interest among Reuters, Pfizer, your journal, and Springer Nature.
   The independence and autonomy of the scientific community have been built on a foundation of trust and credibility established over centuries. If these principles were to be compromised by external influences, such as potential interference or undue pressure from entities with vested interests, including but not limited to pharmaceutical companies, it would not only undermine public trust in science but also pose a significant threat to public welfare and the advancement of human knowledge. Such compromise of scientific integrity could have far-reaching consequences for the future of scientific progress and, by extension, the well-being of humanity. Thereby, we urge you to withdraw the decision.

3. Addressing Specific Criticisms from the Reuters Fact Check: We take serious issue with each point raised in the Reuters fact check and provide robust rebuttals: (1) Our study does not assume without evidence that vaccines cause cancer death rates. We describe statistically significant excess mortality for certain cancers consistent with vaccination timing, without claiming causation. This is a crucial distinction that appears to have been overlooked. (2) We explicitly acknowledge the lack of data splitting out cancer deaths by vaccination status. This limitation is clearly stated in our paper. Moreover, one co-author has filed a lawsuit for data disclosure, demonstrating our commitment to transparency and thorough research. (3) Our title accurately reflects that four of six cancers showed statistically significant increases in Age-adjusted Mortality Rates (AMR). For all cancers, while AMR is relatively stable in 2022, excess mortality is more pronounced, exceeding the 99% prediction interval. (4) Our methodology for calculating excess mortality rigorously aligns with peer-reviewed standards and international practices. The concept of excess mortality as deviation from predicted values has been widely adopted in scientific literature. We strongly reject any implication that our methodology is flawed. (5) We categorically deny any claim that our study assumes "vaccines are the cause of cancer mortality." Our paper describes results of an analysis using descriptive statistics from official sources and discusses possible explanations. It is a mischaracterization of our work to suggest otherwise.

4.  Validity of Our Conclusions: We assert, in the strongest terms, that our paper presents factual descriptive statistics from official Japanese government sources. We do not claim to prove correlation or causation, but rather present observed trends and potential explanations. Therefore, we find the stated reason for retraction - "the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented" - to be entirely inapplicable to our work, as proving such correlation was never our aim. This misunderstanding of our paper's purpose is deeply troubling.

5. Request for Transparency: In the interest of scientific integrity and open discourse, we formally request you to disclose, as a framework of open science, all correspondence between us and the journal that has occurred to date, as well as any future communications related to this matter. Furthermore, for any comments from external indivisuals/parties employed by your journal, we strongly request you to disclose COIs appropriately. We believe that transparency in this process is crucial for maintaining trust in the scientific publishing system and allowing the broader scientific community to understand and evaluate the decisions being made.

6. Implications for Scientific Progress: We strongly believe that actions such as these, which appear to prioritize non-peer-reviewed fact-checks over rigorous scientific processes, can severely damage the progress of medicine. This approach potentially undermines the foundational principles of how human knowledge and scientific understanding have advanced throughout history. The retraction of peer-reviewed work based on external, non-scientific pressures sets a dangerous precedent that could stifle innovative research and open scientific debate.

Given the seriousness of these points, we not only request but insist that you withdraw the decision to retract our paper. The implications of this retraction extend beyond our work to the integrity of the scientific process itself. We are prepared to discuss and clarify our methods and conclusions in any forum you deem appropriate, but we will not accept a retraction based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of our work.
We respectfully request a response to our concerns within 3 business days. If we do not receive a satisfactory response within this timeframe, we will be compelled to consider other avenues to address this unjust decision, including making our concerns known to the wider scientific community.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Miki Gibo, MD
Primary Health Care
Matsubara Clinic
Kochi, JPN

Seiji Kojima, MD, Ph.D.
Pediatrics
Nagoya Pediatric Cancer Fund
Nagoya, JPN

Akinori Fujisawa, MD
Cardiovascular Medicine
Honbetsu Cardiovascular Medicine Clinic
Honbetsu, JPN

Takayuki Kikuchi, MSc
Translational Research & Health Data Science
Learning Health Society Institute
Nagoya, JPN

Masanori Fukushima, MD, Ph.D.
Translational Research & Health Data Science
Learning Health Society Institute
Nagoya, JPN

Ref. 1  Notice of Issuance of Expression of Concern and Post-Publication Editorial Review
https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/respond-whistleblowers-concerns-on-socialmedia-cope-flowchart.pdf

Ref. 2   Mr. James C. Smith, a former CEO of Thomson Reuters, is currently
on Pfizer's Board of Directors
https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith