Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 24, 2025

An Open Source Technology Platform to Manufacture Hydrogel-Based 3D Culture Models in an Automated and Standardized Fashion
Published on: March 31, 2022
Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers
Jérôme Barrière1, Fabrice Frank2, Lonni Besançon3
1Medical Oncology Department, Polyclinique Saint-Jean, 92 avenue Dr Donat, 06800, Cagnes-sur-Mer, France. j.barriere@polesantesaintjean.fr.
Abstract:
Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.
Insights
This rebuttal addresses unsubstantiated claims in an article questioning COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. It highlights the need for scientific integrity and calls for action against vaccine disinformation.
Area of Science:
- Immunology
- Vaccinology
- Molecular Biology
Background:
- An article by Seneff et al. published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) made unsubstantiated claims regarding COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
- The article suggested potential risks to "billions of lives" based on concepts like G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and microRNAs.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate and refute the problematic claims made by Seneff et al. regarding SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations.
- To advocate for scientific integrity and combat the spread of misinformation in scientific publications.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of the claims presented in the Seneff et al. article.
- Preparation and submission of a rebuttal to the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
- Documenting the rejection of the rebuttal after multiple review rounds.
Main Results:
- The Seneff et al. article contains significant misunderstandings and unsubstantiated claims about mRNA vaccine safety.
- The authors' rebuttal, intended to correct the record, was unfortunately rejected by the FCT editor.
- The process highlights the challenges in combating scientific disinformation.
Conclusions:
- There is a critical need to address and retract articles containing dangerous misinformation about vaccines.
- Greater support is required from editors and publishers to uphold scientific integrity and fight disinformation effectively.
- Protecting public health necessitates a robust defense against scientifically unfounded claims regarding widely used vaccines.
More Related Videos
04:50Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research
Published on: August 4, 2023
17:28Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Based Developmental Toxicity Assays for Chemical Safety Screening and Systems Biology Data Generation
Published on: June 17, 2015
Related Concept Videos
The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Synthetic Biology
Golden rice
Golden rice is a genetically modified...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Threats to Biodiversity
Feedback Inhibition